The head of Libya's rebel army has condemned NATO for its slow chain of command in ordering air strikes to protect civilians, saying the alliance was "letting the people of Misrata die every day." ...
"NATO blesses us every now and then with a bombardment here and there, and is letting the people of Misrata die every day," Abdel Fattah Younes, head of the rebel forces said in the eastern stronghold city of Benghazi. "NATO has disappointed us."
Who could have predicted this would be the result of intervening not to help one side win, but to provide a "level playing field?"
When you go to war to help someone, you should go to war to help them win--as quickly as they can consistent with our means and objectives.
Intervening just to "level the playing field" will just lead to angering the enemy a little and ultimately alienating our supposed allies who will rightly resent fighting and dying for a draw or to bleed the enemy. It is a smart diplomatic strategy ripe for pissing off both sides.
The rebels surely display a distressing lack of appreciation for the administration's nuance, without a doubt.
Mark Steyn, I believe, noted the amazing spectacle of possibly fighting both sides (I, too, mentioned this possibility after NATO's threat to bomb rebels, too, if they threaten civilians). But that's not the worst case.
The worst case is that we anger both sides enough to unite against us. Does that seem silly now? It would have the advantage of stopping both sided from targetin the other's civilians, you must admit.
Wait a week or so, and get back to me. Perhaps I'm the one with insufficient appreciation for the administration's nuance.
