There's no gung-ho hoo-rah that was seen in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, even if a strong argument can be mounted that intervention in Libya's internal affairs is justified.
There are many reasons for muted American enthusiasm – jaded international weariness, wariness at Libya becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan, domestic politics, and domestic concerns. (Others would argue any measures necessary to keep Charlie Sheen out of the headlines are justified.)
The New York Times reported President Obama barely mentioned Libya during his trip to Brazil while Republicans at home complained the president had waited too long to launch military action, pitching him as a “weak” leader.
“I don't know what finally got the president to act, but I'm very worried that we're taking the back seat rather than a leadership role,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on “Fox News Sunday.”
The Times added: “[Obama], who reached the White House on the strength of a forceful antiwar sentiment four years ago now has three major military conflicts under his command, with polls showing a limited appetite for increased American intervention.”
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
The Washington Post raised questions about a U.S. exit policy – that does not yet seem to exist.
“There have been lots of options which have been discussed, but I think it's very uncertain how this ends,” The Post quoted Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A Los Angeles Times editorial railed against the weekend attacks, claiming the exercise was an international public relations disaster – the U.S. again perceived as an aggressor against Islam.
“Once again the United States is bombing a Muslim country to liberate its people from their own sanguinary rulers,” wrote Edward Luttwak, in a LA Times opinion piece.
“Once again we are told that innocent civilians are being massacred and that the United States must intervene as a matter of moral duty, in its capacity as a great and good nation. But in this case – even as part of a broader, U.N.-sanctioned coalition to enforce a no-fly zone – the U.S. should not have intervened at all.”
Underlining how complex (and Afghanistanish) the situation really is – according to at least one report – is just who some of the so-called “rebels” the U.S. is protecting really are.
The Huffington Post reported that Eastern Libya is home to former Al-Qaeda “martyrs”, who fought the U.S. in Iraq in 2007.
“There is little doubt that eastern Libya, like other parts of the Arab world, is experiencing a genuine burst of anti-totalitarian fervor, expressed in demands for political freedom and economic reforms,” wrote David Wood.
“But there also is a dark history to eastern Libya, which is the home of the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi organization officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.”
The simple truth?
It's complicated. And rightly no reason to cheer.
