Col. Gadhafi appears ready to “slaughter his way back to power,” as the Wall Street Journal warned Monday in an editorial urging the U.S. to act on behalf of the rebels.
President Barack Obama continues to hold back. Any action taken must be international, he insists. He believes the U.S. would be seen as a meddler if it aided the rebel cause alone — or worse, as an outside power seeking to establish a puppet government and control Libyan oil.
How the American people would react to a substantial U.S. commitment to help the rebels oust Gadhafi can only be guessed at. The guy sitting in this chair has mixed feelings. Yes, something should be done to prevent a slaughter and to help remove Gadhafi, who is a cruel megalomaniac. No, the United States should not declare itself once again to be the policeman of the world and take the lead.
We are still up to our armpits in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars were both supposed to be “international.” But it has been the U.S. which has done the heavy lifting. Most of the casualties have been ours. And a huge chunk of our annual deficit grew from the hundreds of billions poured down those rat holes.
So we want another place to send our guys and gals to die? Still another bonfire to burn more billions?
OBAMA IS RIGHT. It is in our national interest to see that Col. Gadhafi is deposed and replaced by a popular government. It is also imperative that whatever action we take is taken in concert with a real coalition of other nations. “Real” meaning that the risks taken and the costs assumed are shared and that the responsibility for actions taken is also shared in so upfront a manner that the world cannot label those actions American.
Sen. John McCain and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell are loudly urging the president to act. At the same time, Sen. McConnell continues to rail against the Obama budget and to declare that spending must be cut.
McCain and McConnell should make up their minds: Do they want to embark on another military adventure in the Middle East — an adventure that can be paid for only with borrowed money — or are they determined to cut federal spending? They can’t have it both ways.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
