We Win, You Lose

It is wonderful news that America's enemy, Muammar Gaddafi, has been overthrown and killed.  He murdered hundreds of Americans, in the bombing of Pan Am 103 and other terrorist acts.

It is very unfortunate, and much to President Reagan's discredit, that we didn't overthrow Gaddafi in the 1980s when he was engaged in multiple attacks on Americans.  Reagan's bombing of Libya in 1986, in retaliation for Gaddafi's terrorist attack at a Berlin disco that killed American servicemen, didn't go far enough.  By hurting Gaddafi, but not killing him or ending his regime, it allowed Gaddafi to bide his time to strike back at America - which he did with the Pan Am 103 bombing in December 1988 that killed 270 people, most of whom were Americans returning home for Christmas.

For those who questioned America's national interest in removing Gaddafi, it is this:  an enemy of ours who kills Americans must suffer the ultimate consequence - so that others are deterred in the first place from attacking Americans in the future.

Tragically, much of our foreign policy does not allow us to achieve this deterrence, willing to sweep attacks on America under the rug out of fear of escalating a situation into an international crisis.

It is hard to argue with success, and Barack Obama deserves credit for playing a role in Gaddafi's demise. But Obama was willing to let the Libyan rebels go to the brink of annihilation before being dragged into intervening, and by waiting so long it turned an easier task into a much harder one.

Moreover, it raises profound concerns over how often, and to what degree, will Obama take our national security to the edge of success or failure again - such as in dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Miscalculating the point of no return in overthrowing Gaddafi is one thing; doing so regarding the destruction of Iran's nuclear program would be catastrophic for America.

Unintended but Predictable Consequences

Obama and the Democrats are shocked and furious that Bank of America wants to charge customers a monthly fee for using a debit card, now that the Dodd-Frank financial services legislation reduced the fees retailers pay to banks for debit cards.

So now bank customers can pay for debit card usage directly when retailers did before. While retailers in principle should lower prices to reflect lower costs, that may not happen.

This is a terrible deal for consumers, all due to the predictable consequences of Dodd-Frank.

Was increasing consumer costs so Wal-Mart could have lower costs the change voters had in mind when they voted for Obama? No, but it is what they've gotten.