Why the U.S. should “take out” Kaddafi

Dean Ericson writes:

Here are two reasons for taking out Kaddafi:

1) The Berlin disco bombing of American servicemen in 1986, organized by Libya, and carried out by Libyans and 2 Palestinians.

President Reagan ordered airstrikes in retaliation for the disco bombing with the intention of taking out Kaddafi, but was thwarted when the Prime Minister of Malta called Kaddafi to warn him after seeing the airstrike task force fly over Malta headed towards Libya.

2) The downing of PanAm flight 103, organized by Libya and carried out by Libyans.

So I have no problem if Obama decides to help take out Kaddafi, and he can cite the two cases above as sufficient justification. Granted, it would have been better to take him out back when his culpability for those attacks was established. Reagan tried, after Berlin, and he was right to do so. If he had finished off Kaddafi, then all those who later died on Pan Am 103 would still be alive. Of course, it is nearly unthinkable that Obama and liberaldom would sincerely cite those attacks as justification for attacking Kaddafi now. The only legitimate motive liberals see for using military force is humanitarian assistance and nation building unsullied by any selfish consideration of national defense. But even though our liberals will likely ball it all up, we should shed no tears when that rat, Kaddafi, is gone. We should have settled his hash long since.

LA replies;

It would have been one thing to “take out” Kaddafi, i.e., to kill him, to kill him because he deserves to be killed, without any notion of nation-building Libya once he was gone. But any U.S. involvement in removing Kaddafi now would also inevitably imply our support for and involvement in the successor government, which is a much trickier proposition.

In this connection, I’m reminded of my Muslim version (here and here) of Bob Dylan’s “All I Really Want To Do”:

I don’t want to fake you out,
Take or shake or forsake you out …
All I really want to do
Is be far away from you.

- end of initial entry -

Greg W. writes:

From this article, we see what else is in play:

“Earlier in the day, Khadafy played the race card on TV, warning Europe that if he falls they will be deluged by hordes of illegal African immigrants.”

Assuming this is true, then for the sake of our European brethren we better not overthrow him.

In reality, I would not put it past our government to help overthrow Kaddafi not for any past or current grievances, but rather as an opportunity to diversify Europe much more than it already is. After all, if more diversity is the end result, then any means of getting there are noble.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 08, 2011 01:31 PM | Send