You can bet on the following: in the debate around whether the US ought to intervene to save Libya’s faltering rebellion, some foreign critic of perceived US inaction will, as a taunt, quote this line from the Declaration of Independence.
The implication will be that the US must, because of its commitment to the above values, defend them in Libya by aiding the rebels, arming them, imposing a no-fly zone, etc.
If it fails to do so, then (such critics will argue) the US is running away from its obligation to help all those yearning to be free.
If the Declaration of Independence created a standing US obligation to intervene in situations like Libya, then there’s an accompanying requirement that the lives of American soldiers, sailors and airmen not be put on the line simply because someone has called for armed help from Washington. As a sovereign state, the US is entitled to no less.
That means American leaders must ask hard questions of those who ask for American sacrifice. These questions necessarily must focus on the ability of those asking for help to sustain a free, stable government – without a blank check from Uncle Sam.
In 1870, under pressure to aid a rebellion against Spain in Cuba, President Ulysses S. Grant pointed out that, wherever American sympathies lay, the facts of the situation implied that the poorly organized rebellion had little long term chance of success, even with US support:
“In the uncertainty that hangs around the entire insurrection there is no palpable evidence of an election, of any delegated authority, or of any government outside the limits of the camps occupied from day to day by the roving companies of insurgent troops; there is no commerce, no trade, either internal or foreign, no manufactures.”
The factual parallels with Libya are not hard to discern, and cannot be avoided. These parallels lead one to wonder about the wisdom of risking American lives in military interventions that would just be the start of long, expensive open-ended commitments.
Despite the triumphal-sounding reports that some MSM sources keep pumping out, there is good reason to doubt the staying power of the Libyan rebels, as presently constituted.
As Journalist Ben Wedeman noted in a recently-filed report from Libya:
(It must be conceded, of course, that Wedeman’s report is just one of many stories being filed from Libya.)
From this account, the Libyan rebels sound less like an Arab version of the Continental Army — and more like the gangs that roamed the desert in the post-apocalyptic Road Warrior movies. Assuming what Wedeman says is true, until this situation is reversed, it might be best for the US continue to weigh its options and remain above the fray.
