Obama Takes a Moral Stand on Libya
The president's principles for intervention are admirable, but how will we get out?
Leave it to the inimitable Sarah Palin to have an incoherent -- make that asinine -- reaction to President Barack Obama's strongly argued case for America's intervention in the Libyan civil war.
On one hand, the Republican presidential wannabe protested, "We're not hearing from our president what is the endgame here. And with Qaddafi still in power, if we're not going to oust him via killing or capturing, then there is not an acceptable end state."
But on the other, she proclaimed, "He did not make the case for this intervention. U.S. interests have got to be met if we are going to intervene. And U.S. interests can't just mean validating some kind of post-American theory of intervention wherein we wait for the Arab League and the United Nations to tell us, 'Thumbs up, America, you can go now, you can act,' and then we get in the back of the bus and we wait for NATO, we wait for the French to lead us. That's not inspirational."
There you have it: To hear Palin tell it, Obama is not doing enough to inspire the world, on whose cooperation we should not wait, to assassinate the leader of a country in which it's not clear that we have any vital interest. Imagine what kind of pickle the U.S. would be in if President Palin were on the receiving end of one of those 3 a.m. phone calls.
Extreme as they were, Palin's disjointed remarks in some ways typified the knee-jerk reaction of many of Obama's critics, who seem to be more interested in bashing him than in engaging in a serious dialogue about his ideas. A less feckless opposition could have raised far more serious questions about the rationale Obama provided last night for joining the U.N.-sanctioned coalition that has become a de facto ally of the anti-Qaddafi revolutionaries.
In some ways, his arguments echo those made by his predecessor, George W. Bush, to justify the invasion of Iraq. The difference is that in Obama's case, the facts that led to his conclusion that military force was required are true. In Bush's case, the purported facts turned out to be a tissue of lies.
The whole world knows that in Libya, a long-oppressed population has risen up against a dictator whose violent meddling in the affairs of neighboring countries threatens the peace and stability of an entire continent. Moreover, as Obama forcefully asserted last night, allowing the Libyan nutcase to continue mowing down the rebels would undermine the tenuous moves toward democracy in nearby Tunisia and Egypt, where U.S. interests are far more obvious. Those are important considerations.
But, at least in Obama's address Monday night, such traditional measures of the national interest are not the most significant factors in his decision. Instead, he contended, the morality of America's conduct is in and of itself a national interest that must be balanced against those other measures. He is, in effect, conflating American interests and American idealism, thereby setting the U.S. on a road whose end no one can foresee.