Learning nothing

Throwing what amounts to a playground tantrum, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen argues that Muammar Gaddafi is a mad dog killer and must be stopped.

True, genocide in Libya has not occurred, Cohen concedes. But it might. Ergo, the U.S. must intervene militarily – like, now. Waiting for help from those girlie men in the EU or UN is a fool's errand, says Generalissimo Cohen. In his mind, only America matters. "We have the bucks. We have the expertise. We have the military. We lead, they follow."

But Cohen laments that America is failing because Obama is a weak sister, a "muddle puddle." He derides the so-called "Obama Doctrine" as: You first. In contrast, Gaddafi is “bold,” a manly man of horrific action. Like the rote analysis of his compatriots in the “Do Something” crowd, Cohen is short on viable solutions and long on emotion.

No one disputes Cohen’s contention that Gaddafi is a killer. So is North Korea's Kim Jong-il. So is Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So is the thuggish military regime in Burma. In fact, when it comes to abusing its own citizenry, these autocracies almost make the Libyan colonel look like George Washington by comparison. By Cohen's logic, American armed forces should be unleashed on them all, presumably in its new role as the world's SWAT team.

Cohen's primal scream comes from someone who has learned nothing from history – or his own past writings.

On bended knee, Cohen wrote a piece for Slate in March 2008 detailing how he got Iraq so wrong. He supported Bush’s war. “I was miserably wrong in my judgment and somewhat emotional,” he wrote. “Saddam was a sociopath, a uniformed button man, Luca Brasi of Arabia. He was a nasty little fascist, and he needed to be dealt with. That, more or less, is how I made my decision to support the war in Iraq.” Cohen wrote: “I didn't know what I didn't know.” He noted how little he understood Iraqi culture. He also confessed to being wrong about Bosnia (he opposed intervention) and for drawing the wrong lessons from the first Gulf War (i.e., war could “work and save lives”).

Without a doubt, Gaddafi, like Saddam, is another Arabian wise guy who needs “to be dealt with.” Yet Cohen, who is no Libya expert, still doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. He understands Libyan culture about as well as he understood Iraq society in 2003. By his own admission his judgments about past military interventions have been faulty and emotionally-driven.

Nevertheless, Cohen advises Obama to plunge into Libya, guns blazing, angrily citing Gaddafi’s complicity in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and other crimes as justifications. Without a hint of irony or understanding, he assures us that if the American military boldly takes the point in the charge to Tripoli the world will follow behind in lockstep. Just like it did when we took Baghdad, right?

Talk about “deja vu all over again.” A few years from now, expect another column from Mr. Cohen examining, on bended knee, how he got Libya so wrong.