What happens to the foreign policy debate in the United States if 4 months from now Gaddafi is gone? If Libya is ruled by some transitional quasi republican government backed by western powers and overwhelmingly funded through European nations keeping America's economic obligations to a shocking minimum?
Will it vindicate those of us who have been arguing for a multilateral foreign policy?
Will it silence the alliance dismissing, American Imperialists or self described neo-conservatives?
For the past decade all "perceived" negative blow back of neo-conservative international policy has been dismissed as overblown concerns of naive idealists. 'Those flower children don't understand how the "real world" works. They don't have the steel nerves needed to make the tough, costly and sometimes even deadly, decisions that will protect us in the future.' (ok... I'm paraphrasing… a little) These short sighted naive concerns being (but not limited too), focusing on securing the whole of Afghanistan and installing one of the most corrupt and ineffective governments on the planet while allowing UBL escape justice for almost a decade. Let us not forget that the alienation of "Old Europe" was a SMALL price to pay to focus on the bigger picture that they simply couldn't understand. I mean who needs "friends" who try and talk us OUT of invading weak and stable regimes that have no WMDs and are a nominal enemy of our most recent attacker (UBL)
Seriously, What happens if Libya comes out of this more quickly, more stable and with a more grateful population then both Iraq and Afghanistan? If it costs us much less US blood and treasure not to mention local civilian casualties, will the methodical, circumstance specific, multilateral internationally sanctioned /supported military intervention be the new bipartisan foreign policy standard?
Could we "push the reset button" with NATO? Could we reopen plans that were being formed in early 2002?
I pray...
Read More