David Ignatius: Obama chose the right course on Libya

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-chose-the-right-course-on-libya/2011/10/20/gIQAnsp90L_story.html?hpid=z2

Obama chose the right course on Libya
By David Ignatius, Published: October 20


snip//

What was good about President Obama’s cautious, back-seat approach to Libya was that it denied Gaddafi the final, apocalyptic confrontation with the United States that he craved. Sorry, Moammar, but America was just part of a NATO coalition this time. Indeed, the denouement in Libya has been a good argument for halfway measures (or at least, half-visible ones).

This was an instance when Mr. Cool had it pretty much right. Obama saw that a no-fly zone wouldn’t be enough and lobbied for tougher United Nations language authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect the Libyan people. But he opted for limited U.S. involvement, front-loaded into the first week and under the protective cover of NATO and the Arab League.

Obama deliberately kept the United States in the background even when critics began howling for a show of American “leadership.” And most important, he was patient through the summer, rejecting the counsel of those who argued that he must escalate U.S. military intervention to break the stalemate or, alternatively, bail out.

snip//

Obama took a lot of shots along the way to Thursday’s symbolic end of the Libya campaign. But it seems fair to say that his vision of opposing Gaddafi through a broad, international coalition — in which other nations shared the burden, for a change — worked out pretty well.

[razorman]

1. I'm sorry, but I don't see much difference between this situation and Iraq, except

in a matter of degree. Does the fact that Qadaffi was killed make our involvement any more right? If so, then our operations in Iraq were justified by Sadaam Hussein's capture. "International support" isn't the difference. We had allies(such as they were) in Iraq, too.
Fortunately, we apparently did not use any significant ground troops in Libya. Libya was no threat to us. Neither are Egypt or Uganda. What national interest do we have in any of those places(including Iraq) that justify U.S. military presence?
If President Obama now starts trying to take credit for Qadaffi's defeat, it will seem to me like GWB's "Mission Accomplished" moment. Now the really hard work begins.
I am afraid that I do not have much faith that anything resembling democracy will result in any of those nations in the long run. Basically, I guess I just believe that we should start minding our own business. We have our own problems, without interfering in every third-world civil war that pops up.