On the NRO Libya Editorial, I Respectfully Dissent

National Review ^ | Andrew c. McCarthy

[ventanax5]

I respectfully dissent from Wendesday’s NRO editorial, which urges that the United States go to war with Libya.

The editorial doesn’t put it that way. Indeed, it doesn’t call for President Obama to seek a congressional declaration of war, or at least an authorization for the use of military force, as the Bush administration understood was required before commencing combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this case, complying with the Constitution is almost certain to result in a resounding “no” vote from the people’s representatives — and if you think getting the Patriot Act reauthorized was uphill, figure getting Congress to bless another adventure in Islamic nation-building as Olympus … squared. So apparently ensuring that the American people support a war against Libya is a step is to be dispensed with. The editors instead claim that “the request by the rebels and the Arab League [is] all the authorization we need,” a proposition that I imagine would have come as something of a surprise to Madison, Jefferson, et al.

[PGR88]

There’s no visible threat to US security.
No one knows what “the rebels” stand for.
No one knows if “the rebels” have any organization or chance to win.
The US will be blamed the first time a UN/NATO bomb goes astray and lands on a school (which is, no doubt, where Qaddafi’s troops will hide out).
It will wind up being a war against Qaddafi and a propoganda coup for him.
A weakened Qaddafi surviving but under constant threat from his own rebels/countrymen would probably be the best outcome for everyone.

Getting involved is lose, lose, lose, lose proposition for the USA.

[GeronL]

This guy is exactly right. So now we don’t even need Congress at all before we go to war??

wow.

[rellimpank]

—right on , Andrew McCarthy—I couldn’t agree more-—

[Alberta's Child]

Getting involved is lose, lose, lose, lose proposition for the USA.

I agree with you . . . which makes one wonder why the folks at NRO are so adamant about getting the USA involved.

[bwc2221]

Is NRO trying to become more like the Weekly Standard? NR has slipped so much in the past 5-6 years.

[Forgotten Amendments]

which makes one wonder why the folks at NRO are so adamant about getting the USA involved.

They are neocon chickenhawks. Now, McCarthy will probably be purged as "unpatriotic". TNR has been a worthless rag since the Clinton era. Mark my words, they will eventually have an issue about the "groundswell" of support for Lieberman for GOP Prez in '12.

[ScottinVA]

I completely agree.

We don’t even know what our national objective would be. Is it to unseat Gaddafi? Ok, then what?

Is it to feel good about ourselves? Fine, but is that a cause for spilling American blood?

What happens when our airstrikes don’t deter Gaddafi’s army from pressing forward on the ground? What then? Ground troops.

And... most important... UNDER WHO’S FLAG?????

[SMARTY]

“No one knows what “the rebels” stand for.”

That is the one and only consideration that determines the US EVER sending aid.

We should be talking to the ‘rebels’ about stopping gender apartheid or to disavow the rigid fundamentalism which can only cripple WHOEVER the winner is.

It is an opportunity for the US to get a foot in. Is this administration too stupid to even cut a deal. We can give more and quicker if we also GET!!!

[ScottinVA]

The Arab League called for air strikes.

So let THEM have at it!

[ScottinVA]

The editors instead claim that “the request by the rebels and the Arab League [is] all the authorization we need”

To accomplish WHAT? To put al Qaeda - supported radicals in power in Libya? Someone please explain the improvement of our situation on that one!

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks for the heads-up on that. I didn't realize NRO was polluted by the same strain of effete leftists that is commonplace at The Weekly Standard.

[SMARTY]

“We don’t even know what our national objective would be.”

But we do.

Our objective is clear and unchanged from time immemorial…We want the perfect autonomy and security of the United States of America.

Just because we now have a President who is habituated to meeting world leaders with his hat in his hand does NOT mean we have no recourse. We hold (always do) ALL THE CARDS. We are AMERICA … the biggest, baddest MoFo force in the world or they would NOT be begging for aid.

We don’t need Evita limping off to Paris, or anywhere else, as if she can only offer complete and perpetual US freebies in return for thin air.

We HAVE SOMETHING THEY WANT!!!! She is supposed to show up with a list of what WE WANT IN RETURN.

American blood is OFF THE TABLE, but our menu of assistance to Libya is immense and they know it. We do not want American boots on the ground anymore than Libyans want us to send them.

