Libya Deal Shows Need for Change in US Tactics (?)
The White House portrayed Libya's promise to abandon weapons of mass destruction programs as affirmation of President Bush's hard-line strategy on arms proliferation and suggested the U.S.-led war in Iraq helped convince Moammar Gadhafi that he should act.
Some arms control experts, however, point to what is known about how and when the agreement came about and say that Libya's turnaround offers proof the United States should shift tactics in dealing with North Korea, Syria and other nations. A greater commitment is needed, they say, to the kind of patient but firm diplomacy that worked with Libya.
"The president is trying hard to portray this as a victory for his strategy," said Joseph Cirincione, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's nonproliferation project. "But when you look at this, it's almost the opposite of the Bush doctrine."
Get the rest of the story from USA Today.
Matt's Chat
I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article: that the war in Iraq had absolutely no effect on Libya. While I will not say that the war was the sole factor in Libya's decision, I believe it is terribly naive to think that the war had no effect on Libya.The author informs us that the Libyan offer came to Britain and not the United States as if that is something new. That was to be expected, Britain took the lead role in the negotiations with Libya over the Lockerbie bombing. Britain had open some channels for Libya. But it was still Libya's responsibility to do what was right. I support the idea that Libya realized (with the Lockerbie deal) that there was some value in rejoining the world community. The Iraq war merely applied the proper punctuation to the thought.
The President is absolutely right, each situation requires a different response from the United States because each situation has different factors involved in the case. With Libya, it was clear that with sufficient political and diplomatic pressure, a deal could be made.
Similarly, the North Korea situation is being looked at from a number of perspectives and the one getting the most results at the moment is diplomacy. The military option is still on the table, but I don't support that action at this time for two reasons: diplomacy has a real chance of success (if NK and China can be trusted, which is arguable), and that our military is already engaged on two fronts in the war against terrorism (that is not to say that I don't think our forces could do it successfully, but rather I think it is better to exhaust the diplomatic options before giving the Pentagon additional work).
Don't be fooled, the Iraq war had an effect on Libya and was a factor in the decision to come forward now.
Mark's Remarks
OK, about the same time we are getting ready to go to Iraq, negotiations begin. This is after Afghanistan and during the whole "saber rattling" over Iraq. During the months that follow, we rout Iraq, go further, faster, and with as few casualties as any war in history, and the libs out there are trying to tell us that THAT did not make a difference to ol' Quadaffi? Give me a break. How stupid do they really take us for?
Quadaffi has always budged only with threats (and sometimes actions) of force. Reagan silenced him for years with the bombing of Tripoli. Plain and simple, Quadaffi looked around, and saw a lot in common between he and Saddam. Both are dictators, whose populations are divided in their "unswerving allegiance" to the "fearless" leader. Both are getting older. Both engaged in rhetoric and support of terror. Then he saw the Taliban, Saddam topple over. Who would be next? Libya! among other possibilities. The threat of possible invasion played a huge role. Why do you think the REAL MAJOR breakthrough occurred only after Saddam was captured. That eliminated any hope of Quadaffi having a spark to resist with. But, of course, liberals will twist this into: appeasement and UN style diplomacy work, this is proof. BULLSH__! Sorry, but this distortion really gets on my nerves. The true lesson here is that peace through strength works, and it is better to have the option of invasion on the table than be afraid to use it.
