Having almost foamed at the mouth in this column for weeks about the irresolution and incongruity of the administration’s Libya policy, I would be churlish and ungrateful if I did not express my sense of relief that the president moved, just before it was too late. Other people at another time will have to determine what Mr. Obama thought he was doing stating that Qaddafi had no legitimacy and had to leave, but that the U.S. would do nothing substantial to produce that outcome, and then praising the virtues of “organic revolutions,” as if lamenting in the abstract the inability of the Libyan dissidents to rise up volcanically and expel the lunatic who has riveted himself on the back of his country for 42 years.
With millions of others, I watched with rising astonishment as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whom I praised in this place just three weeks ago, told a Senate committee that a no-fly zone was beyond the capabilities of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and incited the inference that enforcing such a zone was a military challenge equivalent to the invasion of Northwest Europe on June 6, 1944 (ten divisions crossed from England to France in one day by sea and air). Hillary Clinton was sent by the White House to nod earnestly and winsomely at the television cameras and affirm that there is violence in the Congo and Sudan and elsewhere and that she and the president must not be overly preoccupied by the scuffles in Libya.
Advertisement
These howlers were delivered with commendable poker faces, given that Qaddafi is unrelievedly bad and that his “organic” support and mercenaries could be sent packing by the Tallahassee police force, with a couple of armored personnel carriers. The Libyan armed forces are incapable of anything more militarily challenging than the massacre of unarmed innocents, which the negligent casuistry of the president of the United States was facilitating until this week.
I have thought all along that the key to a satisfactory outcome lay with the French. France is a Mediterranean country; Algeria, Libya’s neighbor, was a French département (state or province) from 1830 until 1963, and there were more than a million authentic Frenchmen in Algeria, including the great writer Albert Camus. France, in all its feline self-indulgence, was happy to claim for decades its tolerance and vocation for absorption and fraternization with the Arabs, especially while de Gaulle could irritate the Americans by truckling to Arab anti-Semitism, and the French elites could sit in their cafes waving their smoldering Gitane or Gauloise cigarettes and snifters of cognac or absinthe about, extolling the virtues of French trans-Mediterranean Arabophilia (in refreshing contrast to America’s hypocrisy and bigotry vis-à-vis its black population). The whole charade was supported by feting James Baldwin and other American black intellectuals virtually with such open arms as those with which Americans embraced Antoine de St. Exupéry and Andre Gide during World War II; or those with which the French court welcomed Jacques Cartier’s representative Canadian Indian, Donnacona, in the 16th century. (Gide, an aggressive homosexual decades ahead of his time, was attracted to America chiefly by the relatively tight trousers of American GIs, who, as he put it, rolled their buttocks fetchingly along the great boulevards of the French cities they liberated (ultimately almost all of them).
Anyone who knows France knew that as soon as the militant Islamists in France provoked the French by seriously disturbing their enjoyment of their magnificently sumptuous country, the best wined and dined nationality in human history, sharing one of the world’s most distinguished cultures in every field with only 20 or 30 million others apart from the 60 million French themselves, the French public, almost in unison, would throw down the pious mask of fraternal egalitarianism and lower the truncheons of their well-practiced police on the ethnically covered heads of the real infidels. Beau geste is fine as a divertissement, but the French will not be deterred from savoring their birthright. The Islamists may torch 200 of their own automobiles a night in no-go areas of North Paris, but once they question the serenity of la Belle Marianne in all her pleasures and refinements, it is time to call for the riot police, the severity of French courts (so well described by Camus in The Stranger), and the tenebrous thickets of the French penal bureaucracy.
So long as other nations awaken to the dangers, I am not going to complain about how it came about. Obama may yet leave the world a much better place, if only through waking everyone up. First the tea parties, now French leadership. What will he accomplish next?
