The President will address the American people tonight on the situation in Libya and the NATO and U.S. mission. Like most Americans, I am a tad confused about what we are doing in Libya and, for that matter, in the region generally. I hasten to add that I support our active involvement; I simply hope that our leaders will find the voice to articulate the principles behind our actions.
The confusion created by the apparent differences between Secretaries Gates and Clinton on yesterday’s news shows underscored the importance of tonight’s presidential address. Secretary Gates, perhaps correctly, said Libya is NOT a “vital interest” of the U.S., but surely U.S. support for the reform movement now sweeping the Middle East is a vital interest, as Secretary Clinton has made clear. In my view, the President must state plainly that this IS our vital national interest — what motivates our actions, what dictates and makes clear our objective and what lays out the path to our legal and morally defensible end game.
QGA had the very great privilege to be one of those who represented the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 — the horrific 1988 Lockerbie bombing — that took the lives of hundreds of Americans. This breathtaking act of cowardice was done at the hands of agents of Gaddhafi and, amazingly, required years of effort to gain any semblance of accountability and justice from his regime.
But that experience is not the basis for my concern that our current definition of the Libyan mission is too vague. Rather, we have always been best as a nation when clear principle has guided our use of force or our quiet diplomacy — whether Lincoln’s clear determination to save the Union, Wilson’s efforts to “make the world safe for democracy” or Reagan’s insistence that the wall separating communism and a free world be torn down. When we are clear and in the right the United States has been a beacon to the world. We have that chance today.
We don’t always intervene militarily when we have a vital interest at stake, but we do try to intervene only if we have such a stake. We are using force in Libya because we do have a vital interest in the outcome of this revolution. The President needs to acknowledge and articulate that interest, demonstrate a clear path to achieving this clear goal and persuade the American people to support that goal given the sacrifice of life and resources involved.
It is manifestly the vital interest of the United States to ensure an outcome in Libya that is pro-democracy, anti-terrorism and at least neutral to the West. In the absence of a popular uprising, we would not have been justified in the use of force against Libya. Now, however, we and our allies have the opportunity, with relatively low risk, to support a domestic rebellion that puts an end to the reign of a man who has been a sponsor of terrorism aimed at our people. The outcome of the rebellion is still uncertain: it could lead to a government that encourages terrorism even more horrific than the bombing of Pan Am 103 or it might lead to a government that works with us to defeat the Al Qaedas of the world. Given this, we have a clear and justifiable national interest. We should not be reticent about insisting upon our right to stand up to tyranny when that tyranny is tottering and its downfall might lead to an even more threatening regime than that with which we have dealt for decades.
So, we are right to be involved in Libya. Indeed, my own view is that we are being far too timid in supporting these democracy movements in northern Africa and the Middle East. Our heritage and our interest require vastly more overt, plain-spoken and aggressive support of those movements in all of the countries where they have arisen. Moreover, as the dominoes fall, one begins to see the blood and the treasure that our military has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in a new light. Perhaps, as when the Cold War ended, the Bush policy of supporting democracy in the Middle East is finally paying dividends in the region. Regardless, the very real possibility exists that one or more of these dictatorial regimes will fall into the hands of our enemies if we fail now to defend and protect the seeds of liberty at this propitious hour. We simply must take the steps necessary to minimize the likelihood of another 9/11 or another Pan Am 103 happening ever again.
I strongly suspect that there is no compromising with Gaddafi. And, even if there were, I think it clear that there is no acceptable solution that includes him in the end-game. Indeed, if the United States leaves Libya with him in any form of control, the likelihood of his launching horrific retaliatory attack on American citizens is far too great for our government to accept. That leaves us but one choice: regime change as a clear objective and a willingness to use force to ensure it occurs.
Written QGA Chairman and Founder Jack Quinn