The Tripoli Trap

Libyans are crying for the The Great Satan to come and save them, and the neocons who've never so much as heard a shot fired in anger are beating the war drums. 



My answer? Va Fangoul!

Remember the lies Chalabi and other Saddam opponents told us? People would throw flowers at our feet and welcome us with kisses, the Iraqi people just wanted to be free, Saddam was building nuclear weapons…

He and other succeeded in goading us to action, at a high cost in lives and treasure. Now the oil is flowing, and contracts go to China, who did nothing to topple the old regime. In Afghanistan, our troops are making the country safe for Chinese and Russian mining companies, while our “friends” the Pakistanis provide safe haven for their friends the Taliban.

We saved the Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims from slaughter and are rewarded by a Balkan Muslim gunning down American Airmen at Frankfurt Main.

We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Hussein, Afghanistan from the Taliban, and our military is stationed in the Gulf at the request of the poobahs to protect them from Iran.  All we get is hatred in return.

If we were so stupid as to go in to Libya, we would end up being further castigated by the purple-faced Muslim Street and their fellow travelers in the international left.

Libyans are already trying to lure us in…

Not because they love America or admire our ideals; but because they need our firepower to topple Khaddafi. Once that is accomplished, welcoming smiles will turn to fleck-spittle hatred and we’ll be accused of war crimes. If we leave too early we will be abandoning the Libyan people. If we stay too long, we’re building an empire. Every bomb we drop will end up killing “civilians,” most likely in one of those ubiquitous wedding parties. Every troop killed by a wild-eyed Libyan fanatic we’re trying to help will be called an unfortunate aberration…

We’ve seen this movie before, and there’s no good ending. Here’s how it begins…

“A large French flag hangs on the front of the courthouse used as the revolutionary council's headquarters after Paris recognised the rebel leadership […]

“But Libyans are also increasingly vocal in their criticism of Washington in particular for what is seen as a failure to back up rhetoric against the regime. (Guardian – Libyan Rebels)

Awww… See? They love us, but now they’re becoming disappointed in their hero Uncle Sam… BS!

But we’d better rush in there, or these feckless, unstable people will fall into the arms of the radical Islamists!

“However, Gheriani said that if the west failed to offer practical help to the revolutionaries to free themselves from Gaddafi's rule it risked frustrated Libyans turning to religious extremists.

If the west takes too long – where people say it's too little, too late – then people become a target for extremists who say the west doesn't care about them," he said.

"Most people in this country are moderates and extremists have not been able to penetrate them. But if they get to the point of disillusionment with the west there will be no going back."

Screw ‘em! We’ve heard all that before and it’s all BS. 
They’re all extremists and they all hate us! We’ve already proven that using our military power to help them won’t change that.

We’ve witnessed how they really feel about us...
Dancing in the streets at the news of 9/11, nothing but a constant stream of vituperation spewed upon the civilized west, ignorant stinking hordes lapping up every outrageous lie and conspiracy theory the demagogic mullahs tell them…

No, this is not fertile ground for Western civilization to take root. This is not a bridge to new friendships. It’s just another venue for the bug-eyed bastards of the Religion of Pieces to stage their theater of the grotesque. Well, this is one opera the US should skip. Let someone else provide the kettle drums and the snares.

We’ve allowed these inhabitants of the armpit of the world to send us on too many fool’s errands
The Muslim dingbats have again set their house ablaze, and again they call the US Fire Department. And again, once the fire is out, they will criticize us for putting axes through the doors and soaking the walls and the furniture. It’s time for the fire department to stand back and let the house burn down. Maybe that will teach these crazy morons to stop playing with matches.

For a more reasoned and informed analysis, read Intelligence analyst Paul Pillar's article, Not So Limited Liability in Libya.

War is Un-Conservative

I got slightly cross-ways with fellow Right Blogistan blogger Epaminondas over at Infidel Blogger's Alliance.   It's all good.  He was voicing support for John Bolton, a smart man and a patriotic American, and I went off on neocons.

