I’m not a teetotaler, but when it comes to alcohol I believe in a two-drink maximum. Similarly, I’m not a pacifist, but when it comes to voluntary military interventions, I believe in a two-war maximum. That’s the gist of my opposition to military intervention in Libya, America’s third concurrent war in a Muslim nation.
Or so I believed that’s where I stood. Apparently, though, what I’m really saying is that I’m totally down with Col. Qadhafi and want to stick it to the Libyan rebels. At least that is how our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, sees it :
But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.
I had thought I was on the side of the “neighbor rule”— that the responsibility should fall on the geographically closest legitimate nation-state that is powerful enough to intervene effectively, which in this case, is Europe and the Arab states. But I guess that’s not an option. Just as Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me” I guess whoever is not willing to take up arms against Qadhafi is on his side .
Trying to fathom such logic makes me want to take up drinking.
