U.S. should extricate itself quickly from Libyan action

Outside military intervention in Libya was the last option the West, including the United States, should have been willing to pursue, and President Barack Obama was correct in resisting early calls for this country to “do more.”

What’s happening in Libya is a civil war, and the record of success when the United States has insinuated itself into civil wars is less than encouraging.

Nonetheless, Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi turned out to be his own worst enemy. By announcing that he would recognize amnesty for any rebel who put down his arms, but would seek out and kill any who didn’t, he was announcing to civilized nations that if they remained passive now they would be complicit in his genocide later.

That said, U.S. technology and tactical support is key in the early days of establishing the no-fly zone that will make it more difficult for Gadhafi to pursue his scorched-earth policy. But there should be no question that controlling or removing Gadhafi is a U.N.-sanctioned effort that was endorsed by the Arab League and European allies.

The responsibility for sustaining any military action in North Africa should be carried by Europe, not the United States.

Reasons for reticence

For one thing, the United States is already stretched thin militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan and over extended financially virtually everywhere it is maintaining a military presence.

For another, most Americans — in and out of government — are kidding themselves if they claim to understand the dynamics of regional politics in North Africa and the Middle East.

Democracy as a fundamental human right is a beautiful philosophy. But in reality, democracy, like any political system, has the ability to turn on even its most ardent supporters.

Witness what happened in Gaza, when Hamas won popular support. Or the new and stronger ties between post-Saddam Iraq and still-fundamentalist Iran. Will the fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and the rise of a democratic movement there result in an enlightened secular government or a government that represses women and minorities?

In virtually every democratic movement in the Middle East and Northern Africa, there is a strain of Muslim fundamentalism and anti-Americanism, often represented by arms of al-Qaida. And every time the United States aligns itself against a dictator like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak or Moammar Gadhafi, it does so hoping that those anti-American elements will not dominate the new government.

An argument can be made that the less active and less visible the United States remains, the better is the chance for moderates in the opposition to carry the day.

Which is just another reason for Obama to make it clear that Europe, not the United States, must be front and center in Libya.