Pirate's Cove

After the initial silence of the Liberals, following Obama sending the US military to attack Libya (again, I agree with the actions), Liberals have been working overtime to find an avenue to say that Barack H. Obama, a man who was (supposedly) deeply anti-war, a man who would heal the world, build new bridges, was not a war monger, but a thoughtful leader engaged in some sort of humanitarian relief effort, and that Libya was somehow different from Afghanistan and Iraq. Shibley Telhami, a fellow at the Liberal Brookings Institution, is the latest to take a shot at defending Obama, saying that the Libyan intervention was morally right

U.S. foreign military intervention shouldn’t be taken lightly, and the current one in Libya deserves a full debate. But Libya’s case is exceptional — in more ways than one.

Both U.S. national interests and its values come together here, and Arab support is unprecedented. In addition, the interests at stake extend far beyond Libya’s borders.

Well, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, has said that Libya was not a vital national interest. Interesting.

That the intervention is moral is not a hard case to make. Libya is an exceptional case. Qadhafi’s brutality was matched by his chilling threat to “purify” Libya “house to house,” using his military and foreign mercenaries.

Had Qadhafi been allowed to overtake Benghazi, with possible massacres, no one could have pretended surprise. The pressure to act would have only increased when it would have been too late and too costly.

And, somehow, because Gdaffy is reviled throughout the Arab world, it’s different from the massacres in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Darfur, etc and so on? That’s funny, because so many Liberals were dead set against any military action against Afghanistan, and the Taliban and al Qaeda, after the horrid events of 9/11, when 3,000 of our friends, neighbors, and loved ones were killed. Remember, Obama preached restraint and empathy with the murderers just a few days after September 11th. But action in Libya is somehow “moral?” You know, the more liberals try and hem and haw to defend Obama, the more they make me think that I am wrong to support Obama’s Great Kinetic Operation.

For those who ask what the U.S. national interest in Libya is, the correct question is about broad U.S. regional interests. Had the Libyan crisis emerged before the Arab uprisings, intervention would still have been the moral course — though it would have been harder to make the case about U.S. interests. But there is a link among the revolutions sweeping the Arab world that cannot be denied.

Shibly goes on to discuss the mostly peaceful (Syria, Yemen, even some parts of the Egypt uprising were violent. And what about the Green Uprising in Iran, Shibly?), and an anti-dote to “militant extremists.” Good thing the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t involved in Egypt, and al-Qaeda in Libya. And then 6 more paragraphs which pretty much ignore any sort of answer as to why this is in the US national interest, till we get

But one test of the intervention is what would have happened without it. Aside from the moral issue, the empowered millions of Libyans would have had to turn to militant means — leading to prolonged civil war and opportunities for Al Qaeda. International public opinion would have dictated isolating Qadhafi, leading him to become an international menace. And his will to meddle in the transitions of Tunisia and Egypt would have increased.

Let’s see: Saddam Hussein and his minority Bathist regime brutalized the Iraqi people, murdered them, tortured them, displaced the Marsh Arabs, mass murdered the Kurds, a Jordanian doctor did a study that said 50,000 Iraqi children where dying in Iraq each year, Hussein paid families $25k for their children to go blow themselves up in Israel, there were numerous terrorist training camps in Iraq, he was a threat to regional stability….but, obviously, there was no moral or national security interests there. Or, it was simply a case of Bush being a Republican?

And, again, don’t forget that so many Liberals were against action in Afghanistan, where there were quite a few moral and national security reasons, not to mention 3,000 dead, and all the injured.

But Libya is somehow different to the anti-war kumbaya Left. At least some of them. Most of the rest who are against this action have mostly been silent, in order to protect their Lightworker.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.