Sarah jumps the shark

I've been concerned for some time that Sarah Palin was little more than a Judas Goat to lead the wandering faithful back to the interventionist New American Century agenda. Her latest Facebook statement confirms this suspicion:

Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power. Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror.

OK, so far, so good. I've no qualms with the U.S. making a statement that repressing people with military force is double plus ungood. Of course, such a statement would carry even more weight if we had much moral capital left -- something easily squandered when you're camped out in Iraq, Afghanistan and a few dozen other places in the world.

But words aren't enough for Sarah and others like her. No, the instinct to "do something" is simply too strong for them to resist:

NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya.

This is Exhibit A of what's wrong with our foreign policy. It's an emotional appeal, one that resonates with an American public sympathetic to underdogs and a sense of fairness. But there is no strategic thought here whatsoever. Strategy is more than a call to "send in the troops." It's the linkage between means and ends. The U.S. has long had strong means--a military force beyond equal. But if there are no specific ends in mind, all that capability -- and lost blood and treasure -- is wasted. We have a very bad habit of doing just that.

Let's say Sarah's call is heeded, and U.S. fighter jets claim the skies over Tripoli and Benghazi. Does anyone really think this alone will stop the Qadaffi family from trying to hold onto power? There are plenty of nasty ways to kill your own people without using a single aircraft. So what then, Sarah? Do our forces begin performing close air support for the Libyan insurgents? What if that isn't enough to topple Muammar and Sons? Do we then send in ground troops (as if we have a lot of extra brigades lying around these days...)?

Meanwhile, the larger strategic question is "so what?" So what if we get involved, to whatever degree. Is our objective simply to stop the 'slaughter?' They would find that interesting in Rwanda. Is our intent to shape the next Libyan government? That'll go over real well in an Arab world already resentful of our dominance of Iraq and Afghanistan. (Heck, I can already imagine the reaction Al Jazeera will get if they start airing photos of U.S. jets over Libya.) What is there in Libya that is worth the world reaction to us intervening militarily in yet another Muslim nation? Our leaders should be able to identify that before "releasing the hounds."

America simply MUST learn the hard lesson that there is a lot of evil in the world, and no nation--not even the U.S.--can put an end to all of it. Rather than squander our seemingly vast--but in reality finite--power on emotional responses, we'd be wise to use it sparingly, at times and places where a small investment can pay large dividends, for us and potentially for others.

I close, once again, with the words of our sixth President:

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
-- John Quincy Adams