We’ve seen this movie before. Spectacular photos of Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched from American navy vessels. B-2 bombers piloted by amazing American crews making nonstop trips from Missouri to the Mediterranean . . . and Americans of all political stripes asking: What’s the plan?
Make no mistake. Muammar Gaddafi is a very bad guy. He has been a bad guy for 40 years, and he has brazenly killed Americans on several occasions in attacks that fit any reasonable definition of terrorism. The world would be better off without him.
But, at the same time that our courageous and incredibly skilled military is again being asked to destroy a military headquarters in Tripoli without damaging the civilian building next to it, the White House is saying that “Gaddafi must go,” but that these attacks are not about “regime change.” They are saying the mission is to protect the Libyan people from Gaddafi’s madness, but that we aren’t going to send troops in to do the protecting. And yes, they are once again assuring us that the U.S. commitment is limited and we are just doing our part in a coalition of the willing.
When are we going to learn? Injecting American military right into the internal strife of other nations with no clear definition of a successful outcome doesn’t work. Our service men and women who are putting themselves at risk, the taxpayers who are paying $600,000 for every Tomahawk missile launched, and yes, the people in Libya we are supposedly trying to help, all deserve to know what the plan is. That really isn’t too much to ask.
Sometimes it appears our political leaders doubt that we can handle the truth.
If the objective in Libya is to replace Muammar Gaddafi — then why don’t we just say it, and do it? Or at least have an honest debate about it. If that is the idea, it is perhaps worth noting that the guy has hung on to power for decades and just bombing his missile defenses may not do the trick. It is also worth pointing out that we went into Afghanistan to get rid of Osama bin Laden and his cronies, and almost ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars and too many American lives later, we are still there — and bin Laden isn’t.
If the plan is to somehow level the playing field in Libya so that Gaddafi’s opposition has a fighting chance of toppling him, it would have been a lot cheaper and easier to have done that 3 weeks ago — before he was on the verge of crushing them. And then there is the whole question of who will replace him, will they be any better for U.S. interests than Gaddafi, and how many of those people we are trying to protect will die in the process?
It has been observed that, by weakening Gaddafi’s military capabilities, perhaps we will encourage dissension and defection among his own leadership and commanders. If that is the plan, it would be cheaper and a whole lot safer to just give each of them a check for a million dollars and a condo in Florida.
Or, if there is some hope that Colonel Gaddafi will back down, see the handwriting on the wall and turn over a new leaf, it really must be remembered that we have tried that a couple of times already. The result: He is still in power and killing people, and the presidents who “backed him down” are not presidents anymore.