Hanging over our intervention in Libya is a dread chimera—at least in the minds of President Obama and his aides: namely the perception that the U.S. is waging “another war against a Muslim nation.” Over and over we hear that this is a perception to be avoided at all costs. It helps to explain why the administration only went in after the Arab League endorsed the intervention and why the administration is so eager to keep the intervention limited even if it risks degenerating into a costly stalemate.
It is odd that the White House is so fixated on what is, after all, the Al Qaeda propaganda line. Osama bin Laden and his ilk have been arguing for years that the West is waging war on Islam, and they have had no trouble twisting the evidence to support their conclusions. They have even turned our interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo—in which we were protecting Muslims from Orthodox Christian attackers—into “proof” of America’s supposed “crusade” against Islam. It is understandable that the administration should be concerned about not feeding this propaganda line, but they should also realize we cannot craft our actions to satisfy the radicals. Consider that one of bin Laden’s chief complaints against the U.S. since 1991 was the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia. Well, after the invasion of Iraq, we pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia. I’m still waiting for the “thank you” from bin Laden’s cave.
The radicals’ criticisms are essentially cynical. They will not be satisfied with anything we do. If we had stayed out of Libya, they would complain that we were colluding with Qaddafi—a godless dictator—to slaughter pious Muslims. Now that we have intervened they will no doubt argue that we are slaughtering pious Muslims ourselves and plotting to steal Libya’s oil. There is no satisfying some people. Instead we should make the best policy decisions we can without being paralyzed by fear of military action in “another Muslim nation.”
[...] WHY ARE WE TAKING Al Qaeda’s Word on Intervention in Libya? …. [...]