T.E. Lawrence's promise to create a Arab homeland in Greater Syria was abrogated by the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. The San Remo conference affirmed the agreement. That marked a turning point in Western/Arab relations that was intitated by Bonaparte's Egyptian campaign 120 years earlier. The development of the Suez Canal by Ferdinand De Lesseps was one of the more positive aspects of French involvement in the region. Napoleon III assisted in arbitrating disputes. I forgot who said "Warsaw wasn't worth the life of one Frenchman". After DeGaulle had evacuated Algeria French right wing military elements tried to assassinate him. A recent book on Eisenhower and the Suez Crisis was recently published. Eisenhower's effective handling of the crisis as well as the Lebanon Crisis in 1958 were good examples of decisive leadership. That was the last time a balanced sane doctrine was applied to the Middle East. Reagan's evacuation of the Marines after the bombing of their barracks in Beirut indicated a realistic assessment of the stragetic problem the area represented. Sarkozy as Joan D'Arc is a safer role than that of Leon Blums
Mr. Black - I can sympthasize with your criticizing Obama's incoherence on event in Libya. I part company with you, however, in your judgment that Khaddafi should be ousted. You may get what you wished for, but you have to be careful what you wish for: Libya without Khaddafi may be worse for the US than Libya with Khaddafi.
The reality is - as Yale professor Stephen Carter points out:
All the squabbling among the allies over Libya ignores the simple fact that this is America's war. Stephen Carter says no one else has the firepower it takes for humanitarian interventions.
Of course, NATO could - and probably should - be allowed to take the formal lead of the operation in Libya, but even then the US would remain the de facto leader.
What is more worrying, is the very strange way Germany has been acting. One has to ask the question: What is the use of NATO, with members acting like Germany?
Hey... they're gonna need boots on the ground to some extent.
If three quarters of the membership of Congress loved this country then Obama would be impeached and removed from office simply based upon incompetence.
Oh... and speaking of incompetence... here's what's REALLY scary: The average American indicates he or she is quite content with Madam Clinton's leadership at the State Department.
Mr. Black, while I thank you and appreciate your efforts to "cheer us up" with this article, the fact remains that the United States is in terminal decline and that even if Republicans are able to take back the Senate, keep the House, and take back the White House in 2012, we'll still be screwed.
The rot is too deep.
The American character has been irredeemably altered over several generations and with the demographics being what they are... it's only gonna get worse.
A rollicking good read, but I cannot abide with the conclusion. The ends do not justify the means. Process matters. Qaddafi, whatever his psychotic state of mind, was the ruler of his nation and not posing any clear or present danger to us or anyone outside his pest-hole of a country. How could his putting down a civil war in his own nation be a humiliation to us? This would be like saying the British were humiliated when the North defeated the South in our own civil war. It is a non sequitur.
I almost, and I repeat almost, voted for Obama because I was sure that McCain would start a war somewhere judging from his "bomb, bomb, bomb, iran" mantra. Thank goodness I didn't because I'd be real upset that I threw my vote away and he started another war that we have no business involving outselves in anyway.
I wonder how many votes McCain lost because of that campaign stupidity?
Barker13, you said: "The American character has been irredeemably altered over several generations and with the demographics being what they are... it's only gonna get worse." While I agree completely with your analysis, I disagree that it is too late change the outcome. Immigration policy is the complete and entire culprit in the destiny of the United States. If we can cut out, like the Cancer it is, the current immigration policy, in place since 1965, and replace it with one that restricts immigration to less than 500k per year for ten years, we can save this nation. To delay that change will mean the unalterable metamorphosis of this nation and its resultant failure as an experiment in freedom.
Can't we be truthful,honest, and candid for just once?
The war in Libya is about oil, and this is perfectly fine with me.The Brits (BP) have exploitation rights to the presently producing oil fields and to the vast reserves that still remain to be exploited. Ditto the French (TOTAL FINA), and ditto the Italians (ENI).
Dear Sir:
Thank you for a lovely and very funny column. However, you made one major historical error, namely, claiming that France provided significant help to Poland in her defeat of the Red Army in 1920. France sent a group of military advisers under Gen. M. Weygand who gave only useless and impractical advice. France provided virtually no material aid. (Shipments to Poland of both arms and humanitarian supplies were blocked by leftist unions in Britain and across the Continent.) The victory in 1920 was due to the sacrifice of the Polish citizens and soldiers who held the Bolos north of Warsaw while Pilsudski and Sosnkowski organized a counterstroke that crushed the Red spearheads. French advice to hold to a static defensive posture in the face of the Red onslaught was rightly ignored.