Liberal Fox News anchor Shep Smith just said that the war in Libya (he referred to it as the un-war or the like) is now over, as NATO is pulling out. I think that's great. Not that I am a dove or anything, but the farther we keep this man-child who occupies the White House, away from the controls of war, wasting our blood and treasure on half-hearted attempts to appear like he has a sack, the better.
So it's great we're pulling out of Libya, and likewise, I fully support our complete withdrawal from Iraq AND Afghanistan as well. When the American people elect a President who can prosecute foreign affairs in the actual interest of this great land and her allies, and with respect to the young men and women putting their lives on the line, then we can think about putting Americans in harms way.
In the last few days there has been lots of talk about how the developments in Libya prove out Obama's strategies, and add to his already extensive bona fides - a canard so rich that it deserves it's own column, but I digress. What I've found so astonishing is how little talk there is about "Winning the Peace" (WTP).
Remember WTP? Back when President George W. Bush went to war in Iraq, after asking permission of congress and passing several resolutions in the UN, I might add, and after he appeared under the "Mission Accomplished" banner following the toppling of Baghdad, the literati, the professional left, and seemingly the entire world (or at least the U.N.), couldn't stop handwringing over what would happen now that the dictator Saddam was toppled. We broke it, we had to fix it right? We had to have a plan to win the peace, right? I mean right?
What ever happened to nation building? Are the good people of Libya, sprung from the clutches of an admittedly despicable dictator, any less in need of a new nation than Iraq was? Where is the outcry from the media, where are the human rights groups now that a vacuum has been created in leadership, likely to be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood or some equally fanatical group or worse, a proxy for Iran?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should rebuild Libya. I think Bush's tactical error was playing into this handwringing in the first place - Iraqi's were an industrious people and they would have figured it out without us. We should have limited our mission to wining the military conflict, and toppling Saddam (an accomplishment for Bush far greater than anything Obama might have had to do with the demise of Qadaffi) regardless of what the NY Times editorial page thought. But I just can't get over the ever growing and astonishing double-standard at play here. I shouldn't be surprised, but I've just never thought I'd see a time where dis-ingenuousness would so thoroughly rule the day without the populace as a whole so much as batting an eye.
The positive side of this may be that the next Republican president in 2012 might be able to follow suit, as now no Liberal can ever now complain that we broke it, so we must fix it, or have a plan for winning the peace. Those same rules didn't apply to their guy, so it stands to figure that when a Republican takes the White House and actually tries to act in the interest of this country using military force, our new President might have quite a few more options than Bush ever did . Then again, given the traitorous liberal media, who informs the masses in lockstep with an unflinchingly partisan tilt, perhaps I shouldn't count on it.