Liberalism’s Triumph in Libya

Tobruk, Libya. Credit: Reuters/Asmaa Waguih. Flickr/CrethiPlethi

There can be few images more iconic of the Arab spring than that of a jubilant Libyan resistance fighter gleefully wearing the ridiculously oversized hat of his former dictator in his former palace. Such an image, an organic expression of hope and freedom, stands in stark contrast to the manufactured image of the Saddam statue being torn down during the Iraq War. In the aftermath of that misguided war, few could have expected an Arab nation would not only seek, but demand a reluctant United States to intervene on its behalf.


Yet there the Libyans were waving American, British, and French flags and tearing down a sculpture commemorating the downing of US planes in the 1980s to celebrate their freedom. At its core though, this celebration of a liberated people is not so unexpected. What has been unexpected is the domestic reaction to this foreign policy triumph and President Obama’s unnecessary reluctance to take credit for it.
Consider the following facts: unlike the unilateral action in Iraq the Libyan campaign was authorized by the United Nations, swiftly waged by the NATO alliance, with zero allied casualties, limited allied expenditure, and a groundswell of support from the local population. This campaign has been a textbook example of how collective security can work to prevent genocide, defeat terrorism, and strengthen American global leadership. Liberals should be elated that their theory of foreign policy has finally been vindicated. Instead, many are echoing the Tea Party chorus and calling this war a dangerous blunder on par with Iraq, and some like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) have gone so far as to call it an impeachable offense.
Many still are following Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) in expressing unjustified fear of the Islamist bent of the Libyan opposition, including senior Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who is trying to cut their funding . It is one thing to expect the Tea Party, with its Islamophobia and opposition to ‘big government’ like the UN, to stand against the President on Libya. It is far more troubling for liberals to be giving up their historic claim to enlightened global leadership, particularly when there is so much about the Libyan campaign that demonstrates why it works.
Liberals have been in this position before in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and the malaise that followed damaged their foreign policy credibility for nearly a generation and surrendered far too much of the vital center of American foreign policy to the emerging neoconservatives. The disaster of the Iran hostage rescue, the fantasy of the nuclear freeze movement, and the lefts knee jerk opposition to the first Persian Gulf War convinced many Americans that liberalism was incapable of wisely using American power. Yet the moderate success of President Clinton and the disaster of the Iraq War have done much to restore confidence in liberalisms ability to protect the country and lead the world stage.
The Libyan campaign should show America that it has learned the lessons of Iraq: it will go in only where it is needed and wanted, it will utilize the help of our allies, and it will support rather than undermine international law by going through the United Nations. More importantly, we have learned the lessons of Rwanda as well, and will never again respond meekly to the threat of mass murder and genocide. It would serve this President well on his upcoming campaign to remind members of his own party, as well as the country as a whole, that liberalism is the best way to protect America without compromising her ideals, and to ensure that recent history does not repeat itself yet again.