If You Strike the King You Must Kill Him

The United States has initiated military action in a third Middle Eastern country.

Let's acknowledge: 1) Colonel Qaddafi is a brutal dictator who has imprisoned, tortured, and killed many of his own people; 2) Libyan terrorist actions are known to have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Westerners over the past 42 years; 3) If Colonel Qaddafi leaves office--voluntarily or not--many will rejoice and few will mourn; 4) President Obama's actions so far are within the bounds of the War Powers Resolution enacted during the Nixon Administration.

All that said, American policy toward Libya is a confusing muddle of objectives, methods, and resources. The President said "it is U.S. policy that Qaddafi needs to go." However, the military's orders fall well short of regime change: the United States is attacking Libya's air defenses and through the enforcement of a "no-fly zone" has curtailed Qaddafi's ability to slaughter Libyan rebels and innocents. The hard work of overthrowing Qaddafi will be left to the rebels, who lack the means and skills, and coalition partners, who probably lack the will.

If Qaddafi battles on and the coalition partners lose their resolve, what then? The President said on March 18th: "The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya." President Obama has holstered the threat of sending the marines to the shores of Tripoli. We have struck the king and are leaving it to others to kill him.

When Saddam survived the first Iraq war, removing him later became much more costly. Let's hope that history doesn't repeat.