If he follows through, this is a damned good place to start. A lot of libertarians are strict non-interventionists. I’m not. When you are a human rights violator, I think that your shit needs to be blown up, and we’ve got the bombs. Qadhafi is certainly a human rights violator.
Obama made a clear justification of why we should take the admittedly sobering act of using military force:
Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.
The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.
The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.
That’s good enough for me. And it was good enough in Iraq, as well.
The conditions we expect Libya to meet are clear:
The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.
Qadhafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Adjabiyah, Misurata (ph) and Zawiyah (ph), and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all area.
Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Let me be clear: These terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qadhafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.
My only concern is that the president has not yet sought Congressional approval for the mission. It’s a constitutional requirement (yes, I know what the War Powers Act says, but it’s not a repeal of the constitution) and he should comply with it.
Let’s hope that the enemies of world freedom are as impotent in opposing this president on this as they were in opposing Bush in Iraq.