A FOREIGN POLICY OF POLITICAL INTERESTS, NOT NATIONAL INTERESTS

The one indisputable benefit for Americans in the death last Thursday of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi/Gaddafy/Khadafy is that we’ll fret no longer over the spelling of his name.

Pundits left and right hailed the dictator’s death as a triumph of President Barack Hussein Obama’s policy of "leading from the rear" on Libya.

"By building an international coalition, the president managed nonetheless to make Americans part of the fight and oust Qaddafi," said liberal Juan Williams.

"Qaddafi’s death was the only acceptable ending," agreed conservative columnist Debra Saunders.  "The campaign worked, and that’s what counts."

Yet Mr. Qaddafi’s death was not the most significant foreign policy development last week.  On Friday (1021), the president announced the 39,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq "will come home by the end of the year."

This was always the plan, said Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough.  In fact, however, the administration had been negotiating to permit thousands of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as a barrier to Iranian aggression.  Every major Iraqi political party save that of the Moqtada al Sadr, an Iranian puppet, wanted U.S. troops to stay.  But the administration bungled the negotiations.

"We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace," retired Gen. Jack Keane, an architect of the "surge" strategy that brought victory, told the Washington Times.

The bungling may not be due entirely to incompetence.  The U.S. commander in Iraq wanted 14,000-18,000 troops to remain, but the White House objected.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed off on 10,000 troops, but the White House still balked.

The creation of a democratic, pro-Western government in Iraq was a victory for the United States.  But it wasn’t a victory for Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama conducts foreign policy with his political interests more in mind than our national interests, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, charged Sunday (10/23).

Those political interests were foremost in the minds of many liberals.

"After the death of bin Laden, al-Awlaki, and now, indirectly, Qaddafi, (Obama) is left with a terrific narrative in terms of making the case that Democrats aren’t weak on national security," Mr. Williams said.

Mr. Obama’s campaign quickly sent out a fund-raising letter celebrating Mr. Qaddafi’s demise.  But what does it mean for the United States?

Mr. Qaddafi’s regime was behind the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, and the 1986 bombing of a discotheque in West Berlin frequented by U.S. troops.  He got what he deserved.

But after Ronald Reagan bombed his palaces in retaliation for the disco attack, the Libyan dictator stopped active support of terror groups.  And after Saddam Hussein was ousted, he surrendered his weapons of mass destruction.

"I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq," Mr. Qaddafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

So though Mr. Qaddafi remained an evil mean nasty rotten guy, he no longer posed a threat, as Mr. Obama recognized at the G8 summit in July, 2009.

"President Obama shook hands with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi Thursday (7/09/09), a sign that relations have improved considerably between the U.S. and the North African nation," Fox News reported then.

The U.S. benefits only if the new regime is democratic and pro-Western.  That’s unlikely.  Sharia law will be the basis of the new government, interim leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil reiterated Sunday.  Several rebel leaders have ties to al Qaeda.

Mr. Obama hesitates to take action against dictatorships which are threats.

Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad faces a broader popular revolt than did Mr. Qaddafi, and is responding more ruthlessly.  Since his own security forces are reluctant to massacre their fellow countrymen, Mr. Assad has brought in the Iranian Republican Guard to do the job.  Our ambassador had to be recalled Monday (10/23) because of "credible threats against his personal safety."

The administration still hopes to have a "dialogue" with Mr. Assad.

Iran plotted to kill Saudi Arabia‘s ambassador to the U.S. by detonating a bomb in a crowded Washington restaurant, the administration announced Oct. 11.  The administration’s response has been to make a gift of Iraq to Iran.

"Large elements in the State and Defense Departments are horrified by Obama’s Middle East policy," said Barry Rubin, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. 

"State gasps as Obama dismantles a Middle East policy it has spent decades building and nurturing. The Defense Department is burdened with new commitments and handed impossible missions by a man its officials know looks down on them, has little sympathy for their problems, and no appreciation of their professional culture."

Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.