Thursday, October 20, 2011

Gadhafi Killed: Will Whoever Fills The Void Be Worse?

As with the so-called "freedom movement" in Egypt, many have been leery of the uprising in Libya, especially with news that al-Queda related individuals may be involved.

Today, the big fish, Libyan Dictator Moammar Gadhafi was captured and killed by the rebels, and paraded with echoes of machine gun fire and shouts of "Allah Akbar."

The lapdog media was having Major League Obasms today over the killing of the dictator, as they're so desperate to make the failed current President look like a success. Rush Limbaugh gave examples today.

The worst GOP Presidential candidate in a generation, John McLame, also gave Obama credit, even though the President didn't do the heavy lifting.

As bad as Gadhafi was, and he was bad, is this something that we'll be celebrating when the vaccum is filled?

From Investors Business Daily:

If there is one thing that we ought to know by now, it's that getting rid of a dictator like Gadhafi is the easy part. Gadhafi was a monster, but a known quality. What's hard is ensuring that what comes after isn't worse.

The cheers heard as Gadhafi's body was dragged through the streets are mere echoes of those that followed the downfall of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and, more ominously, the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt this past spring.

Everyone knows what happened when the cheering ended. Societies having neither freedom nor institutions became sitting ducks for Iran's mullahs and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Will a Jeffersonian democracy follow in Libya? It's not likely, in the absence of an assertive American role.

The U.S. contributed $1.1 billion in war-fighting and humanitarian aid to Libya's revolution, more than all the other NATO nations combined. Democracy talk aside, the U.S. has a big stake in this revolution and an obligation to push for a pro-U.S. result.

Sadly, these days a strong U.S. presence is lacking.

...The U.S. commitment to Libya may not be high enough to send it a MacArthur, but after giving Libya $1.1 billion in aid, and apparently sending in the vital drone strike that led to Gadhafi's capture, it must use its diplomatic muscle to ensure a favorable result.

The American people are tired of capricious engagements with weak goals around the world. The U.S. looks like a global patsy if it engages in costly wars only to buy worse tyrants to threaten it.

If Libya seemed bad during Gadhafi's reign, its remaining weapons stockpiles, oil profits and proximity to terrorists can only lead to a worse result. We need to make sure it doesn't.

No comments: