National Review Opposes Military Intervention


Wow. Here's how National Review came down in its editorial on Libya:

Qaddafi’s regime doesn’t appear to be doing much of its murder from the air. If we are serious about limiting his ability to massacre his countrymen, the no-fly zone would have to become a no machine-gun zone, too in other words an honest-to-goodness military intervention to affect events directly on the ground. 

They go on to ask why we would taint "the indigenous glory of [the rebels] ouster of Qaddafi with an almost entirely symbolic Western military action?":

The reason that the revolts of 2011 have had a dramatic catalyzing effect across the region, when the invasion of Iraq didn’t, is that they are the handiwork of Middle Eastern populations themselves, and thus a much more appealing model of change. Indeed, it is a sign of how home-grown these rebellions have been that President Obama’s mealy-mouthed passivity hasn’t stopped them from rolling on.

Ah yes. We shouldn't taint the "indigenous glory" of the Middle East revolts, but the US president should be posturing that he is involved and in support. Do they not see that this is an internal contradiction? Still, it's good to see some sanity back on the right, even if it is tained by the indigenous partisanship that still keeps their pulses on fire.

(Photo: A Libyan opposition army soldier poses outside an army barrack in Benghazi on March 1, 2011. Libyan rebels said they have formed a military council in the eastern city of Benghazi in what could be a step towards creating a unified nationwide force against leader Moamer Kadhafi. By Marco Longari/AFP/Getty Images)