I am against intervention in Libya. In explaining why, four things about the ongoing commentary and handwringing over no-fly zones and other potential U.S. intrusions seem noteworthy.
First are the sudden torrents of disdain for Muammar Qaddafi by commentators who spent the Bush years saying this very same terrorist — who even then was repressing the very same opposition he is fighting now — was a great ally of the United States against terrorism. I carry no brief for Qaddafi; I thought it was reprehensible for our government to try to launder him into a statesman, much like Clinton did with Arafat. But given that this strategy only tightened Qaddafi’s grip on power, it’s a bit much for us suddenly to be told that we are now under a moral obligation to oust him. Some proponents of intervention add, “He must answer for Flight 103.” Why didn’t he need to be removed and answer for Flight 103 some time between 2003 and 2008?
Advertisement
Second is the studied effort to avoid addressing who the Libyan opposition is. As in Egypt, the main opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood — avowed enemies of the West whose goal is the establishment of sharia states. The National Front for the Salvation of Libya is also a largely Islamist opposition group — one that was stronger until many of its Islamist members split off because they objected to the group’s acceptance of U.S. support in the 1980s. There are other Islamist and leftist groups, including violent jihadists. Moreover, Libya is virulently anti-Israeli, and a disturbing anti-Semitism courses through the opposition. (See this Pajamas report, as well as this post by Andrew Bostom on the history of anti-Semitism in Libya.) Whatever regime comes after Qaddafi is likely to be anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Israeli. That doesn’t mean such a regime might not be marginally better than Qaddafi, but it does affect how much we ought to care and how much effort we ought to expend to hasten the post-Qaddafi era.
Third, reading my friend Pete Wehner’s post on Contentions today, I have to say that proponents of the “Freedom Agenda” continue to misstate the position of their critics. Pete quotes George Will’s observation — now apparently reconsidered — that Condi Rice was “quite right” in condemning the “enormous condescension in saying that somehow the Arab world is just not up to democracy.” She is actually quite wrong. No serious person I know is saying Muslims aren’t up to democracy (and what we’re talking about here is a Muslim issue more than an Arab issue). This is not a question of ignorance or incompetence. They understand the principles of our democracy. They just don’t want them. Any democracy worth promoting is a democracy that runs afoul of key sharia-law principles. Muslims don’t want our democracy because they believe their civilization — including its law and desired political structure — is superior. I think they are terribly wrong about that, but it’s a considered choice and one that is theirs to make. What’s condescending is to insist that we know better than they do what’s good for them.
Fourth, along related lines, one would have hoped we’d grasp by now that a big part of our problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that much of Islam regards Western invaders as occupiers against whom jihad has to be waged until they are driven out of Muslim countries. That is not merely an al-Qaeda position. It is a mainstream Muslim position. These Islamic principles counsel Muslims not to side with non-Muslims against other Muslims. They are virulently opposed to efforts to plant Western ideas and institutions in Islamic countries. It doesn’t matter to these millions of Muslims that we think we are doing humanitarian work and helping to improve Muslim lives. It is astonishing, after all that has been said and suffered the last ten years, that these very basic points continue to be missed — particularly by people who purport to be so worried that terrorist recruitment swells because of policies like indefinite detention and military commissions. What really increases terrorist recruitment is invading Muslim countries, killing Muslims there, and staying to try to build Western democracies.
We should be having as little to do with Islamic countries as practicality allows, not getting ourselves ever more entangled — at least absent compelling national-security reasons. Such reasons are not evident in Libya.
Mr. McCarthy: After we have made Iraq safe sharia, and are doing the same for Afghanistan, it is with deep regret that I must agree with you. I now think that until there is a major reformation of Islam, there will be no Muslim countries that can be truly democratic. Your prescription of not getting entangled with them is well taken.
