The Libyan Domino Effect, Ctd

Jan 23 2013 @ 1:29pm

Bob Wright interviews Demba Boundy on the ground in Bamako, Mali:

Meanwhile, Andrew McCarthy recently said on Hannity:

But I think what’s really interesting, Sean, if you remember — you’ll remember this, Judy, you will, too, 2004, 2005, 2006 we were arguing whether George Bush had brought al Qaeda to Iraq. Now we have a situation where al Qaeda has been basically given the northern portion of a continent and they’ve been armed, because this ridiculous thing we did in Libya where we took out someone who was at the time was deemed to be an American ally, didn’t worry about who was going to come behind him and what ended up happening? His arsenal is now in the hands of terrorists.

Hayes Brown rebuts McCarthy and joins others in questioning the connection between Qaddafi’s fall and the Islamists’ rise:

Leaving aside the moral questions in allowing Qaddafi in power after his threatening to massacre his people, the idea that the intervention in Libya led directly to the current state of play in Mali has yet to be conclusively proven. The quick spread of AQIM in Mali was sped along by two factors: a new wave of rebellion by the Taureg ethnic group in the North and a coup by low-level officers in April 2012. That neither one of those events would have happened without the Libyan intervention is uncertain, given the weakness of the Malian government, shifting explanations the coup leaders gave for their takeover and that the rebellion appears to have been previously planned. None of which backs McCarthy’s claim that Obama is to blame for Mali’s current troubles as Bush was for Iraq’s.

That latter claim is loony. But those of us who warned about the unintended consequences of high-minded military interventions without a full Congressional debate or approval beforehand would not be surprised by this turn of events. It’s always easy to go in. Not so easy to get out without others filling the vacuum. What you break, you own. And what you reap, you sow.