A Fool's Errand: Installing Democracy in the Middle East

I was opposed to Obama's intervention in Libya and wrote several articles to that effect.  I predicted that our intervention would come back to bite us.

On March 16, 2011, in a post called Should the US Intervene in Libya?  I wrote:

I had a long discussion with another reader over at The Other McCain about the wisdom of intervening in the civil war in Libya. I am against intervention. After years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no compelling reason to intervene -- absolutely not with boots on the ground, and not even with military or humanitarian aid to the rebels. Why should we help people who hate our guts? The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

 On March 21, 2011, in a post titled Drudge:  Doubts Mount on Libya War, I stated:

...I have been against the intervention in Libya from the start, and for these reasons:
1. It isn't our fight. I don't see that there is anything to gain for American interests.
2. We don't know who the players are or what they represent. We don't know if the rebels are better, the same or worse than the dictator they seek to overthrow. Talk about "democracy" is likely to just be propaganda and not a firm basis for our intervention.
3. We have no clear-cut role or mission. What exactly are we trying to accomplish there? How do we know when we're finished?
4. If the rebels cannot defeat Gaddafi by themselves, we will be pressured to commit troops. If we don't commit the troops and the rebels lose, Gaddafi will be out for revenge and a large massacre of the rebels will follow (like what happened following the first Iraq war when we abandoned those who had relied on us).
5. If the rebels cannot win on their own and we do not commit troops, the rebels will be defeated and it will be a major propaganda coup for Gaddafi and militant Islam. They can brag that they defeated a western-backed force.
6. If we do commit troops, there will be more American deaths and billions more spent on war. Libya isn't worth the price.

In short, we have very little to gain and a lot to lose. I am all for a long-term plan for disempowering militant Islam (pardon the redundancy), for isolating Muslim nations from the west and taking away their economic power (through energy independence), and for separating the civilized world from the barbaric, so the latter cannot harm us further. This plan would probably include military action in certain circumstances, but we should choose our fights carefully. The Libyan intervention is not one of these.

Peace-Prize Prez Bags Another Head for His Den: Gaddafi Killed In Libya

Muammar Gaddafi was killed by Libyan rebels today.  It is doubtful that he would be dead if Barack Obama had not authorized US military support to the Libyan rebels.  So the colorful and eccentric former leader of Libya cashed in his chips when rebels overran his hometown and shot him as he tried to flee.

I generally feel gleeful when a Muslim leader bites the dust, but I don't this time.  Gaddafi once was an enemy of the United States, but moderated his enmity in the past few years, especially after we overthrew Saddam Hussein.  He had largely ceased to promote and export terrorism.  Although I wouldn't consider him an ally of the US, I didn't see him as a dangerous enemy either.

Now the colorful old eccentric is dead, and strident Muslim fanatics will take his place -- and unlike Gaddafi, they will be dedicated enemies of the US.   Why did Obama support these fanatics?  How are we better off now?  What was Obama thinking?

Libya: a New Fanatical Islamic State

Captain Zero has succeeded in helping the rebels push Muammar Gaddafi out of his role as dictator of Libya.  Now the incoming government officials are saying that Libya will be ruled by Sharia, or Islamic Law.  That means gays will be executed, adulterers, fornicators and apostates will be stoned or beheaded, women beaten and forced to wear ugly black bags, thieves will have their hands cut off in the public square, and jihad funded and practiced, as commanded by his high holiness, Muhammad, the Prince of Peace Eternal War.

So we trade one bumbling moron of a dictator who posed no threat to us or anyone else, for a cadre of motivated Islamic fanatics.  Wow, what a victory for mankind!

And we helped.

Libyan War Utterly Frivolous, Like the American President

Last night Obama gave a speech to the nation explaining (rationalizing) his incursion into the Libyan civil war.  Most analyses on the right indicate the speech was frivolous:  glittering generalities, patriotic slogans, posing and posturing, but no convincing arguments as to why the incursion was necessary.  Proof, a blogger at Left Coast Rebel, does a good job of fisking Obama's excuses for the war at this link.

Rush Limbaugh believes that Obama's incursion is more about the presidential election of 2012 than it is anything else.  Absent some unforeseen events, Obama has lost the independents and is headed for electoral defeat in 2012.  Obama wants to look like a "strong leader," and saw the Libyan civil war as the means to that end.  The Libyan incursion, however, is the frivolous yet dangerous and desperate act of a failed president.