Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina greeted the news that Muammar el-Qaddafi had been routed by rebels with disdain: “Obama failed”, they said. The President, in their opinion, should have gone in sooner and with more American power instead of taking the time to build a NATO-Arab coalition.

When the Senators’ opinion is juxtaposed with the success of the Libyan operation we can see a clear contrast between the Democrats’ approach to international conflicts, and the Republican rush-to-war philosophy.

Obama resisted pressure to pound his American chest and act impulsively. His strategy was one that supported indigenous Libyan fighters with air power, weapons and other resources, but left the fighting on the ground to them.

The result was the relatively quick elimination of a brutal dictator whose hands dripped with the blood of his own citizens and hundreds of Americans.

Compare this strategy with that of former President George W. Bush.

Bush invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, seeking revenge against the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the 9/11 terror attacks.  This pre-emptive strike, now a full-fledged war, still rages and has spread to Pakistan. In the10 years of conflict thousands of Americans and local citizens have been killed. As I write this, American taxpayers are managing the ever-growing cost of at least $447 billion.

Bush shifted his focus in March 2003 and began a simultaneous war in Iraq. He justified this invasion by proclaiming a combination of half-truths and outright falsehoods about such issues as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein procuring material from Africa to build nuclear weapons, and Iraq’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

The American cost for the Iraq conflict is at least 4,500 dead U.S. servicemen and women and an expenditure of at least $792 billion. A Brown University study estimates that the total cost of that war will exceed $3 trillion.  (morallowground.com/2011/06/30/brown-university-study-u-s-cost-of-war-250000-direct-deaths-3700000000000-and-counting/).

In addition, more than 33,000 Americans have been injured; and, according to the Brown report, an estimated 225,000 people (military and civilians) have lost their lives as a result of our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The total U.S. financial cost for those three conflicts is projected by the Brown report to exceed $4.4 trillion. (www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/iraq/110703/us-wars-result-225000-dead-and-cost-44-trillion)

In contrast, the conflict in Libya lasted six months at the cost of $1.1 billion to American taxpayers. No U.S. combatants have been killed.

Bush had predicted that Iraqi civilians would hail American troops as saviors and flowers would be strewn in their path as they entered Baghdad. Instead, U.S. soldiers and Marines became subjects of roadside bombs and mortar attacks. President Bush himself was greeted on a visit to Iraq by the ultimate Middle East insult: shoes were thrown at him.

Again in contrast, Libyan citizens held up a poster with the pictures of Presidents Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom, and America’s U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice with the words “Fantastic 4… God Bless You All. Thanks for All.”

Libyan rebels are accomplishing a great victory in their country, with the support of other nations. The Libyan people, therefore, will have a greater stake in setting their country’s future.  But make no mistake; it will be a difficult process to move from revolution to governing.

There are approximately 30 significant tribes in Libya that must be brought together as one nation.  I suspect the process will be messy, take a long time and will not end with a Western-style democracy. But it will be their process and their government, and thus more likely to stand the test of time.

Can’t Senators McCain and Graham cheer the successful strategy crafted and implemented by their nation’s President? After all, it not only accomplished the goal that Obama clearly stated at the beginning (ridding the world of Qaddafi), but did so with no loss of American life.

I would guess that there are two reasons for their recalcitrance: First, they fear that giving Obama any credit will hurt the Republican chances of winning the presidency; and second, they seem to prefer boots-on-the ground wars, wars in which they can travel across the world and mingle with the troops. (www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54568.html)

What do you think best serves the interests of the United States: building a coalition of nations to support local people in their fight against a brutal dictator? Fully employing the power of Americana military might to bring down the despot? Or, should we stay out of international conflicts to concentrate on our problems at home?