There is one point you make that I want to provide a variant of. It is where you say: "Islam regards Western invaders as occupiers against whom jihad has to be waged until they are driven out of Muslim countries." In that point, the term 'Western invaders' has to be expanded to include Jews in Israel (viewed as Western invaders, even though about half come from Arab countries). That is why there can never be true peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. At best, it will be a cold, armed peace.
Mr. McCarthy: After we have made Iraq safe sharia, and are doing the same for Afghanistan, it is with deep regret that I must agree with you. I now think that until there is a major reformation of Islam, there will be no Muslim countries that can be truly democratic. Your prescription of not getting entangled with them is well taken.
There is one point you make that I want to provide a variant of. It is where you say: "Islam regards Western invaders as occupiers against whom jihad has to be waged until they are driven out of Muslim countries." In that point, the term 'Western invaders' has to be expanded to include Jews in Israel (viewed as Western invaders, even though about half come from Arab countries). That is why there can never be true peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. At best, it will be a cold, armed peace.
I appreciate your column. It clears the air.
I was wondering why Obama and Clinton were so insistent on Mubarek's and Qaddafi's removal. Now I see. It is consistent with all of their wrong headedness in foreign affairs.
They support the would be dictator over the law and democrats in Venezuela. While the entire Middle East is in an uproar the only thing that seems to concern them and our ambassador in the U.N. is Israel's wrongdoing. When our allies, the people of Iraq, wanted to oust their dictatorial Islamist government, Obama stayed silent until it was safe to say a few encouraging words because it was too late to help the hapless Iranian people.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
It is getting so that whatever Obama says or chooses to do in foreign affairs, I am ready to think we should do the opposite.
Not to mention that just as the real news of the horrors of the Castro regime are beginning to be understood, this is the worst time to allow trade and tourism with Cuba. We should be starving out the Castros and their thugs.
So what is Obama choosing to do? He is beginning the lifeline to the government there by encouraging trade and tourism. Leave it to our president to make the wrong choice at the worst time for such a choice.
I fully respect Mr. McCarthy's analysis but I disagree with non intervention as I fear a prolonged civil war will create a refugee crisis expanding the peril in the region. Thus I stated the following on another post:
Whichever side emerges victorious it is fair to say they will not be pro American.
Regardless, it is in our strategic long term interest to not have a prolonged conflict in Libya as this will only lead to prolonged instability and significant refugee flows, mainly to Egypt and S. Europe.
Egyptian stability is already tenuous and she does not need an added refugee (likely armed fundamentalists ones at that) crisis.
Europe does not need more Muslims (likely uninterested in assimilating) within its borders until it resolves it’s multiculturalism debate.
The United States long term interest needs a stable and hopefully non radical Egypt, and Europe to be at reduced (not more) risk for cultural instability.
As already articulated by the panel writers, Qaddafi maintaining power is simply unacceptable for US long term interests.
Thus the US must act in a way to allow Qaddafi’s defeat but not overly arming the rebels (too many arms in the hands of the rebels would be a negative this weapons will likely use against Western interests).
The US should promptly:
1. Neutralize Qaddafi’s air assets.
2. Tactical strikes against other Qaddafi’s major offensive capabilities (tanks, artillery).
3. Arm the Rebels with basic weapons necessary to wage effective ground campaign on Qaddafi’s forces.
4. Deliver humanitarian supplies to rebel forces.
This concentrated effort will weaken Qaddafi and strengthen the rebels ideally giving them momentum. With gaining momentum, Qaddafi’s support will quickly dissipate and so then will Qaddafi.
Does Israel get any credit for having occupied the lands of Caanan since the creation of the Jewish State there almost 4,000 years ago? I think you need a few classes in either history, geography, or religious studies. Abraham migrated from Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq) right around 1,900 B.C.E. at the ripe old age of 75. All three religious doctrine agree the old bugger lived to be 175 years old.
