Middle East Jubilation

Qaddafi is dead, and American involvement in Iraq is over!

The latter headline is the big news.  While there will still be American advisers in Iraq to try to help the fledgling government, all 39,000 troops will be coming home, as hoped, with the expiration of the U.S-Iraqi agreement signed in December 2008 to keep troops there for three years.  Reports have circulated that President Obama is only pulling American troops out because he could not get an agreement for an extended stay, but if he really thought it was worth staying, he would have tried to get such an agreement.

The Iraq War didn't really end for the United States despite the pullout of combat troops in August 2010.  At the time, I likened it to the cease-fire ending the Korean War, but American soldiers and Marines in Iraq, unlike in Korea after July 1953, continued to be killed after the combat troops left . . . meaning that firing had not ceased there.  There's no indication that Iraq is completely ready to take control of its own affairs, and there's the spectre of Iran hoping to expand its dominance in the Middle Eastern region.  But Iraq is somewhat more stable now than when Saddam Hussein fell, and Obama seems to be confident he can steer Iraq in the right direction without using the military.

Hey, look how he handled Libya.      

Here and There

Some updates . . .

Yesterday I mentioned that Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan - which he mentions so much while talking about the economy I feel like I'm listening to the White Album ("industrial output . . . financial imbalance . . . ") -  would cost middle-income taxpayers more.  How could an across-the-board tax do that? Because Cain's nine percent sales tax would mostly affect people who spend much of their money on food, clothing and shelter - middle-income and lower-income people.  While he would eliminate the payroll tax (causing a loss of $100 million in revenue) he would eliminate d the estate, gift and capital gains taxes (and cause and $800 million revenue loss ) that would benefit the wealthy.  The combined $900 million loss of revenue is the the "9" that Cain does not bring up.  

More breaking news - Muammar el-Qaddafi has reportedly been killed by Libyan revolutionaries.  No confirmation on this yet, as far as I know . . ..  

War Is Over When Libyans Want It

And the people of Libya want it over now.

The Libyan rebels entered Tripoli and took over most of the city, forcing Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi to go into hiding. The revolution that has brought the call for freedom to Qaddafi's doorstep - even if he isn't there to answer it - and sporadic fighting will continue for at least another week. But the deposed Libyan leader is probably hiding in a rathole in the style of Saddam Hussein, and he couldn't have gotten far. My guess is that he will be found in very short order. I don't think he's as clever under pressure as Saddam was. He's been very good at staying in power for 42 years, but without guards or an exit strategy, I don't think he can stay on the run for long.

Besides, he has the desert on three sides and the Mediterranean on the fourth. Where's he gonna go?

Heck, I can't even joke any more that he can always hide with bin Laden. :-D

Obama On Libya

President Obama defended the U.S.-led aerial bombing in Libya Monday night by insisting that Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi had to be stopped from slaughtering his own people and that some sense of stability had to be preserved, along with the need to prevent a refugee crisis from developing and causing Libyans to flee into Egypt and Tunisia, two countries trying to put their own recent coups behind them. He stressed that the U.S., far from going it alone in Libya, is working in concert in key European and Arab allies.

While it's up to the Libyan people to force Qaddafi's exit, Obama said as he ruled out sending ground troops, it was America's moral responsibility to use its power to prevent an atrocity similar to the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994.

The President offered a sound reasoning for intervention and was able to strike a delicate balance between helping the Libyan people and avoiding entanglements in their internal affairs. I thought his speech was effective. But many people, unable to grasp the complexity of the situation, either thought Obama has done too little or done too much, and that he has not adequately explained the case for the no-fly zone, which NATO will take control of soon. While Obama has been effective in handling this international crisis so far, one fact is inescapable: We're on another interminable military mission in a third Muslim country while we have pressing needs at home. :-(

