In September 2001, when contemplating what our new war should look like, I wrote:
The first aspect of our fight is diplomatic. Diplomacy must shore up allied support to carry out all the operations we must organize. We need bases, information, and military and political assistance. Yes, we are powerful, but we have friends who we need to stand in the front ranks too. Our diplomacy must also tear away as many of the host states from supporting terrorists as is possible. Let us not be indiscriminate in our treatment of those states sympathetic to the terrorists or their grievances. That sympathy can never be used to justify mass murder and we should not, but their sympathy does not mean they support mass murder. Some states with minimal involvement should not be pushed by our rash attacks into full hostility. They may have been guilty in the past of heinous crimes; but if today, out of fear, a change of heart, or weariness, a government wishes to completely halt its support for terrorists, we should give that government the chance to aid us. In time, we can push for further justice from these states that "see the light" if they are sincere in siding with the West. We must avoid the mentality of forcing states to either be "for us" or "against us." This will be difficult in our just rage at the inhumanely awful crime that we endured. If we insist on this distinction, too many may conclude they must be against us if we demand unquestioning allegiance. We are the only superpower but we are not more powerful than the entire world combined. Would it really be better to push Pakistan too far and have Taliban sympathizers seize control of that nuclear-armed state? It is better to have some help freely given.
We must instead reward those who help us in proportion to their aid; and act against those who thwart us, perhaps with only economic penalties, in proportion to their opposition. We will of course remember those who help us fully; but we must accept lesser help with gratitude if it is all that can be offered. We will of course remember those who oppose us, but we must not apply overwhelming military force against any degree of resistance. Only those who brazenly and actively fight us should be taken down by our full might. This approach will add to our strength and allow us to destroy the hard core of enemies who will not bend to reason, guilt, or fear. By taking such measured actions we will isolate the battlefield and keep the war from spinning out of control.
And later in the piece, in the conclusion:
Fighting the states that have supported terrorism is another matter. They must not be treated the same as the terrorists. The goal with these states is not to destroy them but to prevent them from supporting the terrorists. Destroying such states should only be an option when we cannot persuade them by other means to end their support for terrorism. Just as ruthlessness is the proper mindset for going after the terrorists, cool reasoning is the proper state of mind for dealing with the supporting states. Making these states neutral or friendly will help dry up the terrorist recruiting pool and cripple the infrastructure that supports them. Terrorism is the main enemy and an emphasis on fighting the supporting states is a potential distraction.
I had Libya in mind with these words. And with America restoring diplomatic relations with Libya, Libya is being brought in from the cold:
Gadhafi was once known here as perhaps the most dangerous man in the Middle East. President Reagan ordered air attacks against Libya in 1981 and 1986, the latter because of suspected Libyan sponsorship of a terrorist attack at a West Berlin disco frequented by American soldiers. Two Americans died there.
Since 2003, however, Libya has been held up as a model by the administration for the way aspiring nuclear weapons powers should behave.
The American attack on Iraq made Gadhafi wonder whether he would be next. In December 2003, he agreed to surrender his weapons of mass destruction facilities and agreed to allow them to be shipped for storage in the United States.
Rep. Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said the administration's decisions were fully warranted.
"Libya has thoroughly altered its behavior by abolishing its program to develop weapons of mass destruction and ending its support for terrorism," Lantos said.
We can't do everything and we can't do even what we can all at once. If we can get a country like Libya to exit the Long War out of fear, we should take it. They gave up WMD programs and would rather not be high on our list. I guess the Libyans don't think we are too tied up in Iraq to deal with Libya if we must.
Libya's opposition in exile isn't happy with this decision. But we have enough enemies who cannot be talked out of fighting us and trying to kill us. Save our military might for them. When we have made progress with these states and pushed democracy in other places, countries like Libya will be more vulnerable to lesser efforts to free the people of Libya from their local dictatorship and poverty machine.
This is a victory in the Long War.
UPDATE: How we achieved this victory.