He took his family and followers to these lands, and began his own religion if you will (as he explains GOD told him to), based upon monotheism, a novel new idea that had not existed prior. Fast forward almost 2,000 years and along came another Jew names Jesus, and after his death another religion began for gentiles called Christianity. Fast forward another 500 years and along came another religion called Islam, almost 2,500 years AFTER Abraham had settled in the lands of Caanan (modern Israel).
During this time period, the Israelites would be displaced many times, as war in this region has pretty much been ongoing due to it being at the crossroads of Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Those pesky Jews were carted off to Egypt and enslaved until Moses lead them back home. Those pesky Jews were defeated and carted off to Mesopotamia (Iraq) until they managed to become liberated and get back home. Those pesky Jews were defeated by the Roman's and Titus even had the nerve to destroy the Second Temple. Those pesky Jews have had the Muslims defeat them and even take over some of their most Holy sites, as Muslims tend to do when they conquer anyone (read New York Mosque, Mosques in Spain, et al.)
So when you refer to the Jews as Western invaders, you can be no further from telling the truth, knowing what you are talking about, or even be in a position to provide an honest debate. Israel did not begin after WWII in 1948, as that was just one more time of them reinstating their rights to their homeland. Israel began almost 4,000 years ago my friend, and can trace its entire history back to Abraham, the originator of the Old Testament if you are a Christian, The Torah if Jew, and virtually all of the basis for Islam if you are Muslim.
So where pray tell would you have them go if they are invaders as you say? Back to Iraq would be the most logical destination since that is in fact the only place they had ever dwelled prior to creating Israel. You see, people such as yourself fail to acknowledge that the Middle is and always has been their home. Abraham would be so insulted by you claiming they are western invaders, he was born and raised and lived 175 years in his homeland in that region, as did all of his family and followers.
The only thing western about them was when the Europeans invaded and conquered them as well. All of the surrounding region of Israel were worshipping Pagan gods, as were all of Europe. Muslims would not even exist for another 2,500 years after Israel was settled.
As to Libya, I did not read the article, since I agree we should not be involved. I am sure Mr. McCarthy made his case very soundly as he is a competent individual to do so. However if Mr. Obama wants to do anything, rather than get mired in yet another front in the Middle East, simply get rid of Qaddafi. We have no problem killing armed militants by the ten's of thousands, why not kill one dictator and be done with it?
Qaddafi is not an elected official, he is a dictator that has overstayed his worth or welcome judged by his own people he is in the process of killing to retain his power. So kill the man directly, and do not start another campaign of killing thousands of people mired in the wake of his presence. Leadership killing, now there is a novel idea. Perhaps we could have tried that on Saddam as well, rather than conducting the war we have. I think it would have been a good idea if used on Bin Laden as well. Always easy to kill the ground troops, but nobody has the stones to deal directly with the real problems.
Agree there is no casus beli. Qaddafi doesn't pose an immedite threat to the US. Whoever takes over is going to be another antiamerican regime.
If the reason is humanitarian then we also should be bombing Iran where protesters where gun down by pro government thugs.
But Obama shouldn't say that Qaddafi must go, unless he has a plan to do something about it. The damage of our credibility under this presidency is going to take years to repair.
I share Andy McCarthy's wariness about intervening militarily in Libya. There is, however, one aspect of this piece and his previous article about Qaddafi that merits comment.
In both articles, the Bush era engagement with Qaddafi is treated as an ill-conceived curiosity. As Mr. McCarthy puts it above, "I thought it was reprehensible for our government to try to launder him into a statesman, much like Clinton did with Arafat. But given that this strategy only tightened Qaddafi’s grip on power, it’s a bit much for us suddenly to be told that we are now under a moral obligation to oust him."
What the reader is never told – what the writer doesn't grapple with – is the reason that Bush engaged Qadaffi. It is misleading to merely say that he was attempting to launder him into a statesman. That wasn't the point at all.
We engaged Qaddafi, engaging in statesmanship with him, because we got something in return: he gave up $100 million in equipment designed to make a nuclear weapon!
