Intervening in Libya

Numerous politicians, from a number of countries, are beginning to talk about military intervention in Libya.

President Obama is displaying commendable caution but is now coming under attack as a weak leader. That Mr. Obama lacks leadership ability is a given: his caution in this case, however, is appropriate.

The key questions are:

1. What are our vital interests that would justify the cost, in lives and treasure, were we to intervene?
2. Given that we are still engaged in two wars, what rapidly available forces do we have with which to intervene?
3. If we do participate in the overthrow of Colonel/Dictator Qaddafi, what will we do once he has been deposed?
4. Other than more borrowing, how would we pay for such an intervention?

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were highly successful up until the point of regime change. After that, we became mired in what seems to be a never ending occupation. Worse, in both countries, a significant fraction of the population is actively hostile and most of the rest would just like us to go away.

In an editorial page column yesterday (click here to read) in the Washington Post, George Will delivers an excellent analysis of the situation and the reasons why we should not intervene militarily. For those who would like the shorter version, these sentiments, expressed by Presidents John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, are pertinent:

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own.... (John Adams)

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. (John Quincy Adams)

Perhaps we should just mind our own business and leave the Libyans to sort out their problems. Acting as policeman to the world is no longer - if it ever was - in our national interest.