Why Gadhafi's Threat to Europe Should Be Taken Seriously

Today, Muammar Gadhafi made an outlandish and inflammatory threat. Obviously, that is nothing new, as the Libyan dictator has built up a storied reputation of comically railing against the West, particularly the United States. However, his latest threat should be taken seriously. In an audio address delivered to his supporters, he warned NATO that if they did not cease their military operations against his regime soon, he would begin bombing European countries.

"These people (the Libyans) are able to one day take this battle ... to Europe, to target your homes, offices, families, which would become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes. We can decide to treat you in a similar way. If we decide to, we are able to move to Europe like locusts, like bees. We advise you to retreat before you are dealt a disaster."

While this may appear on the surface as yet another lame attempt at fanatical grandstanding, it wouldn't be surprising to see Gadhafi back up his words with action in this instance. Let's look at the facts: Gadhafi's regime is currently on the ropes. After months of turmoil, NATO and the rebel forces seem to finally be gaining the upper hand in the battle for Libya. Gadhafi hasn't been seen in public for months, and he has barely escaped being killed in a couple of air strikes on Tripoli. He can see the writing on the wall, and he knows that he will not a play a role in Libya's future.

However, the well being of the Libyan people has never really been Gadhafi's primary concern. Like most dictators, he is egocentric and is mainly concerned with promoting his image and preserving his power. Now that his days as the sole source of authority in Libya are all but over, Gadhafi probably wants his legacy to go out with a bang, and by bang, I mean through some sort of game-changing terrorist attack. For decades, Gadhafi was the poster boy for radical Islamic terrorism until Osama bin Laden dethroned him. He was reportedly responsible for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in 1988 and the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, so he is certainly no stranger to targeting civilians. He is probably totally willing to attack the NATO nations who have participated in the operations against him, and the European nations of France and Italy, which are close in proximity to Libya, have played important roles in implementing the no-fly zone and targeting pro-Gadhafi forces. Hypothetically if Gadhafi was to launch an attack, it would in all likelihood be against one of those nations.

But why would he do such a thing? By carrying out an attack against a NATO nation, he automatically opens the door for a full scale invasion of Libya, an invasion in which many nations, including the United States, would probably partake in. An invasion on that scale would only hasten the demise of Gadhafi's regime.

This is going to sound crazy, but that is exactly what Gadhafi wants to see occur.

As I stated earlier, Gadhafi knows his days are numbered. There is no way he can sustain his grasp on power much longer, ground invasion or not. Gadhafi, who has a profound hatred for the West, will ultimately have two choices. Option one is to go out quietly, either by dying in a NATO-led operation or simply surrendering, which will undoubtedly lead to his arrest for crimes against humanity. Option two is to become a martyr by defiantly striking back hard at the West, which will in turn result in a climatic endgame that will bring about Gadhafi's demise. If you were a narcissistic despot with nothing to lose, what would your choice be? I think that the choice is obvious.

 An invasion of Libya would also do more than simply placate Gadhafi's ego. It would force already cash-strapped, economically challenged nations to devote a large amount of money and resources towards a war effort in Libya. The U.S. in particular would be severely affected by such an undertaking, since we already are occupying two other nations at a cost of billions of dollars per week. Gadhafi's desire to instigate an invasion is probably further emboldened by the fact that it could potentially bankrupt the so-called "colonial aggressor" nations that have put him into the situation he currently finds himself in today. And if you think that the U.S. would sit out this hypothetical invasion, think again. NATO views an attack on one if its member nations as an attack on the group as whole, so the U.S. would be obligated to devote resources to the invasion effort, even if Gadhafi attacked a European nation. This would undoubtedly lead to a heated political battle in Congress that would pit Democrats and Republican war hawks (like Senators McCain and Graham)  against the Tea Party and uber liberals such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Ultimately, though, we will have to fulfill our treaty obligations, and that will cost us dearly.

This scenario that appears to be unfolding is one of the reasons why I never really supported the mission in Libya in the first place. Did anybody in our military establishment really believe that a man who has engaged in senseless terrorist activity in the past would simply go out quietly? If they truly believed that their was a need for intervention in Libya, they should have kept it simple and had the CIA take out Gadhafi. Yes, The U.S. claims that we do not engage in the assassinations of foreign leaders, but nevertheless the CIA has attempted to do just that many times in the past (Fidel Castro anyone?). We may think that we have Gadhafi backed into a corner. But in reality, it was him who has had us cornered from day one. I say we should leave Libya now while we can still afford to do so.