THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIII, Issue # 61, March 2, 2011
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE LIBYAN NIGHTMARE THAT ALMOST WAS
By Christopher G. Adamo
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS & WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION & THE IMPORTANCE OF
U.S. MILITARY READINESS TO COPE WITH THE THREAT -- MUAMMAR QADDAFI'S ULTIMATE CAPITULATION TO THE U.S.A.
ON THE MATTER OF LIBYA'S SEEKING TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONRY -- THE INTRANSIGENCE OF IRAN'S MAHMOUD
AHMADINEJAD, WHO IS PRESSING FORWARD IN HIS RELENTLESS PURSUIT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WITH NO INTENTION
WHATSOEVER OF ARRIVING AT A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT ON THE MATTER WITH THE U.S.A. -- U.S. SUCCESS IN GETTING
LIBYA TO TERMINATE ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM & U.S. FAILURE TO PERSUADE IRAN TO DO LIKEWISE -- THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BASED ON STRENGTH & PRINCIPLE & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MIRED IN BLIND
IDEALISM & WEAKNESS
FULL STORY:
Among the defining endeavors of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency was his push for the development of a space-based
nuclear shield, known as Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Derisively caricatured as “Star Wars” by its peacenik
detractors, Reagan envisioned a multi-layered array of various high-tech protections, safeguarding the Western world
from nuclear aggression, which was primarily expected to originate from the Soviet Union.
Always eager to find fault with Reagan’s judgment and, in particular, his pro-American Conservatism, Liberal Leftist
critics warned that, among other possibilities, such a system might be useless against random attacks from rogue
governments that managed to acquire their own nuclear stockpiles. Invariably mentioned among such unstable
regimes were North Korea under Kim Il Sung, along with Libya, headed then as it still is (at least for the moment), by
Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.
But rather than weakening Reagan’s case for SDI, the looming likelihood of some unbalanced tinhorn dictator acquiring
nuclear capability, and then being more likely to wield its horrendous destructive power with little regard for retributive
consequences, actually bolstered awareness among the intellectually honest of the dire need for viable defenses. The
more inevitable it became that small states, outside of the major world power “nuclear club,” could someday amass the
technology to construct their own nuclear weapons, the more urgent it became to contend with the possibility ahead of
the terrible day on which it became reality.
Sadly, the national will to invest the time, energy and, most importantly, money into Reagan’s goal of an adequate
barrier against incoming nuclear tipped missiles from belligerent nations was never sufficiently longrange or steadfast
to ensure its timely implementation. Though such a defense system could have been developed for a fraction of the cost
of the countless futile “social programs” that have failed miserably in the past three decades, at no time during that
period has the outlay of funds been deemed critical enough to warrant their expenditure.
Furthermore, any focus on the nation’s military readiness has fluctuated drastically under the ensuing administrations of
pro-military leaders such as Reagan and Bush, interspersed with the draft-dodging Bill Clinton and decidedly
anti-American Barack Hussein Obama. As such, support for SDI has never been consistent or reliable enough to provide
the workable base of expertise and inventiveness necessary to allow for the development of technologies that would be
extremely new and advanced. As a result, the program that might one day save America from the unfathomable horror of
a nuclear strike is still not entirely in place.
On a more positive note, however, the agenda of peace through strength, instituted by Ronald Reagan and embraced with
fervor by George W. Bush in the wake of 9-11, set in motion a sequence of circumstances that, in the particular case of
Libya, ought to be cause for loud and ceaseless celebration throughout the free world. Not surprisingly, the network
mouthpieces have been absolutely silent on the matter during the raging Libyan turmoil of the past several weeks.
It is first worthwhile to briefly revisit the timeline of America’s use of military force in Iraq, and its actual political
repercussions, without digressing into the perpetually negative “interpretations” of those events by the Liberal
political/media propagandists. From such a perspective, America’s ultimate effectiveness, and the ramifications of its
inevitable success, is inarguably obvious.
American forces, in conjunction with a coalition of military units from other nations, initially invaded Iraq in March of 2003.
After only a few weeks, the campaign was able to reach and liberate Baghdad, driving Iraqi President Saddam Hussein into
hiding. Strenuously braving the harassment and carnage of an Islamist insurgency, and perhaps even more devastating to
American morale and determination, the deliberate undermining of the effort by the Liberal press, U.S. military personnel
began the long and arduous task of securing and stabilizing the occupied nation.
On December 13, 2003, the world was stunned by the news that Hussein had been found, captured, and subsequently
turned over to the provisional Iraqi government, where he would eventually be tried, convicted, and executed for the
crimes of his heinous regime. Even more stunning was the announcement, only six days later, in the December 19 joint
statement by President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that Libya had negotiated an end to its
quest to develop a nuclear bomb.
Qaddafi had not forgotten the painful lesson of U.S. retribution when Ronald Reagan sent American F-111 aircraft to bomb
Tripoli on April 15, 1986, in response to escalating Libyan terrorist activities. More significantly, he had seen the degree to
which President Bush was determined to take the war on terror to the enemy’s doorstep in the wake of the attacks of
September 11, 2001.
The timeline of the events of 2003 is glaring, and their causal relationship virtually incontrovertible. It is hard to
comprehend the degree to which today’s Libyan situation might have differed, had George W. Bush been unwilling to
resort to “cowboy diplomacy,” or ambiguous in his reaction to the growing Middle Eastern threat to America. What is
admittedly a dire and combustible situation in Libya might have been a catastrophic atomic holocaust, had Qaddafi
continued on his earlier course of developing weapons of mass destruction.
However, since George Bush left office, his successor has worked tirelessly to annul and undermine any gains made by
America on the world stage, under the absurd and nihilistic premise of establishing international harmony through
weakness and subservience. A stark and undeniable contrast is evident between Qaddafi’s ultimate capitulation on
acquiring nuclear weaponry, and the intransigence of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is pressing forward in his
relentless pursuit of them, with no intention whatsoever of arriving at a peaceful settlement with the current U.S.
administration. It epitomizes distinction between international relations based on strength and principle, and those mired
in blind idealism and weakness.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Military Defense & National Security
Military Weaponry & International Security
North Africa -- The Arab States of Islamic North Africa
Tunisia, Islamic North Africa, & the Arab World
Egypt, Arabs, & the Middle East
The Middle East & the Arabs
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
More on the Threat of Radical Islam
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level
for many years. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIII, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity