Yes, gentlemen, Libya needs regime change -- desperately. The popular rebellion against Gadhafi's decades of terror, misrule and theft is an opportunity to do the right thing for the Libyan people and serve America's vital interest in forwarding democratic modernization throughout the world. Let me repeat that for emphasis: throughout the world. If you want to forge world peace instead of merely visualize it on your hippie bumper sticker, democratic modernization is the strategic course of action.
The idea that we can't support rebels or protesters everywhere means we can't do it in Libya is just silly. Recognizing our limits doesn't mean that helping where and when we can is the wrong thing to do. Would those on the left make the argument that because Obamacare doesn't provide universal coverage that it is wrong to extend coverage to some people lacking health insurance? I'm sorry, I didn't quite make that out. Yeah, I thought so.
And the argument that this will inspire others to revolt expecting our help is just bizarre. It would be better to let Khaddafi crush the rebels and depress others to accept their lives under autocats and tyrants? Really? You want to make that argument and call yourself "progressive?" We can't help all of them with Tomahawk missiles, but we could at least support them morally in public from the Oval Office. There are actions that help dissidents between reaching out to their oppressors with an open hand and Operation Iraqi Freedom, depending on the situation.
If other revolts take place, especially in places that seem unlikely--like Syria and Iran--we can be especially grateful. The notion that Islamists could exploit unrest to seize control is no excuse for us to support autocrats and tyrants in the face of a popular uprising. That possibility just means that we can't take a hands-off approach and just hope for the best. We have to encourage democracy and rule of law to make sure that Islamists can't exploit voting to seize dictatorial powers.
And the fact that it is in our interest to push some autocrats toward reform rather than revolt (I'm thinking Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia in particular, here) does not make us hypocrites. In the end, our foreign policy must support our national intersts. Democracy in the Moslem world is, in the long run, in our national interest. Even standing with rebels who lose will reinforce our credentials in the long run. Don't forget the hope we have people behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.
Yes, candidate Obama would be horrified at President Obama's actions on a whole range of foreign policy decisions related to the war on terror. And Libya is the figurative cowboy hat that punctuates the change that more people can finally believe in. Right now, it seems like President Obama is still pulled towards his old candidate views as he seeks to vote "present" on American participation in the next stage of the war to possibly overthrow the Khaddafi regime. But the President clearly has stated his preference that Khaddafi must go.
We shall see if the wavering coalition that President Obama has formed will carry through with this regime change mission without American stepping back into the lead. I hope President Obama is right. As I've said many times, my preference is that the Europeans use their idle military power to take on the Libya job since they largely took a pass on Iraq and Afghanistan, where we carry the load. I've been tolerant of their lack of participation in these wars because I think willing cooperation is the best kind, and I'll take what I can get and thank them for what they give. In the long run, that prevents resentmant in our allies from building if we overtly coerce them to help in wars they aren't enthusiastic about supporting.
But I'm not confident that a coalition that includes Belgium in its list of combatants has the guts to finish the job. But maybe our allies will grow in war on their doorstep, too. You never can tell.
