Libya Abandons WMD

by Sean Hackbarth

Libya’s abandoning of WMD is one heck of a foreign policy victory for the President Bush. Without firing a shot, Gadhafi gave up. Bush bashers and members of Duck, M.D.’s raft may try to argue that diplomacy can be just as effective as war. And since war has all that destruction, they would argue diplomacy is the more moral option. Let’s look at the timeline here. From the AP story:

In London, Blair said Libya had approached Britain and the United States in March, after successful negotiations on Lockerbie, to see if it could “resolve its weapons of mass destruction issues in a similar manner.”

Gadhafi started talks at the time of the final military build-up and invasion. Would the dictator have even bothered if he didn’t think the U.S. and U.K. were willing to go to war if necessary? I’m sure Gadhafi’s reasons for abandoning WMD development are more complex than that. From my very casual following of Libyan news Gadhafi wants to bring Libya out of the international hinterlands. There may be domestic politics involved that would explain a part in his actions, but I’m very sure a possible military confrontation played a role.

Also note that Bush didn’t publically threaten Libya. Diplomacy was used. Non-U.N., non-French diplomacy to be exact.

Combine this news with Iran agreeing to international nuclear inspectors, and one can make a pretty credible case that President Bush’s muscular policy is having a positive effect.

Surfing the blogosphere, James Joyner asks, “Could it be that the ‘you’re either with us or you’re against us’ line is actually having positive results?” It’s hard to say it isn’t. The outlier is North Korea. Hindrocket at Power Line is happy writing, “if the administration’s tough line can yield results like these, its wisdom should be beyond question.” HipperCritical has a wide range of links on this story. To give you an idea how knee-jerk Bush bashers are taking this news, here’s an Oliver Willis quote:

You mean we can stop WMDs without invading and occupying nations? Unpossible!

Libya to Give Up Weapons Programs”

UPDATE: Oliver reminds me that he thinks Blair and Bush did a good job. So I’ll take back calling him a “knee-jerk Bush basher” in this instance. Oliver caught me. Me bad, me sorry. I’ll try not to be so knee-jerk myself.

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

7 Responses to “Libya Abandons WMD”

1

Oliver Willis the man who thinks 2 million + 113 billion is equal to 1.

Diplomacy is the only option. Military action is never an option. Therefore we no longer need the Military or any weapons of any kind in America. We only need words.

Sorry, Willis. President Bush’s Doctrine on the War on Terrorism is to ‘Speak softy, and carry a big stick.”

What the Liberals love to do is compare Bush with Reagan. But, what about comparing Bush with Teddy Roosevelt? I donno.

The only thought coming to my mind is that there can be no diplomacy won from a nation that can’t win wars. America can win wars. America has captured Saddam Hussein. America has reduced Saddam to a rat in a hole! I’m sure Gadahfi was basically scared into submission.

2

“America has reduced Saddam to a rat in a hole! I’m sure Gadahfi was basically scared into submission.”

That’s what it looks like to me. Peace through strength works again.

3

Don’t tell me you’re into the selective quoting game too, Sean, or did you just happen to miss the part where I said “kudos to Blair and Bush for this accomplishment”? Shame.

4

I’m Sure This Had Nothing To Do With Iraq

Libya Vows to Give Up Banned Weapons (washingtonpost.com) Almost exactly nine months to the hour after we bombed that bunker in Baghdad, Libya has decided to peacefully dismantle its WMD program. The program has been verified and admitted to. Gaddafi…

5

Unless you delete that particular phrase/sentence whatever that was quoted from you, I don’t see any shame in quoting it here and commenting on it.

What I mean is that you wrote it and never took it out or edited it and therefore still stand by it.

6

Ugh. Sean. You should have stuck to your guns on this one. There’s no reason what so ever to place that update.

Ridiculing Bush’s entire Doctrine or at least 1/2 of it depending on where you come from and praising him misses the point.

Oliver is still a knee-jerk Bush basher when it comes to the Bush Doctrine on Foreign Policy. And that is PRECISELY what was inferred by myself from your comment about Oliver. Which, would then make you justly correct in saying it.

7

Oliver was still Bush bashing, but it wasn’t knee jerk. Don’t worry. The entire post says plenty about Oliver’s views.

TAM is about intellectual honesty, and I’m not infallible.