Diplomacy ... now there's a funky idea!

The Obama administration has been criticized for ... well for lots of things, but one criticism has been leveled at their response to events in Libya. Well, actually there are a whole set of often conflicting criticisms of the American response, but the one that I am most interested in has to do with the timing. The criticism is that the United States moved to slow … that the no-fly zone should have been in place days if not weeks earlier. The response to this is really rather simple. The Obama administration decided to use diplomacy. They wanted a broad coalition, unlike the one we marched into Iraq with under the second Bush. They wanted the involvement of Arab countries. They wanted the Security Council to sign off on this. They did not want to go it alone. This approach took time. It also took into account the reality of our situation. We can't do whatever we want. Those days are over, or they ever existed. We are already involved in a war or two. We don't actually have that much influence in the region and the last President damaged our standing in the region (and beyond) with his actions, and for these and other reasons our involvement has negative repercussions for the people we are trying to help. Besides, diplomacy actually has a few things going for it in any circumstance. I am actually really happy with the response, because it shows planning, thoughtfulness, an awareness of long term implications, and generally a sense that how you do something is as important, if not more important, than what you do. It is just like the move away from torture. Any short term gains of that approach to terrorism are overwhelmed by the long term implications. The question isn't whether we want to stop terrorism or whether we want to support a new regime in Libya, the question is how should we go about doing these things. Whatever the result, the Obama administration has gone about this in the right way, and that is what we have some control over ... that is what is important.