Stopping “Mad Dog Gaddafi”
Published in Salzburger Nachrichten
(Austria) on 24 February 2011
by Thomas Spang (link to
original)
President Obama has taken a clear stance on the Libyan conflict. Now the United States and its allies can deal decisively with it.
Former President Ronald Reagan once called Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi the “mad dog of the Middle East.” Anyone who heard the bizarre tirade Gaddafi aimed at his rebellious countrymen would be hard-pressed to disagree with that. This man is determined to take as many people as possible with him when he falls, as he certainly will.
It took four days for President Obama to go public with clear language on the subject of Gaddafi’s brutal repression. His critics said he took far too long. Did the Nobel Peace Prize laureate hesitate because he didn’t care what was happening in Libya, or was it perhaps because he was being deliberative? The idea that he lacked sympathy for the demonstrators’ cause is absurd on its face, as he has since sharply condemned the bloodletting and has dispatched his diplomats to coordinate concrete steps for a common response with America’s allies.
The reason for the hesitation goes back to the Reagan days. Reagan’s 1981 inaugural coincided with the release of the U.S. hostages being held by the Iranian revolutionaries, a traumatic incident for superpower America. In Libya, there was a very real possibility “Mad Dog Gaddafi” would have seen it as a challenge from his old archenemy, the United States, and might have responded by taking Americans hostage. The U.S. government wanted to avoid presenting him with that opportunity, so Obama didn’t go public until all his diplomats were safely aboard the ferry that was to evacuate them. Obama’s silence was prolonged because persistent bad weather in Tripoli prevented the boat from leaving as scheduled. Avoiding the microphones for four days makes far more sense than being humiliated for 444 days. American hostages, after all, meant something far different to the unpredictable dictator than a couple of Italians in detention.
Instead of squabbling over style, what really needs to be emphasized first is the matter of what might realistically be done to protect the Libyan people and stop the “mad dog”. A no-fly zone would help, as would sanctions against the tottering regime. Europe should just be happy that a cool pragmatist like Obama was at the controls when this crisis hit. The disastrous results of George W. Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” still serve as a lesson in the region. At the very least, this incident should show once and for all how little it helps to shoot from the hip, even with the best of intentions.
Former President Ronald Reagan once called Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi the “mad dog of the Middle East.” Anyone who heard the bizarre tirade Gaddafi aimed at his rebellious countrymen would be hard-pressed to disagree with that. This man is determined to take as many people as possible with him when he falls, as he certainly will.
It took four days for President Obama to go public with clear language on the subject of Gaddafi’s brutal repression. His critics said he took far too long. Did the Nobel Peace Prize laureate hesitate because he didn’t care what was happening in Libya, or was it perhaps because he was being deliberative? The idea that he lacked sympathy for the demonstrators’ cause is absurd on its face, as he has since sharply condemned the bloodletting and has dispatched his diplomats to coordinate concrete steps for a common response with America’s allies.
The reason for the hesitation goes back to the Reagan days. Reagan’s 1981 inaugural coincided with the release of the U.S. hostages being held by the Iranian revolutionaries, a traumatic incident for superpower America. In Libya, there was a very real possibility “Mad Dog Gaddafi” would have seen it as a challenge from his old archenemy, the United States, and might have responded by taking Americans hostage. The U.S. government wanted to avoid presenting him with that opportunity, so Obama didn’t go public until all his diplomats were safely aboard the ferry that was to evacuate them. Obama’s silence was prolonged because persistent bad weather in Tripoli prevented the boat from leaving as scheduled. Avoiding the microphones for four days makes far more sense than being humiliated for 444 days. American hostages, after all, meant something far different to the unpredictable dictator than a couple of Italians in detention.
Instead of squabbling over style, what really needs to be emphasized first is the matter of what might realistically be done to protect the Libyan people and stop the “mad dog”. A no-fly zone would help, as would sanctions against the tottering regime. Europe should just be happy that a cool pragmatist like Obama was at the controls when this crisis hit. The disastrous results of George W. Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” still serve as a lesson in the region. At the very least, this incident should show once and for all how little it helps to shoot from the hip, even with the best of intentions.
Previous article![]( "U.S. Veto Not the Final Word")