It's important for us conservatives to have these conversations and air our differences while still respecting each others' opinions.

I am Anti-War

I am anti-war, but not for the America-hating reasons lefties are. My opposition is a libertarian one:  No nation has the right to invade another unprovoked, and anyway it's a waste of money and a tragic expenditure of blood and treasure.  Since I'm a medium-core libertarian, I do allow exceptions, especially when we are helping others help themselves.

I also support our ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, although I would like to see them wrapped up and us out of there.  Americans are fighting and dying there, and they need our support

Here are four reasons I dislike the neocons, with links to my blog posts containing in-depth information for those who want more details.

Unintended Consequences
George Bush had good intentions, and he really could have tipped over the old Muslim World order, but our allies and public opinion abandoned us, and now the forces of evil there have retrenched. Despotic regimes everywhere are re-empowered, especially Iran.  (The Road to Hell)

International Progressive projects are just as bad as domestic ones
Neo-Wilsonian efforts to usher in a New World Order is an internationalist progressive pipe dream, and we can't afford it. Conservatives cannot credibly rail against grand progressive projects at home while supporting them overseas. (Global War on American Prosperity)

Nation Building is folly
Nation building is folly when not done in cooperation with the people whose nation you are trying to build. Successes in this area have a common theme: Those we helped build or rebuild accepted our help and did most of the heavy lifting themselves.Also, small government advocates should admit that the central-planning we rail against at home is equally no good when we impose it on others overseas.  (The Folly of Nation Building)

The Forgotten Human Cost of War
Finally, the human cost of war is all too often blithely dismissed. Couples divorce, families are irretrievably broken, lives are changed forever. People who have survived combat will never be the same again. Children will lose parents; spouses will lose their beloved; siblings and parents will be left with nothing but memories. War wrecks lives and produces a cohort of walking wounded. For this reason, military action should never be taken lightly.  (War is Hell)

Conclusion
I think we need to look at what has happened and use our experience to make better decisions in the future.  Would it really have mattered whether we ended up buying Kuwaiti oil from Kuwaiti despots versus an Iraqi one?  Especially since we are doing business with Saudi despots who hate us and who are funding Islamic jihad against the West. 

Sometimes it's better to sit back, save up some money and keep your powder dry.  Now that's a conservative concept.

Global War on American Prosperity

Remake the Middle East?  We can't even remake Detroit

Our major combat forces are out of Iraq, and we're ramping up in Afghanistan, hoping to make enough gains so we can disentagle ourselves from there as well.

James Antle asks if conservative are ready to say "To hell with the hawks."

However reluctant conservatives may be to question retroactively the justice of our Bush-era wars, many are beginning to wonder if our prolonged occupations and nation-building exercises are worth American blood and treasure.  (AmCon- Antle)

I agree.  We should continue to reserve the right to reach out and smack someone, but the endless wars will end up breaking us.

Beware People Beating War Drums Who Have Never Been to War

I long ago grew tired of the tinny war cries of the William Kristols and the Frank Gaffneys.  If they want to invade Iran (a terrible idea), they can go raise their own damned army and do it themselves.  That country has the most pro-American populace in the Middle East outside of Israel.  Killing them and breaking their stuff is a sure way to blow it.

“Nation-building is the most prominent — and most important — part of the neocon doctrine,” wrote Jed Babbin in the American Spectator. “And the decision to pursue it is the principal reason that we are losing in Afghanistan, Iraq is falling apart, and the real enemy — the terror-sponsoring nations — have grown stronger.”

Neocons are Neo-Wilsonian Progressives

Antle goes on to identify three foreign policy strains of American conservatism, "... Jeffersonians, the Wilsonians, and the Jacksonians."  Go read the whole article and you will see why invasions and nation-building are very un-conservative activities.