Here's how the New York Times puts it: "Senior administration officials and Pentagon planners, as they discuss sanctions and a possible no-flight zone to neutralize the Libyan Air Force, say that the 2003 deal removed Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest trump card: the threat of using a nuclear weapon, or even just selling nuclear material or technology, if he believed it was the only way to save his 42-year rule. While Colonel Qaddafi retains a stockpile of mustard gas, it is not clear he has any effective way to deploy it."
'Imagine the possible nightmare if we had failed to remove the Libyan nuclear weapons program and their longer-range missile force,' said Robert Joseph, who played a central role in organizing the effort, in the months just after the invasion of Iraq."
Perhaps Mr. McCarthy has an argument for why this deal was a bad one for the United States. But to write without even mentioning it struck me as odd in his former piece on the subject, and I think the same thing reading this piece.
That said, I am encouraged by Mr. McCarthy's conclusion. You don't see this point made very often in NR: "What really increases terrorist recruitment is invading Muslim countries, killing Muslims there, and staying to try to build Western democracies. We should be having as little to do with Islamic countries as practicality allows, not getting ourselves ever more entangled — at least absent compelling national-security reasons."
Other writers at this magazine take positions on related issues that make me think they don't regard that statement as true.
I hope they'll have out the debate. I suspect I'll be on McCarthy's side.
I should probably let "Jack in Silver Spring" speak for his self, but I think you may have misunderstood his post. I think he simply meant that Arabs/Muslims view Jews as "western invaders" and therefore would never accept their place in Israel.
If that was his point then he is correct. I lived and worked in Israel for a number of years and all the Arabs that I knew (and I knew many, many of them) all claimed that the Jews were "nothing but Russians and Poles come here to steal our land."
It is a lot of nonsense, of course, but they really seem to believe it. Sadly, even if they acknowledge the Middle Eastern roots of the Jewish people they will still be unwilling to live with them in peace. As far as many Muslims are concerned Jews are just fine as long as they are lowly, humiliated, and easy to push around. They can't tolerate a strong Jew (or strong Jewish nation) that pushes back.
Many westerners feel the same way, if the truth be told.
Reality Check - You are absolutely correct; I do not disagree with you. (Also, prior to the 6th century BCE, the proper terms would be Israelites. Jews = Judeans are the remnants of the Israelite nations of Israel and Judah.) I should have been much more careful in my statement. It is the Arabs (and to a lesser extent Europeans) who view the Jews of Israel as Western invaders. My point was, because the Arabs view the Jews as Western invaders, there cannot really be peace. Sorry for not being more clear.
Ibn Al-Malik: Thank you for stepping up to the plate to explain my gaffe to Reality check.
Conor Friedersdorf: Do we really know if Qaddafi ended his nuclear projects? Given how bad our CIA ( = Can't Interdict Anything) is in gathering intelligence, we can only hope that he has.
Andy is so right. I can't understand why normally logical people and institutions want to get us involved in another war...even a small one (at first). Remember Iraq. We went in there with a limited objective and no plan to extricate ourselves.
What part of "if you touch it, you own it" don't people understand?
I can't say I disagree with Mr. McCarthy, I do wonder though what Mr. McCarthy would recommend for the people of Israel.
Should they abandon their ancestral homeland?
Shall we, the United States, deport all radicalized American Muslims and replace them with the entire population of Israel? As if they would actually leave.
Or do we continue safeguarding our allies in Israel, pretty much requiring more contact with the Arab/Muslim states who will continue to view us as occupiers of their lands. Even if we don't have a single troop on the ground.
Just by our backing, supporting and arming Israel we will CONTINUE to be seen as invaders, no matter how isolationist we may turn (with regards to the Muslim world.)
The only other option, is to offer Israeli's the opportunity to leave, to immigrate to the US or other safe parts of the world, and leave those who refuse to leave to their fates.
