After Libya, A New Era In U.S. Foreign Policy?

A New Era In U.S. Foreign Policy -- Fareed Zakaria, CNN

Back in March, many neoconservatives in Washington were extremely dismissive of the way President Obama was handling the intervention in Libya. They argued that he was doing too little and acting too late – that his approach was too multilateral and lacked cohesiveness. They continuously criticized President Obama for, in the words of an anonymous White House advisor, "leading from behind."



But now that these critics are confronted with the success of the Libya operation, they are changing their tune and claiming paternity of the operation. They are further arguing that if their advice had been heeded, the intervention in Libya would have been swifter and even more successful. But the Libya intervention is so significant precisely because it did not follow the traditional pattern of U.S.-led interventions. Indeed, it launched a new era in U.S. foreign policy.



Read more ....



My Comment: Talk about hubris .... it is this type of mindset that has gotten the U.S. in conflicts that they should never have put their nose in .... and yes .... Libya was one of those conflicts. I am saying this because we are repeating history. This type of thinking was also prevalent after Nato's/America's successful bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo War .... a conflict that resulted in minimum U.S. and Nato casualties. A few years later .... with confidence in our military might .... we ended up in conflicts from Afghanistan .... Iraq .... and God knows in how many other small and insignificant places.



On a side note .... blow-back may still happen because of our involvement in Libya. Gaddafi is still on the loose, and he has many friends and allies, money, crude WMDs, and resources to do great harm .... Fareed Zakaria should not be counting his chickens until after this war is completely finished.