Art Buchwald, the late humorous columnist, once wrote that everyone in the world should be able to vote for the President of the United State, since the U.S. seems to think the whole world is its responsibility.
I thought about that when we recently decided to start raining cruise missiles on Libya (at roughly $600,000 a shot, by the way). I don't mean to sound unpatriotic -- I'm just confused.
Were we attacking Libya because its whacked-out dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, was in the process of brutally repressing a civil revolt? Then why did we not also blast a few holes in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, countries whose response to these pro-democracy movements seemed equally repressive? Or how about the regimes in Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and a dozen other affronts to human rights?
Or was this because we decided Ghadafy was behind the on-board explosion that brought Pam Am Flight 103 down all over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988? If so, what took us so long?
And whatever the reason, can we really justify, let alone afford, intervening in civil wars all over the globe? Does this really help our image?
I know that if I were someone living in an Arab country, I'd be pretty freaked out by the events in Libya. The very unpredictability of our armed responses -- whether in concert with the UK and France or alone -- sends the message: "These people consider themselves to be everyone's big brother. If they like you, they'll throw money at you. If they don't, watch out!"
It reminds me of that cartoon where God looks down at all the disharmony on Earth and says: "Don't make me have to come down there!"
Almost invariably, though, we wind up being dissatisfied with who winds up in charge when the dust clears. Getting rid of a dictator always leaves a vaccuum, and at that point, it can become "Be careful what you wish for."
Isn't there any sort of template as to when we barge into someone else's affairs and when we don't? Maybe we should come up with one.
Or, as Art Buchwald suggested, let everybody vote.
Advertisement