A Rant On Libya
By Craig McCarthy
The tea party movement doesn’t officially have a foreign policy, of course, for various good reasons, but I believe it is a fair assumption that most passionate conservatives, whether lifelong or newly-minted, simply aren’t crazy about seeing the world’s great superpower — the Shining City on the Hill and beacon of good — floundering in moments of consequence around the world.
We all know what’s going on in Libya and that the situation is bad for many innocents on the ground. According to the Washington Post, there are over 5,000 American citizens in that country (most of whom have dual citizenship) and at least 600 who do not.
To date, the world’s greatest naval and air power has gotten a couple hundred out, by chartered ferry. Secretary of State Clinton today took the bold step of “limit[ing] the ability of senior officials of the Gaddafi regime to travel. As secretary of state, I signed an order directing the department to revoke US visas held by these officials…]
I’ll take the word of the one who probably should have gotten the 3 a.m. phone call that it is a good idea to reject the defections of high-ranking Libyan officials instead of bringing them in from the cold and milking them for what we need to know in the aftermath of the Libyan revolution. Then again, I can’t take her word for it, because it appears to be diplomatic busy work instead of the much advertised Democrat “smart power”.
Here’s the thing. The world is on fire. I’ve looked in recent days for moments of courage, for moments of decision and bold action in national interest, and I’ve found it, just not by Americans for Americans.
The Chinese have evacuated nearly 16,000 nationals from Libya, according to the AFP. The Brits just went ahead and set down some C-130s in the Libyan desert, accompanied by SAS soldiers, and pulled a bunch of their people out, in a sort of preemptive (and successful) version of Operation Eagle Claw. Bully for you, friends, and I meant that.
Yes, sadly, I have to get my optimistic reports of the good guys acting boldly to protect the vulnerable and endangered from the British — and the Chinese.
After all these years of Gaddafi/Qaddafi/Kaddafi being a thorn in America’s side, after Lockerbie, and the La Belle disco in Berlin, after all of it, how hard would it be for an American president, seeing the dictator wobbling and clearly at his end game, simply declaring that, any American interest in the outcome of the Libyan civil war notwithstanding, we demand that Americans in that country are to be protected, or at least not harmed and allowed to leave, and that demand will be backed by American will and force?
Too hard for this president, it seems. Why is it so difficult for this administration to be bold in its clear duty to protect Americans overseas? I’m serious in that question, and I’m baffled.
Let’s presume that the president gets every single one of his policy priorities passed, from Obamacare to the “fundamental transformation of America” to “spreading the wealth around”, and let’s presume that those are the right things to do, for the sake of arguement, though of course I would disagree. Fine, Mr. President, we’re all community organizers and socialists now, but aren’t we still entitled to the protection of the superpower we built?
Why, oh why, is it apparently so hard for this president to simply…..act…..to help…..Americans?
As an Army veteran (my eternal disclosure: I never served in combat), I have supported the wars we are currently in, and have seen a dear friend lost in Iraq. In the fullness of time, those wars may or may not have been the right thing to do, and while I don’t pretend to know the future and its judgment, I’ve supported our military spending lives on those endeavors.
Given my support for those things, I am annoyed that America’s enormous and essentially unchallenged military might, particularly when compared to the might of Gaddafi, can not be applied to simply getting innocent Americans out of a country that we have decades of history with and ought not have any problem speaking to with authority.
It’s a matter of priorities. We should protect actual Americans first even as we nation-build to protect the security of as yet unborn Americans, and the former should be more important than the latter.
Events in the world today are fluid, and I may be proved to be an imbecile tomorrow if the president surprises me and allows the Marines to revisit the words “to the shores of Tripoli”, even in a limited and measured role, to protect and extract Americans. By that I do not advocate intervention in a civil war, only the use of the tools that we have to get Americans out. I’ll happily accept being wrong.
When your trust in union thugs overshadows your trust in your own volunteer military, your foreign policy hands are tied.
Why?
‘Cause, last time I checked, SEIU, ACORN Part Deux, AFL CIO, and the NEA don’t have much foreign policy experience, nor do they have much nerve for fighting the enemies of the US.
We need some conviction and backbone injected into this situation and I think our President spent all of his to get elected.
If he’s not going to lead, who will?
So far, this administration makes the Carter years look decisive.
God help us!
Well said Craig. I would agree that an armed but peaceful and carefully targeted evacuation force is warranted even into a sovereign country when a conflict jeopardizes Americans. To me, this is not “intervening” in their internal affairs and even the most non-interventionist should agree as well. Evacuation is not an aggressive action and saving lives is in the balance.