Liberty for Libya and the War on Terror

The long awaited death of Osama Bin Laden raises questions on U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the direction of the U.S. War of Terror.  Today, the Washington Post quotes Senator Durbin, John Kerry and Lindsey Graham questioning the length and duration of our involvement in Afghanistan.  The Obama administration fears losing strategic gains we've made in fighting back the Taliban while establishing a democratically elected government.  However, the Afghan government cannot, without our help, maintain peace and stability in the country.  In the vacuum created from the U.S. pullout in 1989--following the collapse of Soviet occupation, the Taliban rose to power and the country became a safe-haven for al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.  The U.S. clearly has an interest in keeping peace and stabiltiy in Afghanistan, but at what cost?  The U.S. can't miss a golden opportunity to support struggling pro-democracy movements in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunesia, Bahrain, and elsewhere.  We can't forfeit a chance to dramatically influence the region by tarrying too long in Afghanistan.  Our military resources are running thin, and we shouldn't exhaust them on a vain mission. We shouldn't squander the investment we've made in Afghanistan with a hasty exit either. However, now is the time to adopt a broader policy for the war on terror.  Give them an alternative to sharia law.  Give them freedom.  The United States was able to secure international support in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya as a result of careful diplomacy based on solid evidence of international crimes commited by Gaddafi.  He should be our next target. He used excessive force against peaceful demonstrators seeking free elections.  Time to build on the new mission we've chosen for ourselves to transform the leadership in Libya in our favor.  We should learn more about the opposition and provide additional support for the rebels in Libya.  While doing so, we keep in mind that Osama Bin Laden was once termed a "freedom fighter" against the Soviets.  So we exercise caution as we've done.  We should also insist on repayment for our sacrifice.  The Law of Booty is a well-recognized concept in international law where the victors in armed conflict gain title and possession of territory and possessions conquered.  The U.S. is holding $30 Billion of Libyan assets.  We should claim compensation against these assets so we don't drain well dry at a time of economic uncertainty.  A major source of hesitation for the U.S. involvement in Libya was the cost, following our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Doesn't it make sense to be certain our military and security interests don't work against our economic interests?  What is our interest now in Afghanistan?  Is it more or less important than providing stability and freedom to our friends in Libya (who happen to have oil)?   If we must choose our wars, let's choose wars that serve strategic interests.