Posted 07 November 2011 - 01:37 AM
Given the correlates of peaceful democratic transition, and Libya's measured placement, the violent destruction of the country's nucleus should in no way be considered auspicious. Indeed, I fear that NATO's error will likely be exponentially more disastrous than any mistake made by the Bush administration---and their "willing" coalition of liberal interventionists. Because unlike Iraq, there will be no sizable peacekeeping force to guide political outcomes.
Rather, once all the euphoria passes, I imagine many will come to the realization that democratic transitions in stratified countries are more likely to be regressive than peaceful. And given the precarious state of the global economy, it's hardly the best time to be championing uncertain "revolutions" in a region whose chief export is one of the most important determinants of inflation and output.
I never thought I'd say this, but I think the Bush administration had exercised relatively better judgement than the present administration. To be sure, both administrations made appalling decisions with long term consequences, but at least the previous administration had somewhat of a coherent strategy. In contrast, the Obama administration has distinguished itself with capricious decisions of limited foresight.
If they want to rescue their second term from disaster, I would suggest promptly removing the following officials:
1. Joseph Biden
2. Thomas Donilon
3. Susan Rice
4. Leon Panetta
5. James Steinberg
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Samantha Power
8. Denis McDonough
9. Ben Rhodes
10. Janet Napolitano---in an ideal world, there would be no Department of Homeland Security