You now know why some call Nicholas Sarkozy, the French president, by the nickname “Sarkoleon” – which rhymes with Napoleon, another Frenchman with a taste for dramatic diplomacy and rapid military action.
There’s definitely something Napoleonic in Sarkozy’s decision to unilaterally recognize Libya’s rebels. What exactly Sarkozy and France are recognizing is not clear. What are the Libyan rebellion’s ultimate objectives? What is the rebels’ political program? No one seems to really know.
One wonder if what Sarkozy and his advisers have recognized is merely the opportunity to position France to reap commercial advantages from a new Libyan government if Moammar Ghadafi is ousted.
French diplomatic recognition today could be worth lucrative contracts for arms and repairs to the Libyan oil industry’s infrastructure tomorrow.
If Sarkozy is channeling Napoleon, to which past US leader can President Obama turn to for inspiration on the question of Libya?
Critics of the idea of Obama rushing to deploy the US military into a third war in a Muslim nation would love to hear President Obama say something along the lines of Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 commandment that the US embrace “honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none” – especially rebel groups without a clear agenda.
Those nine words from Jefferson’s pen compress several lines from George Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address, a document that would probably be highly annoying to both Sarkozy and Napoleon:
(You can find more on how the Farewell Address was written here.)
For the anti-intervention side to carry the day, I don’t think quoting the Founding Fathers’ eloquent warnings about the US’ need to remain aloof from the turmoil of an unsettled world is going to be enough.
Deterring President Obama and his advisors from rash action in Libya begins with making the White House feel it will pay a political price for intervention.
To pick up on a fine column by the Examiner’s Tim Carney, what’s needed is for Congressional Republicans (and like-minded Democrats) opposed to any Libyan adventures to hammer home the idea that “a third war in the Muslim world would be tough for [the US] military, tough for [the US] budget and tough for the American people to bear.” (Tim’s column also bravely acknowledges the risk of accidental civilian deaths resulting from US intervention.)
That’s just the message that the anti-intervention side needs to spread via talk radio, blogs, the MSM, statements on the floor of the Senate and House, etc.
If quoting Jefferson and Washington can’t make President Obama see the light, then a public outcry over the cost of intervention can at least make him feel the heat.
