Roger Cohen's "Libyan Closure": The West Should Not Intervene Owing to "Moral Bankruptcy"

A condensed version of the following blog entry, which was submitted as an online comment in response to Roger Cohen's op-ed, "Libyan Closure", was censored by The New York Times:

Regarding his opposition to Western military intervention in Libya, Roger Cohen writes today in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Libyan Closure" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss):

"But the deepest reason is the moral bankruptcy of the West with respect to the Arab world. Arabs have no need of U.S. or European soldiers as they seek the freedom that America and the European Union were content to deny them. Qaddafi can be undermined without Western military intervention. He cannot prevail: Some officer will eventually make that plain."

There is no mention in this op-ed of the Lockerbie bombing, which killed all 243 passengers and 16 crew members on Pan Am Flight 103. Libya's ex-justice minister, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, has acknowledged what all the world already knew: Qaddafi personally ordered this bombing in 1988. When weighing "moral bankruptcy", why has Cohen omitted this horror?

Moreover, given Cohen's line of reasoning, should the U.S. also avoid any intercession in the Congo, where 5 million people have been slaughtered, or in Darfur, where another half million people have been murdered, inasmuch as slavery was once legal in the U.S.?

Or given that England expelled the Jews in 1290, did this justify the decision not to bomb the railroad lines leading to Auschwitz during World War II?

Wait until "some officer" ultimately disposes of Qaddafi? How many thousands of innocents will die in the interim?

Personally I prefer immediately making deep holes in Qaddafi's airfields, thereby leveling the playing field for the rebels, and I am embarrassed to note that for once, John Kerry and I are in agreement.

But it need be noted that Roger is in fact echoing the thoughts of President Obama (Surprise, surprise!), who likes "to watch" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/02/jg-caesarea-middle-east-iq-test.html). As reported in an excellent New York Times article entitled "Discord Fills Washington on Possible Libya Intervention" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08policy.html?hp), David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker tell us:

"Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some critics of the United States in the region — as well as some leaders — have already claimed that a Western conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken the Middle East.

'He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic,' the senior official said, quoting the president."

"Organic"? The president appears to be confusing revolutions with Michelle's garden. Last I remember, the 13 American colonies received no small amount of vital assistance from France during their war of independence, but heck, that was so many years ago.