creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
27 May 2012
When Will Obama Reform Presidential Pardons?

As a candidate for president in 2008, Barack Obama pledged to "immediately" review federal … Read More.

24 May 2012
In the House, Is 80 Over the Hill?

When Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., lost the GOP primary to challenger Richard Mourdock this month, Beltway … Read More.

22 May 2012
Democrats' War on Money

Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, N.J., came across as a moderate, sensible Democrat when he said on "Meet … Read More.

Gadhafi -- the Mad Dog Who Trumped the World

Share Comment

Every American should look at Libya through the prism of the 1988 Pan Am 103 terrorist bombing that left 270 people dead. Moammar Gadhafi — the man whom Ronald Reagan called the mad dog of the Middle East — ordered an attack that killed mostly American civilians in a bombing over British soil. Yet rather than be beaten by more powerful nations, he lived to crow about it.

It took more than a decade for international investigators to uncover the crime and the international community to pressure Libya to hand over two suspects for a Scottish trial — given America's death penalty, Tripoli would never go for a U.S. trial — conducted in a Dutch courtroom.

In 2001, three judges acquitted one defendant, but found onetime Libyan intelligence agent Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing and sentenced him to life — which made him eligible for parole after 27 years.

In 2003, to the shock and outrage of many, the United Nations named Libya to chair its Human Rights Commission.

Libya eventually accepted "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in the bombing and agreed to pay $2.7 billion to victims' families to end economic sanctions against Tripoli.

Gadhafi also agreed to surrender Libya's unconventional weapons and open its nuclear facilities to U.N. inspectors. Many on the right — including me — saw the move as proof that the war in Iraq had a chilling effect on tyrants with weapons of mass destruction. Washington and London looked at Gadhafi and saw a bully who had been beaten and cowed.

With these moves, and title to Africa's largest oil reserves, Gadhafi won his way into the bosom of international capitalism.

From that perch, Gadhafi then was able to engage in what a report released by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., last year called "commercial warfare" to free his man Megrahi. It used a $900 million oil exploration deal with BP as leverage to pressure the British government.

As The New York Times reported, in 2009, Libyan officials warned executives from top energy companies that there would be "serious consequences" if they didn't cough up $1.5 billion to defray Tripoli's Pan Am 103 payments. In his greed, Gadhafi appealed to the greed in others, and with some companies, it worked. A State Department cable described Libya as a "kleptocracy" in which the Gadhafi family and its allies claimed "a direct stake in anything worth buying, selling or owning."

On Aug.

20, 2009, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill released Megrahi, who ostensibly had less than three months to live. He is still alive, and according to news reports, driving a Lamborghini.

MacAskill said that Tripoli had promised to handle Megrahi's homecoming in a "low-key and sensitive fashion." President Obama said that he told the regime that Megrahi should not be "welcomed ... but instead should be under house arrest." Then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was gulled in similar fashion.

It is a clear sign of Gadhafi's scorn for Washington and London that Megrahi landed on the tarmac to a flag-waving hero's welcome. Having won it all back, Gadhafi gave the United States and United Kingdom the middle finger.

Since Libyan rebel leaders sought international help in overthrowing Gadhafi, I've been torn. Gadhafi is a thug who is holding on to power by killing his own people. And he's not afraid to lash out against enemy powers.

But I listened when Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that establishing a no-fly zone would not be as easy as some Beltway swells seemed to think.

Besides, America already is fighting two wars.

About the only conclusion I have reached so far is that it's wrong to think there's an easy answer as to what Washington should do.

Sure, there's the hypocrisy angle. A conservative can hit Obama for sending U.S. troops to fight another unfunded war against a country that presents no imminent threat without an exit strategy. But none of that matters.

What matters is what happens next.

America, Great Britain and France have superior firepower, but we just want to get on with our lives. Gadhafi wants to get even.

He has bags full of cash, an army of nasty henchmen and more resolve than can be found in all of Washington.

Gadhafi, 68, has proved to be a dangerous man to fight if you don't destroy him.

It must be music to Gadhafi's ears to hear that Obamaland won't use the word "war." Last week, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes called Operation Odyssey Dawn a "kinetic military action."

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe added to Western Europe's wet-noodle image when he announced that the destruction of Gadhafi's machine will take "days or weeks, certainly not months." These remarks were delivered during the anti-Gadhafi alliance's disquieting weeklong tussle over whether NATO would exercise command control over the coalition.

It's the post-Pan Am 103 scenario all over again. The international community just wants to end the conflict. He wants to win.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Ms. S misses the central issue here. If the Prez actually succeeds in turning this over to NATO and letting other countries do the lion's share of the work for once instead of us, that will set a huge precedent and stand as a real accomplishment. Hope he can stumble into that.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:48 PM
We still haven't established that the Libyan opposition would be any nicer or more pro-Western than the tyrant currently in power. Many say, "We couldn't do worse." Sure, we can. Saddam was worse. The Iranian mullahs and their puppet man Dinnerjacket are worse. Kim Jong-Il is worse. Lots of leaders have been overthrown in third-world countries and replaced by someone even worse. I won't even get started on the tyrants of history.

What I've been hearing lately is that a lot of Libyan fighters have been killed or captured while fighting against our soldiers in Iraq, and that these Libyans in turn are coming from the very region of the Libya where the rebellion's stronghold is located. It has also been said that the rebellion is being funded by some really nasty terror groups, including al Queda. There is no reason to think that these "rebels" are going to set up a Western-style democratic republic with an honest government, fair elections, and freedom for all.

"A conservative can hit Obama for sending U.S. troops to fight another unfunded war against a country that presents no imminent threat without an exit strategy."

No kidding, Saunders. Suddenly, I guess it's OK to meddle with the internal affairs of another country that didn't attack us on 9-11. It's OK now to bomb brown people in order to steal their oil. It's OK to spend $100 million/day to bomb a foreign country while we're laying off cops and firefighters back home. It's OK to go to war against a Muslim-majority country. It's OK to proceed without the approval of Congress or without making the case to the American people first. None of that is bad now, as evidenced by the dearth of antiwar protestors. None of that was OK when Bush was in office - the Iraq War was backed by Congress and 17 UN resolutions followed by 12 years of sanctions and inspections - but it still got called "illegal" and "immoral."

The US shouldn't be there. We have no defined objectives, no battle plan, no exit strategy. Hell, I'm still waiting to hear what the *entrance* strategy was. The French and British should have been told, "If you want to do this, do it without our help. We're a little tapped-out right now." We need to get away from there and focus on winning the two wars we're already in.

Comment: #2
Posted by: Matt
Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:54 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

6 Mar 2011 First the Public Service, Then Endless Litigation

12 Apr 2011 Academic Mission or UCLA Speech Code?

22 Sep 2011 Release of Prop. 8 Tapes Shows Judicial Hubris