Pushmi-Pullyu

What Dr. Doolittle may have known about conversations with animals ain’t nuffin’ compared to what happens when you spend almost half the entire globe’s military budget, have stealth everything, have submerged Tomahawk cruise missile platforms, carriers capable of launching top-of-the-line aircraft with air-to-ground pinpoint accurate targeting smart bombs, and air bases capable of deploying “don’t bother to use radar because you can’t see ‘em anyway” B-2 bombers and F-117 Night Hawks.

It seems that when a “first strike” is required that must take out air defenses fast, neutralize threats in any designated airspace and implement the necessary “no fly zone” established by just about anybody, we seem to be the go-to nation. Sure Russians could do something, and the French and the Brits have both carriers and subs on station near the Middle East… or we could ignite a very short fuse and let the Israeli Air Force alienate every power in the region, probably beginning a modest version of World War III… but it is clear that it is the U.S. that has the relevant military capacity to get the job done better and faster than anyone else. We are the overwhelmingly equipped country to mount the initial attack.

And when it comes to Libya, with Russians and Chinese abstaining from the U.N. sanctioned “no fly zone” and “protect the civilians” resolution, notwithstanding that the French took the lead and officially were the first nation to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government in Libya, it was American aircraft and naval vessels that did the heavy lifting (heavy dropping?) of missiles and smart bombs over Libya military targets. Britain and France were there as well and there was support from the United Arab Emirates, but clearly U.S. military might was the main stopping power deployed. Sure, we say, “we’ll be out in a couple of days, and others will take it from here…,” but who will forget who struck the first massive blow? And when they ask us for “more,” what exactly will we say? We’re the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room.

While the Arab league was convinced to utter a half-hearted “request” to the United Nations to create and administer the “no fly zone” over Libyan airspace, presumably to minimize civilian casualties, their leaders – noting the mounting civilian casualties (the inevitable “collateral damage) – are now saying that the ground attacks (necessary to neutralize the Libyan military from inflicting more harm on rebel forces and to negate their anti-aircraft capacity) went well-beyond the “no fly” mandate. The Los Angeles Times (March 21^st) reports: “[W]ith French warplanes and U.S. Tomahawk missiles streaking across the North African sky, the [Arab League] is criticizing the air assault as Arab kings and presidents confront decades-old ironies, religious animosities and fears they will be blamed for siding with Western imperialism… There are concerns that foreign intervention may reignite Islamic radicalism that so far has not resonated with largely secular protest movements not rooted in religion or ideology. Kadafi has few sympathizers in the region but rallying against him is likely to pose credibility problems for regimes attempting to calm growing dissent at home.”

Reading among the lines: the U.S. is both desired and resented because its military might is so ubiquitous and so associated (deserved or not) with anti-Islamic movements and Western ideologies that form the backbone of Muslim fundamentalist movements in the region, movements that are gaining traction and followers by the moment. In short, our doing what we perceive to be “the right thing” in supporting local Arabs against a brutal dictatorship also carries with it the “shaking hands with the devil” component that only serves to reinforce the already overpowering anti-American sentiments in the Middle East and North Africa, based on a perception of “the biggest bully with the biggest arsenal” dictating local policy all over the globe.

Thus having the most powerful military on earth with a willingness to use that force as a global policeman is viewed as a necessary evil that way too many people resent. Have we inadvertently provided more fodder for recruitment posters for militants hell-bent on proving their moxie by taking out civilian targets in the U.S.? Is this an argument for cutting our military budget so that we aren’t the first place folks look to initiate such attacks? How much of that budget is really defending America and protecting her interests versus getting the U.S. in first-strike attacks that never seem to make us any new friends? Have we defended or merely “baited”?

I’m Peter Dekom, and I am reminded of that oft-repeated phrase that “no good deed goes unpunished.”