Iraq Strategy Bears Fruit in Libya

One of the biggest stories making the rounds this evening is this one:

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has admitted trying to develop weapons of mass destruction but now plans to dismantle all such programs, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday.

Hm, that's interesting. I wonder how that came about?

Britain and the United States have been talking about the issue with Libya for nine months, Blair said.

“Libya came to us in March following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner,” Blair said in England.

Let's see... 9 months... 9 months... What was happening 9 months ago?

Oh, yeah. We were invading Iraq!

Think he got the message?

Bush hopes that others do:

At the White House, Bush said the war in Iraq and efforts to stop North Korea’s nuclear program had sent a clear message to countries such as Libya that they must abandon weapons programs.

“In word and in action, we have clarified the choices left to potential adversaries,” Bush said. That was an apparent reference to Iran and North Korea, two other countries that the United States contends are trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Without naming them, Bush added: “I hope other leaders will find an example” in Libya’s action.

I'm personally not ready to rehabilitate Gadhafi (or Khaddafi, however you spell it), but what is clear is that he gets it, and he takes Bush seriously.

To those who worried that the war in Iraq would "destabilize the region," I say, "Well, duh! That was the point!" The main strategic reason for the war was to let these terrorist-sponsoring ME dictators know that we would no longer tolerate business as usual. "Stability" in the ME is what brought us 9/11. We need less stability, apparently.

UPDATE: Glenn agrees.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Tim Blair weighs in with an interesting quote from a Saudi columnist:

America, for this brief moment at least… is a liberator and not an occupier. I can't help being smug, since what I saw gave me back some confidence in the possibility of justice in this world. I had almost lost hope. It took George Bush to give me that back. I don't agree with him on many things, and while many Americans share my stand, I'll give the man his due. He will go down in Arab history as the liberator of Baghdad, even if the whole mission in Iraq comes to nothing more than this.

… The reality we have to face is the fact that it took Americans to relieve Baghdad of its dictator. Arab impotence recorded a new low. I might sound naive but I would like to ask where the 'freedom fighters,' 'the resistance,' 'the strugglers for the freedom of Iraq' were when that man ran amok. Having delivered Saddam, the Americans will have to deliver Iraq. Shouldn't we now be wise enough to give them at least a chance, if not a real helping hand?