Can the world stomach another Jewish genocide? Would we, the US, be able to sit back and watch?
I'm not real sure that we are able to limit or restrict our contact with the Muslim states unless we wish to abandon our American ideals.
You are wrong on this one. Islamism is an existential threat to Western civilization. I absolutely agree with you that Obama will do nothing in Libya, and I am shocked that you agree with Obama. Yes, you agree with Obama. Wehner and company are right: Libya is indeed another important place where we need to stand against Islamofascism. We don't stand against it by watching on the sidelines. It is the players that decide history, not the bystanders. You were always wobbly on Iraq and you were wrong there too. You don't want to confront evil, even in Afganistan. Explain to me where your practical policies on combating Islamofascism are different from Obama's.
"commentators who spent the Bush years saying this very same terrorist ... was a great ally of the United States against terrorism."
Can Mr. McCarthy name any of these commentators?
The most anyone has said in the last decade (aside from hired apologists like Ben Barber) is that Qaddafi was less criminal than he had been, and that his voluntary surrender of his WMD program entitled him to some consideration.
"What really increases terrorist recruitment is invading Muslim countries, killing Muslims there, and staying to try to build Western democracies."
The classic isolationist trope. Never mind that Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. first, and that jihadists have attacked other countries without such alleged provocation.
Oh, and _just_ _maybe_ terrorist recruitment has something to do with propaganda, funding, and bases provided by anti-American governments. Like Qaddafi.
"We should be having as little to do with Islamic countries as practicality allows..." Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states hold hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. government debt. Moslem countries provide about a third of the world's oil supply. Turkey is a NATO ally. What "practicality" can end all these "entanglements"?
Qaddafi is unquestionably anti-American. His allies are a rogue's gallery of international criminals - Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, the ayatollahs. (The ayatollahs have just denounced Qaddafi, but they were his buddies until he looked like a liability. There are reports that Iran has bases in Libya.)
Jefferson: Today it will be Israel, tomorrow it will be Spain, and then the Balkans (which the Turks ruled for several centuries) etc., etc. Muslims have to learn, the hard way or the soft way, that everywhere they step or have stepped does not belong to them in perpetuity. So, Jews will stay in the Land of Israel as long as they can defend that tiny piece of real estate.
tomb3442 - In my very first posting here, I indicated that I have come to agree with Mr. McCarthy. My reasons for doing so are Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at what has happened in Iraq - we have made the place safe for sharia, and it will soon be Christian-rein. Was that our goal? Look at what is happening in Afghanistan - we are making that place safe sharia. Conversion to Christianity carries a death penalty. Is that our goal? In both cases, I think the answer is, no. As for Libya, it appears to me that the 'freedom-fighters' are simply another edition of the Muslim Brotherhood. I see no reason why we should expend treasure or blood to help them when all we'll get back is another place safe for sharia.
Given that no Libyan government can be expected to be pro-Western, our only objective in Libya should be to crush Gaddaffi, as a lesson to other despots who would kill our citizens through terrorism. Who follows him matters not. Move in a couple of aircraft carriers, Libya is all shoreline. Bomb his airfields, bomb his tanks, bomb his oil fields. When he is dead or gone, remove all American assets from the waters off Libya and let the tribes fight it out. Perhaps we will be lucky and they all will lose.
Great, we all cleared the air. I am not Jewish, nor have I ever been to Israel. But we have all learned a great deal from each other regardless. Cheers!
Now that Japan has suffered it's earthquake and tsunami, (I have lived in Japan and am very saddened), that will drop oil prices and offset Libya exports as Japan imports 98% of its oil. With such devastation their consumption will be reduced massively for many years. Libya was a mere 2% exporter, I would venture a guess that Japan drops at least 10%-15% of it's import demand. If their economy suffers even more it will be a horrible blow for them.
Losing 6 reactors nullifies my previous post, now they will need to import even more in addition to the 2% loss from Libya. The pressure just keeps building.
