I'm no political scientist. We all know that.
So I'm trying to make sense of the logic of the Obama administration's current position on Libya.
Last time I checked, Obama prided himself on being opposed to the invasion of Iraq to oust a tyrant.
Now, Clinton has pushed for us to participate in the ousting of the Libyan tyrant.
In the case of Iraq, Iraq had given us plenty of cause to invade. Saddam practically begged us to invade. he defied sanctions. He gave the world the runaround when it came to inspections. And we had directly fought a land battle with him in recent history. And yet that was a military action we were not supposed to take.
So what has Libya done to us lately?
I am in no way expressing support for Qaddafi...I'm just saying that I'm unclear on how Obama will justify us sticking our nose in this case, which has practically nothing to do with us, as opposed to Iraq, in which we had a direct stake as the country holding Saddam's leash.
Personally, I'm all for America serving the great Herculean Tyrant Tamer. That just doesn't seem to be the liberal position...so I'm not sure what the difference is now.
Is it just that Libya's revolution has been more publicly successful than the resistance in Iraq? Does that simply make it an easier overthrow to take part in?
And, another thought that's been brewing...isn't this precisely the kind of revolutionary domino effect that Bush predicted would happen as a result of liberating Iraq? So...in a way...does supporting some of these revolutions justify Bush's approach to Middle Eastern affairs?
Comments