Repeating history

The Libya engagement confuses me, as, I suppose, it does most of us.

We fought the first war in Iraq to defend the sovereignty of Kuwait. We entered Afghanistan purportedly in "hot pursuit" of al-Quaeda, which had just knocked off the World Trade Center towers in New York. At the same time, more or less incidentally, we removed from power the Taliban government that had harbored and refused to surrender bin Laden and his associates. We fought the second Iraq war to effect "regime change" -- whatever the administration's alleged pretexts.

In Libya, we are engaged neither in defense of another nation nor in retribution against persons who have attacked our own country. Nor, as I understand it, do we intend to repeat the errors of Iraq II and seek regime change. Our objective, at least as originally stated, seems to have been to level the playing field between the Kadhafi government forces (many of whom are foreign mercenaries) and the rebels, by depriving the government of the advantage of air superiority. We entered the fray at the behest of the British and French, at the urging of the Arab League, and under the formal auspices of the U.N. Security Council.

The legality of our use of force thus seems much clearer than it did in Iraq II, where we acted, in reality, unilaterally. The wisdom of our involvement seems less clear. But I'm trying to reserve judgment until the smoke clears a bit.

If Iraq and Afghanistan taught us anything, they should have taught us that we -- as a people and as a government -- don't have a very good grasp on the politics and popular emotions of the Middle East, or of the Islamic world in general. Kadhafi is no one's idea of a great national leader. But who are the rebels, and what are their hopes and aspirations? What do all the rebels have in common, other than a desire to eliminate Kadhafi? To what extent is Libya a united people, as opposed to an amalgam of nationalities and tribes (as was Iraq)?

Also, what impact does Western intervention in a Moslem country have on popular opinion in other nations in the region? Within days of urging intervention, the Arab League was backtracking from its approval of the attack. Vladimir Putin, slimy critter that he is, after refraining from a veto in the Security Council, has already declared that Western involvement in Libya looks to him like yet another Western "Crusade" against the Muslim world.

Sometimes it's in the best interests of both the U.S. and the people of another country to permit a strong, disagreeable dictator to stay in power, rather than allow that country to fall into anarchy. As sympathetic as we may feel toward the victims of Kadhafi's rule, we should limit our involvement at this point to our stated objective -- denying the skies to the combatants -- and allow the two sides to fight it out among themselves on the ground.

The unintended consequences of our intervention may be widespread. I'll be delighted if the rebels can win, agree among themselves, and form a stable democratic government.

Experience warns us against expecting such a happy conclusion.