So why not go all the way if you are him?
A defiant Moammar Gadhafi threatened Friday to carry out attacks in Europe against "homes, offices, families," unless NATO halts its campaign of airstrikes against his regime in Libya.
The Libyan leader, sought by the International Criminal Court for a brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters, delivered the warning in a telephone message played to thousands of supporters gathered in the main square of the capital Tripoli.
Really, if we are already planning to kill him or imprison him, why not attack Europe? What will we do? Kill or imprison him more?
More to the point, would attacking Europe work? Spain retreated from Iraq when struck at Madrid in 2004. Would other countries under attack run away, too? Or would attacks at home build resolve to win?
I'm guessing the former rather than the latter. More important, by failing to win quickly, we've given the enemy the time to resort to this option.
UPDATE: Secretary of State Clinton says Khaddafi's threats to Europeans won't scare them. And the Spanish agree:
The U.S. and Spain said Saturday they won't let Moammar Gadhafi's threats of retaliatory attacks in Europe deter their mission to protect Libyan civilians and force him to leave power after four decades of often unpredictable and sometimes violent rule.
Of course, what the Spanish meant to say is that such crude threats won't work a second time. Sure, it worked to chase Spain from Iraq. But that was a bad war lawfully declared by Congress under the weight of numerous UN resolutions. This is a good time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military action endorsed by the United Nations and the Arab League.
See the difference?