She has to tell them:

• They do not need to speak English
• They need not listen to rock and roll or watch Laverne and Shirley re-runs.
• They can keep their BS culture and choke on it until they die
• They do NOT need to billet US troops
• They do not have to become Christian or anything else they don’t want to do
• Etc.

However:

• We do NOT want them (whoever they style themselves to be, now or ever) rolling out the red carpet for every terrorist and stateless Anti-American thug on earth.
• We do not want them aiding or abetting our avowed enemies (not now or ever)
• We want cooperation in our WOT and recognition of Israel
• Etc.

He*&, I a not a diplomat but some simple horse trading is all we need here!!

[ScottinVA]

However:

• We do NOT want them (whoever they style themselves to be, now or ever) rolling out the red carpet for every terrorist and stateless Anti-American thug on earth.
• We do not want them aiding or abetting our avowed enemies (not now or ever)
• We want cooperation in our WOT and recognition of Israel
• Etc.

---

Kind of like the “deal” we made with Karzai in Afghanistan. Remember all those promises of being a “new kind of Islamic leader...” and whaddayaknow... he’s gotten rather chummy with the Taliban (and even threatened to join them) for quite some time. Let’s say a prospective regime representative promises all the demands you list below. How is that policed? Who holds them to the agreement? With, as you said, no boots on the ground, what’s the mechanism for accountability?

Also, how is American blood off the table if we’re going to be engaging in no-fly zones and air strikes? What’s the next step when all that air superiority fails to rein in Gaddafi’s troops?

It doesn’t matter if we have the baddest mo-fo force in the world if, once our troops are thrown into the fray on the ground (mission creep happens in spite of the best-laid plans), their hands are tied with overly stringent ROEs. Remember who’s sitting in the White House — we’re not talking about a shining example of a commander-in-chief here.

Also, under who’s flag would our troops be operating? Does “citizen of the world” Obama give you the warm-and-fuzzy that our troops would NOT be subordinated to UN control?

Thanks, but no. Time to hand off to someone else more affected by events in Libya. It’s not our fight.

[SMARTY]

Right, but I can't believe the ‘rebels’ have no personnel capable of properly handling equipment and following instructions... at least well enough to engage Mumar’s force. And actually ... THAT is what I thought they were asking for, equipment and advisors

[newzjunkey]

We don’t even know what our national objective would be. Is it to unseat Gaddafi? Ok, then what?

In your haste, you seem to have overlooked that Obama himself took time from his busy recreation schedule to say Gaddafi must go. Obama should have had a plan. If not the Cameron-Sarkozy no-fly zone than something else.

Thirty-one days of Libyan unrest. Nothing.

Now Gaddafi may be on the very of vanquishing the rebellion.

Obama's unwillingness to back the words of an American president with decisive action will cost lives not only of Libyan rebels Gaddafi will slaughter but unknown lives of Americans moved in to harms way by his dithering incompetence. This latest enemy-emboldening inaction will come home to roost. Pray it doesn't cost another 3,000 lives.

[newzjunkey]

We don’t even know what our national objective would be. Is it to unseat Gaddafi? Ok, then what?

In your haste, you seem to have overlooked that Obama himself took time from his busy recreation schedule to say Gaddafi must go. Obama should have had a plan. If not the Cameron-Sarkozy no-fly zone then something else.

Thirty-one days of Libyan unrest. Nothing.

Now Gaddafi may be on the verge of vanquishing the rebellion.

Obama's unwillingness to back the words of an American president with decisive action will cost lives not only of Libyan rebels Gaddafi will slaughter but unknown lives of Americans moved in to harms way by his dithering incompetence. This latest enemy-emboldening inaction will come home to roost. Pray it doesn't cost another 3,000 lives.

[dforest]

I second that dissent. All this crap about freedom fighters blah, blah, blah. They do it every time.

We end up with dead troops, more entanglement, a never ending committment and last but not least, the bill. All for a bunch of folks who will hate us in short time.

Why don’t some of these brains try some actual national security? Like shutting the damn border.

[dforest]

At least someone gets it!

[hcmama]

Unlike anything at stake in Libya, those are vital U.S. security interests. Iraq and Afghanistan became overwhelming commitments because of the conventional unwisdom that our security somehow hinges not only on defeating our enemies but on converting Muslim basket-cases into something resembling democracy.

Thank goodness there are some rational conservative voices taking on the "conventional unwisdom" (I am stealing that) of the "freedom agenda." When did conservatives begin to lock on to the fetid corpse of nation-building?