TheDC’s Jamie Weinstein: For the good of the U.S. and Libya, Obama should offer Gaddafi safe transfer to Zimbabwe

As American forces rain down missiles on Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya to prevent the dictator from massacring his people, one cannot but hope that the coalition mission is a tremendous success. All Americans stand behind President Obama and with our troops in harm’s way – or at least, I would hope so.

This is not necessarily to say that the decision to use force was wise. Conservative columnist George Will nicely delineated some of the important questions that the president and policymakers should have considered before committing to military force, many of which haven’t been answered satisfactorily enough, at least not publicly. But despite whether the current mission is wise or not, it is undeniably just. America is again going to war to protect a long-suffering population from the tyranny of a brutal dictator – I just hope we have an idea of the opposition elements we are fighting on behalf of. (This has been a tremendous failure of our government – to not know, long before these Arab revolts started taking place, the make-up of the opposition forces in each country.)

Yet, even as the air war is raging, there could be a way out before we become more enmeshed in this conflict. America is fighting two tough wars in the Middle East and we hardly need another one, especially one that is not necessarily vital to American national security interests. And though Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen now says that the Libyan operation will be limited in scope and is not meant to remove Gaddafi from power, President Obama has previously stated that Gaddafi must give up power. A prolonged no-fly zone (even a no-fly zone plus) certainly doesn’t seem sufficient to force Gaddafi from power and it isn’t even clear if it is enough to prevent him from continuing to commit crimes against his own people.

Here’s an alternative approach: America should offer Gaddafi and his equally revolting sons the opportunity to leave Libya and live the rest of their days in some dictatorial fiefdom, like Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe (at least, so long as that remains Mugabe’s fiefdom, pray it not be long).

I know this sounds unpalatable. In a fair world, Gaddafi and his clan would face the sword of justice. But life isn’t always fair. The best option, for America and for Libya, is for this war to end as swiftly as possible and with as little bloodshed as possible. If Gaddafi would agree to leave the country in return for immunity for his crimes, we should take it. Sometimes justice must be left to the Almighty.

It should be remembered that we offered a similar deal to Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war began. As is too often forgotten, in a last ditch attempt to avoid war, President Bush offered Saddam Hussein an exit option in a nationally televised address. He was given 48 hours to agree to leave the country in order to avoid the conflict and bloodshed that eventually ensued. It was an offer, unfortunately, Saddam didn’t take America up on.

  • Florida Jim

    Has anyone ever seen Khadaffy and Jesse Jackson together? They look remarkably alike. I wonder if Khadaffy has ever prayed with Clinton?

  • mojo

    Always allow your enemies an escape route. Men who know they are about to be exterminated have a tendency to try and take as many of yours with them as they can.

  • RepoMan

    Perhaps we can convince the Brits to rededicate the island of St. Helena as a rest home for the Napoleons of our modern age. The terms would be that if you somehow get there while on the run, you are safe within its territorial confines only, but you will live on a subsistence wage doing scut work. However, if before you have to run, you negotiate your residence terms, you would able to bring with you a negotiated amount of your ill-gotten gains to live a comfortable retirement in one of the island’s better neighborhoods. The property taxes would include the support of a British naval/air squadron which would be there to keep you in assassins out

  • timzank

    Oh for Gods sake, put a dart in this yutz’s neck and call it a day.

  • CK4RP

    Did we declare another war on somebody (some country)? Were we attacked by Libya and I somehow missed it on the six o’clock news? From where does the authority come to interfere in another country’s struggle for destiny? Why has our government financially supported Gadhafi in the past? Why does our government GIVE OUR MONEY TO BOTH SIDES over and over and over in the Middle East? How much is the U.S. going to borrow to pay for this endeavor? Why does the United States pay for and remain a member of the United Nations? Will there ever be another generation of Americans who don’t live with an American war going on from the cradle to the grave? The citizenry, especially our youth, is either desensitized or furious. Neither of those bode well for the future. WTH???

    Oops, forgot the warmongers, the neo-cons, the international banking cartel, the Zionists, and the military-industrial complex. What was I thinking?

  • pastiche

    ” America is fighting two tough wars in the Middle East and we hardly need another one, especially one that is not necessarily vital to American national security interests.”

    No kidding. What are we, a servant of the UN ? Obama is an idiot.

  • JoeJ

    Giving Gaddafi a way out, is a winning idea – kudos!

  • Rocketman

    Zimbabwe? PERFECT!
    Khadaffy and Mugabe sittin’ a tree …
    On land stolen from a productive white farmer.


  • Pingback: Critics contend Assistant Attorney General Loretta King guided more by racial politics than the law (Daily Caller) | Stock Market News - Business & Tech News