WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED!

According to the following CBS News report, this is how Hillary Clinton responded to the death of Muammar Qaddafi:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123348-503544.html

If President Bush or any of the Republican candidates for President had said this the main stream media would have hyperventilated.  It is incredibly tasteless and irresponsible.   Obama himself traveled the globe apologizing for the U.S. allegedly interfering in other countries.  The hypocrisy and stupidity of the liberal left is jaw dropping.

Geraldo Rivera was so thrilled that he called this the Obama doctrine.  Apparently our new foreign policy is to just kill anyone who gets in the way and let someone else pick up the pieces.  In this case he is counting on good results from the French and the Germans.  They have both done so well in the past!

I am glad Qaddafi is gone.  But, in recent years, he was no longer a threat to us.  We basically waited until his political base collapsed and then bombed the remnants into submission.  It was a good demonstration on how sophisticated air power can destroy an inferior military, operating in a desert, with accuracy and precision.  However we are yet to learn what is left behind.  We are very good at killing people.  Is that the new American foreign policy?

It appears as if there are at least 13 different tribes ruling different parts of Libya.  These tribes pretty much agreed on getting rid of Qaddafi, but not much else.  Odds are very high that they will quickly turn on each other.  After the Tsar was over thrown in Russia, there was a provisional government promising freedom and democracy.  It lasted 8 months. The provisional government, made up of moderates, was never able to establish control.  The communists took over complete control after a bloody civil war.  The rest is history.  That is the problem with moderate governments.  They are quickly overwhelmed by people more than willing to resort to unthinkable violence. 

Libya is likely to go one of two ways, both bad.  It will either descend into lawless anarchy or a new strong man will come in and take over.  Any strongman is probably going to need support from the Muslim extremists.  The least likely result is freedom and democracy.  That is only possible if someone strong enough to take control and provide security takes over and then willingly relinquishes control to a democratic government.  That odds of that happening in Libya are very low.

The real lesson of Iraq was that democracy without security is anarchy.  The U.S. had to send in the surge to take control of the country before there was even a potential for a self-sustaining democracy.  Thanks to Obama’s run for the exits, Iraq too may descend back into chaos.  Unfortunately if that happens in Iraq, Iran will quickly try to step into the void.  They will be opposed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations.  Keep in mind that Iran allegedly tried to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. 

In Libya, Obama may have just unleashed a bloody civil war.  In Iraq, he may have turned a relatively stable situation into a violent regional war.  Most regional experts predict that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, so will every other major country in the Middle East.  The risk of a nuclear conflict will become extremely high.  The only thing certain is that things in Iraq are far more likely to deteriorate than to improve.

It’s a real shame the liberal left is so busy celebrating to realize that Obama is the polar opposite to the foreign policy they have been demanding for decades.  I wouldn’t exactly call this less interference by the U.S.  But where are the anti-war protests.  Whether you agree with the need for this operation or not, it was a blatant display of arrogant U.S. military force with little or no regard to the ultimate outcome.  Unfortunately, Hillary described the Obama foreign policy to perfection:  “we came, we saw, we killed.” 

TDM