What If Gaddafi Holds On?

From Bret Stephens, at WSJ, "Other regimes in the region will wonder just what, exactly, are the benefits of an alliance with a diffident America":

Top government officials and ordinary newspaper pundits are debating whether the U.S. and its allies should intervene militarily against Moammar Gadhafi, perhaps by establishing a no-fly zone. This is the wrong question. The right question is: What happens if Gadhafi holds on?

That possibility no longer seems remote, as the colonel and his loyalists keep a firm grip on Tripoli and start inflicting military reversals on the rebels. A society as brutalized as Libya's will retain a powerful fear of its dictator even in his hour of weakness. Many Libyans will recall how Saddam Hussein crushed the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings of March 1991. They will recall, too, that the first Bush administration—which included then-deputy national security adviser and current no-fly zone skeptic Bob Gates—stood aside as Saddam viciously struck back.

What happened next is one of the darkest chapters of recent memory. An estimated 60,000 Iraqis, perhaps more, were killed in the revolt. Two million fled the country. The Iraqi people had to endure another dozen years under Saddam. The U.S. spent billions enforcing a no-fly zone that was a case of too little, too late. The war that ultimately toppled Saddam's regime exacted another huge toll in lives, including those of more than 4,000 Americans.

Looking back, it's worth noting that all of this may have been avoided if only the U.S. had forbidden Saddam from flying his helicopter gunships, which proved decisive in turning the tide of revolt. So why won't President Obama run the comparatively minor risk of doing similarly in Libya? Does he think he needs the U.N.'s permission? Sadly, he probably does.

Should the conflict in Libya turn into a protracted civil war, it will mean more killing, more refugees, and even higher energy prices. And should Gadhafi's counteroffensive begin to show results, previously emboldened Libyan rebels could start to panic, and their reversals could quickly turn into a general rout.

Folks can see where Stephens is going with this. It goes without saying that the administration's waffling and timidity is sending powerful signals to the world's tyrants. Iran last year and Egypt last month. Tunisia went under the radar and was expected to be an anomaly by realists like Harvard's Steven Walt. But the message is clear: Don't expect democracy promotion from these amateurs. I like the idea of a no-fly zone, actually. Although I wonder how deep a military commitment the American public will support, particularly without presidential leadership? Not only that, a protracted civil war with massive humanitarian losses could trigger demands for ground troops, and I cringe at the thought of a ground incursion under Barack Hussein's command.

Side note: Bret Stephens is a treasure. He sounds more neocon than Charles Krauthammer. Cool!