Yesterday's editorial page in the Washington Post produced something I'm not sure I've ever seen before. All five of the columnists represented there had written about the same topic: The administration's decision to get involved in enforcing a no-fly zone to protect the anti-Qaddafi forces.
Specifically,
- Anne Applebaum seemed most concerned about the "what then" factor, i.e., if our no-fly zone was insufficient to make Qaddafi fold his tents, wouldn't we be pulled into a widening role as we tried to bring about the desired end result? (It's this concern that was foremost in my mind when I said I thought the decision to get involved was a mistake.)
- Richard Cohen was more concerned about how Obama reached his decision, stressing "incoherence" and "confusion" in the process.
- Michael Gerson was also concerned about how and when the decision was made. He took the predictable fallback position of Republicans, that the U.S. must always be out there leading the charge because ... well, just because.
- Eugene Robinson wrote a thoughtful piece clearly lamenting that the Obama decision is based upon realism in foreign policy. I say, what's wrong with realism? His realism is that we only go militarily after errant countries who aren't friendly to us; my realism is that we shouldn't jump into something without a clearer idea of exactly what we are getting into.
- Finally, George Will expatiates on that very theme (like Applebaum) -- how can we avoid mission creep, and why should we think that it's our duty to expend blood and treasure being the world's policeman ... is it enough to say "because we can?"
The common thread in all this learned punditry was that nobody is especially happy with the President's decision -- it was wrong, it was right; he took too long to decide, he decided rashly; he did the right thing but for the wrong reasons, or he stated the right reasons but took the wrong action. The old adage is that if you manage to piss off everyone equally, you must have got it just about right. I'm not retracting my original thumbs-down on U.S. participation in the Libya no-fly zone, but the wide range of opinion certainly expresses the difficulties any administration faces in such situations. It's no-win.
Comments