Less is More

Respected journalist and scholar Robert D. Kaplan points to the future of American Military intervention in his 2007 article, Unheralded Military Successes.  He specifically highlights our low-key successes in Colombia and The Phillipines.

... the missions in Colombia and the Philippines showcase low-cost, low-risk and tediously unspectacular counterinsurgency options. And these places are not alone. Other U.S. military deployments I have observed recently -- in Algeria, Mali, Niger, Kenya, Georgia and Nepal -- are variations in a minor key. What stands out about all of these missions is their small scale and implicit modesty. We are not in combat in any of these countries -- but, rather, training local militaries that are or might be.

In all these countries, our military aid is combined with civilian development assistance. This is the global war on terrorism as preventive rather than as proscriptive. It doesn't cost much. You could spread Green Beret teams across Africa for the price of one F-22 jet. If there is another model out there that will keep the U.S. military engaged without overextending it, and will help move along inter-agency cooperation, I have not seen it.

I believe what he says because I've seen it myself in Colombia as well as other Central and South American countries. With a little military assistance, we chased communism from Central America in the 1980's, and Kaplan relates how we trained Eastern Europeans in the 1990's, building friendships that paid dividends after 9/11.

What's the common theme in all of this?
Small footprint, inexpensive, culturally-sensitive operations that help people who are willing to help themselves.  We conservatives bristle at progressives who want to remake America, so why should we support such budget busting efforts in other countries?

War Protesting is Too Important to be left to Liberals

Despite tea party camaraderie, conservatives remain suspicious of that oddball ideology called libertarianism.  Conservatives agree with perhaps 90% of it, but it's that other 10% that's bothersome. 

Kinda like the new guy at work.  A solid family man, he seems normal, likes sports and enjoys bantering over the issues of the day...  but he wears a bowtie and drives a '56 Citroen.  Hmmm...

Leftists Give "Anti-War" a Bad Name
Libertarians, like our founders, believe we should only resort to war when our nation is threatened.  This irks many conservatives rubbed raw by eight years of screaming Bush-haters.

To understand where these anti-war libertarians are coming from, I recommend The Siren Song of Pax Americana, a coherent argument for discontinuing American military interventions.  I don't agree with every line, but it is a good anti-war argument minus the "Bush is Hitler" and "America is terrorizing little brown people" crap constantly being slung in all directions by the slobbering baboons on the left.

His first point is that there are so many fires we just don't have enough people or equipment to stamp them all out, and endemic cultural dysfunction (or mere cultural differences) make the task even more difficult.  A close corollary is that world peace can never be achieved, so we are wasting time, money and lives in a Utopian pursuit. 

If an inconsequential and globally un-strategic country falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?

The author asks a good question:

Why must a single power act to restore order? If America does not act, will not those nations in the vicinity of a crisis have a strong incentive to cope with it?

The Balkans in the 1990's comes to mind.  Nobody coped with it.  Europe dithered and we had to go in.  Or did we?  Would it have damaged our national interests to stand back and let them go genocidal on one another?  Sounds callous, but "Nothing" is exactly what we are doing in the hundreds of other hot spots, most famously, Darfur.  More importantly, The US Constitution nowhere charges the federal government to "do something" just because our moral sensibilities are offended.

OK, what about "protecting" Middle Eastern oil?

As oil is the principal source of revenue for the Persian Gulf countries, an explicit attempt to withhold this source of wealth from world markets would certainly be more painful for the perpetrators of such a policy than for their intended victims.

But he lost me at the end...

We will never be able to limit American overreaching so long as the current imbalance in military power persists.

Given America's overwhelming military superiority to any opponent, the temptation to use that power is well-nigh irresistible. To cope with this problem, our military forces must be drastically reduced.

Logically, that makes sense.  Build war toys and politicians can't resist using them.  But in today's world, it is just not practical. 

The best we can hope for is to maintain a very strong defense tempered by a citizenry who demands that a very high bar must be cleared before we actually use it.