Here’s a letter to the Los Angeles Times:
Jonah Goldberg says that, although American military intervention in Libya is unwise, an end now to this intervention would send a signal to tyrants everywhere that “the West’s bark is worse than its bite” (“Libya and America’s commitment problem,” June 21).
Perhaps. But it’s more likely that the signal that withdrawal now from Libya would send is that, because Uncle Sam doesn’t persist in wasting resources on unimportant fronts, the U.S. military will have more resources to deploy and concentrate on fronts judged to be more pressing.
If you were contemplating an armed attack on America, would the fact that American resources are currently mired in campaigns of dubious importance, indeterminate length, and unpredictable outcome really make you less likely to launch your attack?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
