Dealing With Libya
Print Friendly and PDF

I don't give much of a fig about Libya ? barely a figlet ? but I do take it amiss when foreigners murder American diplomats.

Low-level security at our embassies and consulates ? i.e. to guard against the occasional lone nutcase, or some student rent-a-mob throwing stones ? should be entrusted to U.S. military personnel.  

Security above that level is the responsibility of the host power, with the understanding that failure by the host power in this regard can fairly be taken as an act of hostility, with appropriate consequences.

These are the most fundamental principles of statecraft, in place since the Paleolithic.  To neglect them is to cede the world to chaos.

Not that this administration's Libya policy has ever made much sense.  Radio Derb let loose on it a year ago.

Having kissed and made up with Gaddafy and accepted his assistance, however grudging and dubious, we should have stood by him; or at least left him alone to deal with his domestic problems as best he might. The NATO campaign against Libya is an act of hypocrisy. In the case of some of the actors, hoping for oil favors from the victorious rebels, it's opportunistic, which is at least understandable. In the case of the U.S. it's pure useless, expensive, counter-productive sanctimony.

(For a more literary take on Libya, see here.)

Print Friendly and PDF