I don't understand the apparent controversy in the conservative world over supporting the overthrow of Khaddafi when only a year ago we were supporting Khaddafi.
The task we face in the war on terror is large and daunting. Why make enemies when we can avoid them? Khaddafi gave up WMD programs and stopped supporting terrorism. Yes, he was still a thug and has blood on his hands, but why not take a partial victory to neutralize an enemy while he have plenty of enemies shooting at us?
But once a revolt against Khaddafi broke out, it is not wrong to support the overthrow of the regime and cite its horrible record as justification. More, once there is active opposition, it becomes wrong to support Khaddafi rather than tolerate him for now--as we did--while we fight other enemies.
The criticism of those who once supported the Khaddafi regime defanged now supporting his overthrow sounds an awful lot like those on the left who complained that we could hardly oppose Saddam after he invaded Kuwait because we backed him during the 1980s during his war with Iran.
Remember that supporting or opposing the Khaddafi regime has less to do with the regime as the objective than it does with supporting victory in the broader war on terror. If al Qaeda invaded Hell, I'd at least put in a good word for the Devil in the House of Representatives to get a joint fight off the ground. But I'd be ready to march on Hell just in case the opportunity arises.
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
