Posted on 03/05/2011 5:31:55 PM PST by kristinn
Conservative writer Philip Terzian, backed up by Jennifer Rubin, is ripping President Barack Obama for not attacking Libya “to advance democracy in the Middle East” while hundreds of American citizens were stuck in the war-torn country.
Obama can be criticized for many shortcomings, but in this case he got it right. Nothing that has transpired in Libya’s response to the February 17 uprising against the dictatorial government of Moammar Qaddafi would justify risking the possibility of hundreds of Americans being held hostage by Qaddafi (or other players) in response to American military action in Libya. It would be lunacy and a gross dereliction of duty for an American president to make such a move—especially against a man with a history of wantonly slaughtering Americans.
Yet, writing at The Weekly Standard Thursday afternoon, that is precisely what Terzian proposed:
”President Obama has been manifestly more concerned about the welfare of U.S. citizens in Libya—or put another way, the political implications of a hostage crisis—than about the welfare of American national interests. When asked about the feasibility of a “no-fly” zone in Libya, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has described in detail the difficulties inherent in such a course of action, and the secretary of defense has implied that U.S. military power may not be equal to the challenge of the Libyan air force. Nobody, especially those within Libya pleading for Western help, can fail to comprehend the meaning of such talk.”
To repeat how blithely Terzian (and Rubin) dismiss the lives of Americans:
”President Obama has been manifestly more concerned about the welfare of U.S. citizens in Libya—or put another way, the political implications of a hostage crisis—than about the welfare of American national interests.”
Rubin wrote of her agreement with Terzian in a blog entry at The Washington Post Thursday evening, quoting the aforementioned passage and saying that Terzian “writes persuasively.”
Rubin laments that the Obama administration wants to avoid military intervention in Libya “at all costs, it seems.”
The Iranian hostage taking of Americans in 1979 following the overthrow of the Shah lasted 444 days. The United States paid a huge price on the world stage being perceived as a paper tiger and was a major cause of Jimmy Carter losing his presidential reelection bid to Ronald Reagan.
The primary American national interest in Libya was to ensure that an Iranian style hostage situation, or massacre, of Americans did not transpire. Terzian and Rubin propose that Obama should have risked that scenario, or worse risked losing the lives of such hostages, in exchange for what? Some nebulous concept of Libyan democracy? We have no idea who is behind the efforts to overthrow Qaddafi. For all we know the Muslim Brotherhood and like-minded actors are for whom it is proposed we risk American lives. Terzian and Rubin don’t say.
Fortunately, there are not too many Americans left in Libya to be recklessly sacrificed by Terzian and Rubin. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley posted on Twitter Tuesday about 30 Americans were trying to leave Libya after hundreds were evacuated last week.
”We are working with other countries on travel options so roughly 30 more American citizens who have contacted us can evacuate #Libya.”
Robert Gates did not imply the Air Force is not up the task of taking on the Libyan military, he implied it would take an act of war to ensure a no-fly zone.
”Let’s just call a spade a spade, a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone.”
It is disappointing that Americans like Terzian and Rubin can be so cavalier about the lives of their fellow Americans in harm’s way. Opining from inside the beltway gives one a certain distance from the price paid by others for one’s ideas.
Ping.
I say we stay out of it. What exactly is a neo-con anyway?
Watch it. Talk like this can get you tagged as an “isolationist” on FR.
There is no national interest of the US which would be advanced by getting stuck into Libya. Our main priority should be extracting our forces from where they don’t serve our interests (the Balkans come to mind) so that we have reserves to deal with the next blowup.
This is the time to place hands under ass and firmly set on them.
I am so damn tired of hearing the term neocon. Either you are conservative, or you are not. Please, Kristinn, don’t use media terms again. If you have something to say, say it.
A hawk who is moderate to liberal on social issues (e.g. Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Charles Krathammer, David Frum). Many are former Democrats.
Most neocons (Barnes being the exception) avoid the military, but want to fight wars with other peoples’ children.
I say we stay out of it. What exactly is a neo-con anyway?
**************************
I agree with you. As near as I can tell a “neo-con” is a globalist, social liberal who is able to count and balance a checkbook. Something like JFK.
Neocons refer to themselves as such. Bill Kristol’s father, Irving, wrote a book on the “Rise of Neo-Conservatism.â€
When things start to settle down send humanitarian aid.
Gaddafi is a nutjob dictator. I do not trust any of these “democracy” movements because in many of these countries the insurrectionists may very well be looking to substitute their own brand of tyranny for the tyranny that is in place. Obama needs to stay out of Libya and let them have their civil war on their own. Libya supplies Europe with its oil and colonial Europe are the ones that created these artificial states. Let Europe handle the issue which, of course, they will not. The only exception is Iran where the US should covertly instigate and support insurrection for regime change because it is truly in our national interests.
Same as "Banker".
It's a code.
It's the Juice.
What is a ‘neocon’?
Nailed it!!!
It is a euro problem, that is it. End of getting americans killed for liberal euro wussies ...
From reading Jennifer Rubin, she self-identifies as a neconservative. Terzian was a former speechwriter for the DNC and Sec. State Cyrus Vance in the '70s and an assistant editor for the New Republic before he became a conservative. I identified Terzian as just a conservative in the article.
We know that the big O had already said that if a leader is faced with a hostage crisis in which American held captive might be harmed, you must give into the demands. He is inviting hostage taking my our nutjob enemies.
“It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed…the hostage was the American people.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/07/so-much-for-bipartisanship-obama-calls-gop-hostage-takers/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.