A reader writes:
The US media seems to have formed a view of the Libyan war as being US led and driven and be worrying about it leading to greater US intervention. I think that is mistaken. This particular war is being driven by the UK and France,, and contrary to the usual case, the US is not the 'indispensable' ally. The UK and France could act alone if necessary but clearly welcome the US support.
Gaddafi is not Saddam Hussein, he is not merely a domestic tyrant, he has financed and supported terrorism in Europe and the connection is proven rather than hypothetical. Gaddafi supplied Action Directe and the IRA with unmarked semtex explosive, the explosive used in the Brighton bomb that was intended to murder Thatcher and her cabinet. Americans should not be surprised that Cameron would take the opportunity to take out Gaddafi.
In addition to the explosives, Gaddafi's ordered the Lockerbie bombing and his embassy staff murdered a UK policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher while on duty by shooting her from the London embassy.
The main concern on the left seems to be the fear that an attack on Libya leads to a renewed Bush doctrine. I don't think that is the case at all, this is a very small scale action. Libya has a population of only 6 million and at least half of them have already joined the revolt. anyone who extrapolates from the outcome in Libya to conclude that an attack on Iran would be a cakewalk is a fool.
The UK and France have the benefit of short supply lines. Their home bases are within flying distance of their target. The forward bases in Italy are reducing the flying time and allowing for rapid turn around but it is within the capabilities of the French and UK military to deny Gaddafi air power and mechanized infantry.
The main reason the US seems to want to be involved seems to be to avoid being left out. If the UK and France could take out Libya on their own, people might start asking if the US really needs to have a military an order of magnitude larger than the UK and French forces combined.
