How to Respond to the Libyan Attacks
The killing of U.S. diplomats in Libya was a terrible, evil act. Anyone excusing it because of prior U.S. actions or because of U.S. policy doesn't understand the first thing about good and evil. Again, this was an evil act.
On the other hand, a lot of the commentary that's followed is missing some important points. For example, the authors of this Opinion in the Wall Street Journal claim the U.S. government has three possible responses. 1) Cut and run; 2) Get the bad guys; or 3) their choice...
"...the U.S. can help Libya build institutions to strengthen its new foundations. Although the U.S. already has a small footprint—training Libyan security personnel, engineers and English-language students—such efforts could be increased. Such an effort would help create jobs and get potential extremists and militia off the streets.
In the words of Sen. John McCain, 'Libya is wealthy. It does not need our money. . . . It needs our technical expertise.' Based on our observation, popular sentiment in Libya longs for increased international cooperation."
This is typically twisted thinking. The "choices" these guys propose are straw men set up so they can push their point - more government involvement.
We can dispense with #1 right away. The "cut and run, as in Lebanon in 1984" is classic straw man stuff. It's a shot at the Reagan administration's decision to pull out of Lebanon. When the marines were pulled out in 1984, it was done under circumstances that made that decision a sensible one at the time. But why bother to look at the facts or the historical circumstances, right?.
As for #2 and #3, why do the authors think there has to be choice between them?
How about this instead for a reasonable response:
1) The government pursues and brings the perpetrators to justice.
2) As per McCain's comment that "Libya is wealthy. It does not need our money. . . . It needs our technical expertise," why not simply allow private enterprise to provide technical expertise. Why is government needed here?
Doesn't this make more sense?
Of course, this restricts the government's involvement to law enforcement, and allows private enterprise to function as it should - between individuals and companies who will collaborate to their mutual benefit. And done right, there really needs to be no role for government.
On the other hand, a lot of the commentary that's followed is missing some important points. For example, the authors of this Opinion in the Wall Street Journal claim the U.S. government has three possible responses. 1) Cut and run; 2) Get the bad guys; or 3) their choice...
"...the U.S. can help Libya build institutions to strengthen its new foundations. Although the U.S. already has a small footprint—training Libyan security personnel, engineers and English-language students—such efforts could be increased. Such an effort would help create jobs and get potential extremists and militia off the streets.
In the words of Sen. John McCain, 'Libya is wealthy. It does not need our money. . . . It needs our technical expertise.' Based on our observation, popular sentiment in Libya longs for increased international cooperation."
This is typically twisted thinking. The "choices" these guys propose are straw men set up so they can push their point - more government involvement.
We can dispense with #1 right away. The "cut and run, as in Lebanon in 1984" is classic straw man stuff. It's a shot at the Reagan administration's decision to pull out of Lebanon. When the marines were pulled out in 1984, it was done under circumstances that made that decision a sensible one at the time. But why bother to look at the facts or the historical circumstances, right?.
As for #2 and #3, why do the authors think there has to be choice between them?
How about this instead for a reasonable response:
1) The government pursues and brings the perpetrators to justice.
2) As per McCain's comment that "Libya is wealthy. It does not need our money. . . . It needs our technical expertise," why not simply allow private enterprise to provide technical expertise. Why is government needed here?
Doesn't this make more sense?
Of course, this restricts the government's involvement to law enforcement, and allows private enterprise to function as it should - between individuals and companies who will collaborate to their mutual benefit. And done right, there really needs to be no role for government.
Comments