For all the howling from the left, and the unhidden gleeful mischaracterizations on the right, the actions that President Obama directed the U.S. military to take over the weekend regarding Libya, were something that U.S. presidents, from BOTH parties, have missed the opportunity to do for many, many years.
We're not saying President Obama should put together another "Why We Fight" film series like those that were used to ramp up public support of World War II. However, we think Americans on both sides need to step back, look, and listen to the facts regarding the United States involvement in Libya, before they start hollering.
Of course, this is America, so our plea for getting the facts first has already fallen on deaf years.
From the right, there are already folks jumping up and down, trying to blast their propaganda about President Obama's motives in a vain attempt to paint him with the same brush as his predecessor. Their desperate attempts to twist the facts in order to defend George W. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq are sadly obvious to anyone with basic brain function. There are no U.S. military troops on the ground in Libya, nor are there plans for American troops to take that role, but the right-wing media echo chambers will be in full cry this entire week about how this is "Obama's New War". That's in spite of the reality that this is a U.N. effort, led by someone other than the U.S.
Sadly, the situation on the left is no better.
On the far left, they're listening to the histrionics of the right, and beginning some of their own. The militant anti-war crowd is furious at Obama - as they would be at anyone who used military force for anything more authoritative than tossing teddy bears and tulips. What they really fear is American military involvement in yet another war, especially after the disastrous misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove got us into. We understand their concerns and fears - but Libya is not Iraq, now matter how much their political polar opposites wish it were.
The simple truth is one that neither side seems willing to hear.
America is providing missile support, and a couple of Stealth bombers, as well as intelligence, and other various types of support to the French, British, and Spanish, who have taken the lead roles in enforcing the U.N. no-fly zone over Libya. For those who spent much of the early 2000s dismissing the French as effete sissies, they should be happy to know that the French are the ones now doing most of the bombing and heavy lifting in Libya. This is primarily because Americans currently will not tolerate our country's participation in helping Libya's "quest for democracy", thanks to the degree that our nation is still involved in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For those on both sides of the aisle who have for years - for their own reasons - criticized America's role as World Cop, they should understand that the need for such a position will never disappear, even if America no longer holds that title. Throughout history, the British, French, the Holy Roman Empire (basically Germans), the Spanish, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians have all played the role of worldwide enforcer.
In order for America to step back from that role, someone else must be allowed to step forward. If we don't want to forever be locked into the role of supercop, it is in our own best interest to support other countries that do take the lead in actions like stopping a crazed dictator from committing genocide on his own people.
Because America has made commitments to stop the kind of violence now occurring in Libya, we agree that America must help in some way, to stop Gaddafi's destructive behavior.
The role that President Obama and his advisors like Sec. Clinton have chosen for us to play this time in Libya achieves that goal, without getting America involved in yet another all-out war. Obama's actions are exactly the right role for the U.S. at this time - a fact that won't make either fanatical conservatives or liberals very happy.
