I’m tired of this maddening stupidity. The Washington Post doesn’t answer its own questions.
What if Mr. Gaddafi chooses to meet U.N. terms and then attempts to keep power indefinitely over the sections of Libya his forces control? Mr. Gaddafi’s announcement of a cease-fire Friday, swiftly brushed off by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, suggests that he is already probing the limits of U.S. and allied resolve. Might he end up with control over the capital of Tripoli while eastern Libya becomes a de facto opposition state, protected by Western air power, as Iraqi Kurdistan was for many years during Saddam Hussein’s era?
Mr. Obama’s eloquent words Friday make clear why this cannot be acceptable. “Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gaddafi would commit atrocities against his people,” the president said. “Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.”
The president has been right to weigh U.S. options carefully and to work diligently to assemble a coalition. The United States cannot fight a war on behalf of Libyan rebels. But there can be no satisfactory outcome for Libya that includes a part for Mr. Gaddafi and his inner circle. As Mr. Obama said Friday, “Moammar Gaddafi clearly lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.”
If we cannot fight a war on behalf of the Libyan rebels then we can’t very well topple Gaddafi militarily, can we? After all, the rebels are being routed in the field. Airpower may drive Gaddafi’s forces back to the west, but it can’t seize Tripoli. This is no way to fight a war. And what if Gaddafi complies? I think the clear implication of our policy is that his mere existence in power equals a lack of compliance. There isn’t anything he could do that would be recognized as compliance. Regime change is the policy. The terms of this UN resolution tie our hands.
I get that lives are being saved right now as the French work to dislodge Gaddafi’s troops from Benghazi, but it will take a long time to organize and equip a fighting force capable of taking over the whole country, and it might wind up causing a lot more loss of life and destruction than would have happened otherwise.
And why doesn’t the Post even ask what victory might look like and what our responsibilities will be then?