War Without End

My friend Nancy was on TV yesterday, but not to appear on a talent show. She was on News 12 New Jersey as one of several protesters demonstrating against the Iraq War, which began eight years ago yesterday. (The demonstration was held in Montclair, N.J., where I spend a lot of time.) Although that war is technically over - all of the American combat troops left in August 2010 - American service personnel are still there to help provide "security" until the end of this year. And to keep you from looking on a bright side that doesn't exist, Americans are still getting killed in Iraq despite their reduced role in the country.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has opened a third front in the Muslim world (after Iraq and Afghanistan), with a series of strikes against Libya. The United States is one of five nations taking part in what is apparently a series of air attacks designed to back up the rebels in Libya and help them get Qaddafi out of power. The main objective is to provide safe passage for civilians and rebels without directly intervening in the conflict. The U.S. is trying to limit its role in this operation as well as its scope, for obvious reasons, and it must be something of a relief for the American commanders that the French and the British are taking the lead this time, but once again, the West is pursuing a war to resolve unresolvable geopolitical headaches in the Middle East, and it doesn't look like there'll be an end to it any time soon.

Speaking of headaches, all this war news is giving me one.

No-Fly or a No-Go?

President Obama endorsed the no-fly zone over Libya passed in the United Nations Security Council last night, but you have to wonder why the West wasn't able to get it passed and up and running earlier . . . and how it could possibly make any difference now.

Oh, and the U.N. also passed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya.

Obama has said that the noose is tightening around Muammar el-Qaddafi, but it seems the Libya leader is doing a pretty good job pushing the thumbscrews into the rebels with that noose around his neck. Pro-Qaddafi forces have taken numerous rebel-held cities and are now poised to retake Benghazi, the largest and most important city in Libya outside Tripoli. If I may use a metaphor involving American football (a very militaristic sport), issuing a no-fly zone or an authorization of force at this juncture is like the Arizona Cardinals being down 56-7 late in the fourth quarter and 95 yards from San Francisco's goalpost and trying for a field goal.

The British and French are very much for this no-fly zone, which means the Americans - already preoccupied with two fronts elsewhere in the Muslim world - will enforce it. Look, I'm no foreign policy expert, but if Nicolas Sarkozy thinks this is a good idea, France should take the lead and send their Mirages up as soon as possible. Then the Brits can send in the Royal Air Force. Sound like a fair deal to you? Let our allies lead for a change and admit we Americans can't handle everything anymore.

Say, isn't there a nuclear crisis in Japan we're helping out with?

Maybe a Benghazi border, like the Pusan Perimeter in the Korean War that saved South Korea from annihilation, is in the making, but I doubt it.

But maybe I'm wrong. Qaddafi has declared a cease-fire in response to the U.N. declarations. Or maybe he did so because he's already winning anyway.

Muammar Gone Daffy

Up until now, the events of the Middle East has made this time an exciting one in which to be alive. In scenes reminiscent of the fall of the Iron Curtain in Europe, Islamic nations are casting off their old dictators and making steps toward democratic government. The presidents of Tunisia and Egypt have already been forced out, and despite attempts to suppress their people, the king of Bahrain and the president of Yemen are feeling more than a little bit of pressure. Not to mention the mullahs of Iran. While some people in the region - the Egyptians, most certainly - are ready to form governments based on democratic principles, some countries could easily slip into greater authoritarianism under new governments. They could resemble the old banana republics of Latin America more than the emerging post-Communist regimes of eastern Europe.

No one knows which way Libya is going. In fact, thanks to its legendary dictator, Muammar El-Qaddafi - in power since 1969 - Libya could blaze its own self-destructive path. The flaky Qaddafi, who became synonymous with terrorism in the 1980s with his support of commando attacks in Europe and his backing of the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing - is holding onto power by any means necessary, even employing the Libyan air force to mow down demonstrators. (Two senior mutineering air force pilots flew their fighter jets to the nearby island nation of Malta and requested political asylum after defying orders to bomb protesters.) Qaddafi, 68, made a bizarre appearance on Libyan television to insist that he remains firmly in power, and in fact he did not look at all well. No one seems to know who's in charge over there, and oil traders have responded accordingly, sending prices upward.

Other countries in the region undergoing unrest may become democratic republics or military dictatorships when all is said and done, but Libya is looking more and more likely to become after Qaddafi a society no one will be able to define or recognize.