by RICHARD MINITER
March 31, 2011 2:53 PM
Bombing Libya is in America’s interest, even if President Obama can’t explain why.
The president’s announcement, from a summit in Brasilia, was maddeningly vague even for his friends. There’s a good reason for that.
Obama’s announcement was not really directed at the American public, but at his liberal base: That’s why he stressed the humanitarian mission, the multinational coalition, U.N. resolution No. 1973, and the backing of the Arab League. His goals sounded vague because his liberal supporters, whom he will badly need in 2012, are deeply conflicted about the Libyan conflict. Some don’t like force or see America as a force for good.
Plus Obama has to hold together a fractious coalition of Europeans and Arabs, who privately loathe Moammar Gadhafi but fear publicly saying so will inflame anti-American sentiment in their own lands. So Obama had to be vague and general, much like Bush.
Obama’s conservative and liberal critics fell into the trap of thinking that the articulator-in-chief had laid out all of the arguments in favor of air operations over Libya, instead of just the expedient ones. If there were a national-security case to make, wouldn’t the president have made it? The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg called Libya a “first-tier humanitarian problem” and a “seventh-tier national-security challenge.” The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart conceded that, “Libya is peripheral to core American interests” but explained that top officials were spurred by the ghosts of Bosnia.
President Obama had strong reasons for action even if he didn’t announce them.
Refugees. It is no mystery why France and other European nations implored Obama to act. Italy and France are a short boat ride from Libya. One European Union official told me that he fears millions of Arab and African refugees will land in Europe. Not all will be Libyan. Without Gadhafi’s border controls, central African Muslims will surge through Libya to Europe.
Some may belong to criminal gangs or terror groups. All will need jobs, housing, food, medical care, education and so on. Some European states have debts bigger than their economies while others have debts greater than 80 percent of GDP. Adding to that burden could slow the already sluggish world economy — meaning high unemployment and hopelessness here at home.
Arab states are also worried about a tsunami of refugees. If the some 100,000 Moroccans in Libya were to come home, one Arab intelligence officer told me, they will be jobless and angry — and could bring down America’s oldest Arab ally. Algeria, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have similar nightmares. If friendly Arab regimes fall, intelligence and military cooperation against al-Qaida stops. That hikes risks at home too.
Iran’s influence. The choice isn’t between American intervention or none at all. If we didn’t intervene, Iran would fill the power vacuum. Iran’s intelligence service is already deeply involved in uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen. Egypt’s intelligence chief complained to Gen. Petraeus about Iran’s growing alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, according to State Department cables recently made public by WikiLeaks. If Iran’s proxies rule Libya, Iran could threaten U.S. naval bases in the Mediterranean.
Doing nothing is the most dangerous option. Gadhafi would be wounded, angry and vengeful. He could use his billions to fund terror attacks against the U.S. and our NATO allies.
President Obama did what any responsible leader would do — prudently pre-empt real threats to Americans at home and abroad.
Richard Miniter is a best-selling author and senior editor at the Hudson Institute.
Originally published at: http://www.gazette.com/opinion/libya-115498-obama-real.html
