IT’S NOT A CHICK FLICK; IT’S A ROMANTIC COMEDY

3/28/11

The Wall Street Journal must be having an incredibly difficult time with the war in Libya and one must admit it is entertaining to see the Journal writhe. While the Journal is always delighted to see American troops enforcing American writ anywhere in the world, it vastly prefers to see our shameless interference in the affairs of others and intrepid assaults on the American treasury conducted under Republican presidents. A Democrat doing exactly what the Journal wants? There must be no end to the confusion among the neocon wunderkinds who populate the Journal’s editorial page. So they oppose not the intervention but its conduct, with most of their criticism focusing on the lack of a defined objective and a concern about whom indeed we are helping when we aid the ill-defined Libyan opposition. Somehow, the Journal expressed no such concerns for the oh so clearly defined Bush adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that had the consequence of creating an entire generation of America haters in vast quarters of the Middle East. Seeing the kids at the Journal hoisted on their own petard is indeed refreshing, but I start with a digression.

The Journal reports this morning the good news, at least according to the Bush/Obama administration, that NATO will be taking command of the entire military intervention, as opposed to just enforcing the no-fly zone, in Libya. (In fairness, I will quickly add that the Journal is not endorsing this takeover; it can’t possibly endorse anything a Democrat, an especially Barack Obama, would do, even, or perhaps especially, if what he does comes right out the neocon playbook.) Doubtless this will be the thrust of the defense that Mr. Obama will deliver tonight of his excellent Middle Eastern adventure: NATO is in charge; we are taking a subordinate role; there should be much rejoicing.

However, a clear thinking person who considers the two parties equally culpable in the mess that the pols have made of American foreign and domestic policy over the last thirty or so years can think of two questions that the NATO assurances should engender. First, what is NATO but a thin veneer for, first, U.S. assuming the military obligations of Europe in, a post-World War II Europe and then a bureaucracy struggling to come up with some justification for its existence in a post Cold War world? To say that NATO is in charge so the Americans aren’t is preposterous; given the relative military capabilities of the United States and all other NATO states, NATO is, for all intents and purposes, the United States.

Second, assuming for a moment that I am incorrect in that last assertion and that NATO is indeed something other than a ruse for U.S. meddling (usually, by the way, with the full approval of the meddlees) in the military and political affairs of Europe, do we really want American troops fighting under anything but American command? Yes, we technically did so in Korea and in the first (the second really, but the first didn’t involve us, but that is grist for another mill) Gulf War, but did anybody really believe that anyone but the Americans were in charge of both efforts?

Maybe this will all work out: Gadhafi will leave the country, the noble Jeffersonian opposition will assume power, and all will be sweetness and light. (Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series.) But the chance (miraculous, really) salubrious outcome of a given endeavor does not justify the effort expended in an ill-conceived pursuit of the ridiculously unlikely.