Should We Intervene in Libya? Pressures for a no-fly zone are mounting, but we have no business going in unless we’ve thought through exactly what we mean to do.
There are plenty of good arguments for imposing a no-fly zone in Libya. Without Libyan-government air strikes, the rebels might have a better chance of carving out permanent zones of resistance. Qaddafi has a long record of supporting anti-American terrorism, whether in the form of killing Americans in Europe during the Reagan administration or masterminding the Lockerbie bombing that took down a Pan Am 747 jumbo jet, killing 270 in the air and on the ground. In humanitarian terms, Libyans have been living an ungodly nightmare since Qaddafi’s coup in 1969, and it would be a fine and noble thing to lend them a hand to end their four-decade-long misery. The world would be a better and safer place without Qaddafi and his odious clan in power.
Advertisement
Unlike our military action under Ronald Reagan in 1986 (I visited the country on the 20th anniversary of that strike, only to happen upon an unexpected Lionel Richie commemorative concert), intervention now would find the proverbial “people” on our side. Many of our European allies would also favor some sort of military action. So supposedly would the majority of Libya’s neighbors. Even the Arab League is on record as supporting a no-fly zone imposed from the outside. Ostensibly, Arab countries would be supporting our efforts rather than undermining them, as they so often did in Iraq.
Former war critic Barack Obama is now president. He could bomb Qaddafi any time he wished, without incurring the vitriol that once met President Bush — and without having to make the effort Bush did to win congressional approval. Hollywood, the Democrats in Congress, and the mainstream media would all rally behind whatever the president wished. Most conservatives surely would support the president’s decision. The Cindy Sheehan crowd would either be silent or be silenced by the liberal community.
Unlike the 26 million–plus in Afghanistan and a like number in Iraq, there are only 7 million people in Libya, a country that poses none of the physical challenges of Afghanistan or even Iraq. The country is flat, with mostly clear weather, and is far more accessible than Afghanistan or Iraq — with its long Mediterranean coastline and plenty of American and NATO bases of operation in southern Europe. Many supporters apparently believe that we could redeem our messy efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq by a cleaner, short, and more popular intervention in Libya — akin more to a Serbian no-fatality operation than a hard slog in the Hindu Kush.
But all that said, using military force at this moment in Libya is a bad idea, and for a variety of reasons. I supported the Iraq war on the basis of the legitimate 23 writs adduced by both houses of Congress, in bipartisan fashion, which went well beyond trumped-up fears of massive arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. We had been in a de facto war with Saddam since 1991, and he was an enemy as sinister as Qaddafi but far more powerful. In some sense, America had been responsible for encouraging a popular revolt among Shiites and Kurds, and then allowing a defeated Saddam the means by which to put it down savagely. The mission was clearly articulated: to remove Saddam Hussein and foster a consensual government in his place. When we went into Iraq in 2003, less than 100 Americans had been killed since 2001 in Afghanistan, which was relatively quiet after two years of fighting. Indeed, the American fatality rate there would stay well below 100 per year on average during the first six years of the Afghan war and the first four years of simultaneous conflict in Iraq. That is not true today, as 499 Americans were killed just last year in Afghanistan, more than the cumulative fatality rate for the first seven years of the war.
True, we ran a record deficit in 2003 during the first year of the Iraq war, but it was $374 billion — in hindsight minuscule by the new standard of this year’s $1.6 trillion in red ink. Indeed, this year’s deficit alone is far more than the entire cost of the ongoing eight-year effort in Iraq.
In short, our nation is still engaged in fostering Iraqi democracy and warring against a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and it is fiscally insolvent. We have no idea who exactly the Libyan protesters are or what they represent. Most likely, they are brave idealists eager to rid themselves of their monstrous government, and they seem a world away from the al-Qaedist and Shiite theocrats who fought the American occupation troops in Iraq. But without Americans on the ground, we have little clue about their eventual aims and even less influence in guiding them in their replacement government.
The late freelance journalist Stephen Vincent, before he was murdered in Basra, noted that Iraqis he talked to had indeed hated Saddam Hussein.
However, he also found many of them hated the United States for removing him and humiliating their sense of honor, making them feel cowardly and impotent.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Those who formerly condemned American intervention in Iraq, are now clamoring for a no-fly zone over Libya, which can only be led by the U.S.
Perhaps is it time to let the world have a salutary example of what happens when the U.S. doesn't intervene.
Victor, you miss an important point. The moment is long passed when we could exercise a simple solution to Libya, but it would have indeed been simple; a couple of missles to pockmark and make non-functional every Libyan air force landing field; several score or hundred others to destroy all known concentrations of Libyan armor; and hands off. Don't intervene, don't send troops, let the Libyans settle this. Had this happened when Gaddaffi was hiding under the umbrella, his own generals would have done the rest.
Such action would have been a marvelous demonstration that America will not tolerate, that America will bring justice to, those despots that slay our citizens. It would have de-energized a host of other bad guys around the world.
But alas, with the child king in the White House, no pro-American action will ever be taken. The Berlin night club and Pan Am 103 remain unavenged.
Doctor Hanson - Well said. You capture nicely the incoherence of this Admistration, and to a lesser extent the Democrat Party behind it.
@Steve B - To me Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out worse than you think: We have made those two countries safe for Sharia and unsafe for Christians. I don't think that was our goal.
Has anyone ever noticed that we don't even speculate about eliminating "tyrants" when those tyrants are the rulers of China or the current crop ruling Russia? Why? Well, we know we'd have a good chance of losing. But some moralize all day long about our "moral duty" to Libyans, evidently on the theory that they are easy pickings. But Iraq was going to be be easy pickings, too. Let's get real, and recognize that the people of the region in and about the Middle East are not, and never will be, our friends and admirers. Let's leave them to their own problems.
Dr. Hanson's conclusion is: "[D]irect military intervention in Libya is a noble idea that this country, at this moment of incoherence and as it is currently led, has no business embracing."
I don't know whether Dr. Hanson is referring to the incoherence of the situation on the ground in Libya or the situation inside the White House. You try to parse that sentence. But the fact that someone in the Obama administration "was saying that the Pentagon was 'stupid' in its pre-trial confinement of Bradley Manning, who may have leaked 250,000 confidential State Department cables and endangered hundreds of lives" is pretty darn irrelevant to what's happening in Libya.
Dr. Hanson's the one who's being incoherent here. Accordingly, he should not intervene in the arena of political commentary -- at least on this issue.
So much agonizing as to why we should do nothing.
The Gaddafi tyrants are overextended and pretending confidence in a situation that can easily explode out of their control.
Do what it takes to cripple their attack dogs, and give the people of Libya a chance to be free of this murderous dictatorship.
Just because the rebels hate Qadaffi doesn't mean they're any friends of ours. How many of them danced in the streets at the news of 9/11, and welcomed the Lockerbie bomber home as a hero?
More importantly, the " in-and-out" scenario so often advanced by interventionists almost never works.
Our troops went into Japan, Germany and Italy in 1945- they're still there. And in Kosovo. Any guesses about Iraq and Afghanistan?
And the Arab League wants a no-fly zone? Fine and dandy, they're got modern jet fighters by the score, to say nothing of NATO. Let our loyal allies do their own heavy lifting and dirty work for a change.
"You try to parse that sentence. But the fact that someone in the Obama administration "was saying that the Pentagon was 'stupid' in its pre-trial confinement of Bradley Manning, who may have leaked 250,000 confidential State Department cables and endangered hundreds of lives" is pretty darn irrelevant to what's happening in Libya."
@MikeB
Of course it is relevant. Crowley's statements undercut the prosecution of the Manning case; he never would have issued such a statement without clearing it with Hillary. They both knew it would cost them his job. Obviously the DOD and State do not see eye to eye. And Hillary has the ear of the President. Either the President doesn't have contorl of his own cabinet, or the like Bush the Preisdent is being undercut by his own bureaucracy.
In this sense, the confusion over such a simple thing as a no-fly zone has become a liability to the President. He has issued no definitive speeches concerning the Middle East (which was suppose to be his strong suit), and his underlings are at eachother's throats.
That is what you called weakness. And once you look weak every action and non-action becomes gets amplifide.
Is this like, "Anyone who would sign into law abominable legislation such as Obamacare, or go to Berlin to make a speech while running for president, or appoint Van Jones as 'green jobs czar,' or preside over a cabinet whose minion talks out of school, or do anything else you or other conservatives consider poor decisionmaking or command and control, cannot intervene constructively in Libya"?
Is that the sense of your comment (and Dr. Hanson's article)?
I understand that, if that is the point you're making. Is that your point?
What would Nero do? Stand like Castro on a cliff, face down the ill winds with his glare, turn them away?
We do not live as ancient Romans or Cubans. We live in a fundamentally transforming America.
On the world’s stage, this is what our historic first Islamic apostate president can be seen to do: vouchsafe his blessings of favor to college basketball teams.
We do not live as ancient Romans or Cubans, yet.
Burning regimes, chaos in the Middle East, disruption of the oil markets, that is what his foreign policy consists of, like Nero’s.
Gasoline rationing, healthcare rationing, government control over our life, that is what his domestic policy consists of, like Castro’s.
MikeB -- I think the original sentence was meant to both indicate the breadth of the incoherence (i.e. on many things) in the WH and to illustrate that the WH has difficulty staying in control of even relatively simple domestic situations. How much worse must it logically be at attempts to interfere in foreign situations.
That's what I got out of it, anyway. Apologies to Dr. H if I misinterpreted. I personally am not sure that the WH has any overarching principles on which to base decisions to do something (or not). The unpredictability makes me feel like our own government is to some extent unstable, which is quite frightening. I comfort myself with the article of faith that I just don't have all the information and things hopefully are not as bad as they seem, here.
I wish luck for the Libyans and others. One aspect of striving for self-determination is that it doesn't necessarily turn out the way you expect, and the moment passes.
Gaddafi orders the murders of the passengers of the Lockerbie aeroplane. His countrymen mass together in jubliant celebration to welcome home the Lockerbie mass murderer. Sounds to me like they deserve each other and can have no complaints about what the one does to the other. A pox on both their houses.
Any bets on how long before normal diplomatic relations are restored with this Whitehouse? Any bets on how long before we get pictures of Hillary Clinton and Qeddafi in the same frame?
Obama's current should we/should we not actions are not unlike the dithering that appears to be the central theme of his administration. Read in "Obama's Wars" about the 2-3 month decision-making non-process that prevailed re the number of additional troops to send to Afghanistan. It's frightening that our "chosen leaders" couldn't lead a hungry child to an ice cream cone.
P.S. Don't read "Obama's Wars" before you go to bed. Nightmares will follow!!
Dr. Hanson, your warnings against U.S. intervention in Libya are convincing. However, it is a mystery to me how you pin these problems on the Obama administration. What "consistent policy" should the president take toward the different uprisings happening there? What can he say out loud, or do, that will help our interests?
A lukewarm condemnation of Qaddafi is all we should want from our leadership right now. If you have a better idea, Dr. Hanson, please tell us. But don't criticize Obama for keeping us out of the fray if you don't have a solution in mind.
