Rarely has a president sounded so pleased with himself in making a confused case for an ambiguous war. President Obama contrasted himself with both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in his speech explaining his Libyan intervention on Monday night, as if after the struggles of the last two decades the United States has finally nailed the art of balancing its interests and values in a slippery world full of shades of gray.
Not surprisingly, over the last two weeks President Obama has proven himself a highly ambivalent warrior. Bizarrely, he says he’s putting the U.S. military at the service of the UN’s mission in Libya (protection of the population) rather than at the service of his own goal as president of the United States (the ouster of Qaddafi). We have high tolerance for diplomatic mumbo-jumbo to win allied support and soothe political sensibilities, so long as we don’t fool ourselves that there’s any substitute for American leadership and don’t let form dictate substance. President Obama at times seems dismayingly sincere in believing that in the ramshackle Libyan coalition he’s forged an entirely different mode for America’s engagement in the world.
Advertisement
This is silly, and ultimately pernicious. The United States military is not an armed department of the United Nations, nor is it meant to be sent willy-nilly around the world pre-empting atrocities, as it would be under modish theories of the “responsibility to protect.” The most important reason to move in Libya was to preserve the rebellion toward the end of weakening Qaddafi and ultimately toppling him. He’s proven himself a menace to us, to the region, and to his people. We believe in redemption, but not in the case of a miserable little dictator whose conversion in recent years to more reasonable behavior was clearly driven by fear of George W. Bush. Should he survive this campaign, he may well be emboldened, and he’s shown his capacity for bloody acts of revenge in the past. We should be actively seeking the end of his regime.
That means continuing to destroy as much of his military on the ground as rapidly as possible. It means attacking his command-and-control operations in the hopes that a lucky strike kills him. And it means reaching out through every possible diplomatic avenue to offer him a way out in the form of a one-way ticket to some place like Venezuela. The only force available on the ground to move on Tripoli is the rebels from the east. We shouldn’t romanticize them. Not only are they highly disorganized, they will surely commit abuses of their own as soon as they have the upper hand, and they may have limited appeal in the west of the country. As can be expected in such a society, some of the fighters are jihadis who in different circumstances we’d be seeking to kill. Their chief virtue is that they are anti-Qaddafi.
But we should be gaining as much knowledge of the particular players on the ground as possible so we aren’t flying so blind. Meanwhile, we should be engaging with the Transitional National Council in Benghazi and helping it build its capacities, so it can better govern the areas it controls and be better prepared to govern — or share in governing — the country in the event of Qaddafi’s fall. An ideal outcome would be a post-Qaddafi government of national unity negotiated between elements of the current government and the Transitional National Council. But we should have realistic expectations for post-Qaddafi Libya. It is a society much better primed for an insurgency and bitter division than for a functioning democracy. Since we are not going to send ground forces to police Libya if Qaddafi falls, have done no post-war planning, and have limited knowledge of the social and political terrain, our ability to control the ultimate outcome is very limited. As a practical matter, our goal is primarily the end of Qaddafi, a terrorist with the blood of Americans up to his elbows and a dictator so heinous even the club of Arab dictators could no longer abide him.
If his ouster is the final outcome, all the dodginess will have been worth it, and President Obama will be able to claim victory in this “kinetic military operation.”
Oh come on! Your editorial board does not believe this tripe. "Transitional National Council in Benghazi"??? The only thing we know about the "rebels" is that they will hate Americans just as much as their brethren Egypt do. Their is simply no reason for us to be over there taking sides. Let the neighbors clean up the mess next door to them... if they want to
The entire arab league, and the entire European Union are unable to stop Qaddafi? Maybe they have their reasons not to. My guess is that the other despots in the region like the status quo and the Europeans like the business they do with him.
How come we don't go into Syria? Didn't Assad's old man kill 22,000 people? How come we don't go into Saudi Arabia? An oil rich theocracy that keeps its people (subjects) in abject poverty. Come on you people have got to be better than this? Did Kristol put you up to writing this?
Positively Obamian in your caveats, qualifications, and hedges. I have never quite seen NR so confused as over this Libyan farce. Really a poor effort, guys.
In these situations one has to realize that we can't be a little bit pregnant. Like Iraq and Afghanistan (whether you agreed with the Casus Belli or not), you go in full force or you don't go in at all. If you go in, you go in with overwhelming force and win, and then do your best to leave something worthwhile behind.
What we are doing now, hiding behind the skirts of the UN: no-fly zoning hear, ground supporting there, is just feckless and confusing. And for NR to support this is confounding.
I'm very disappointed in one part of this editorial:
No golden parachute for tin-pot dictators. That encourages the others, which is the opposite of what needs to be done, viz, Kadafi's reaction to Saddam being pried out of his spider hole (rather than pensioned off to Uganda or wherever).
From Obama, we need more Teddy Roosevelt ("Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead" translates now into just "Kadafi dead," I think; but Obama doesn't need to say that so much as to stop saying that we're NOT targeting Kadafi) and less Teddy Ruxpin.
The world is full of thugs and America-haters and they will never take us seriously unless they know we are willing to break some heads every now and then.
Caveats:
Righteous cause (arguably)
Risk commensurate with benefit
Please install Derb, Steyn and McCarthy on the masthead forthwith and stop defending these insane Middle Esat entanglements. This could be a new low for editorials in this great publication. It is a defense of the indefensible.
And how, may I ask, is the U.S.A. going to pay for its participation in Libya's little debacle? Its not like we won these tickets in a radio sweepstakes.
China says: "Save the last dance for me... because I bought your ticket."
And what on earth is the "Transitional National Council in Benghazi"?
Do they have Town Hall meetings too?
This editorial turns on the notion that *now* that we've disturbed Qaddafi we must see things through until his ouster (and perhaps beyond!), lest he come at us in revenge. (If that's not good enough, the editorial seems to say, he was once a serious terrorist who killed Americans, though he reformed in fear of George Bush.)
Our own nascent CINC's theory of international Bosom State goodness is specious, but let us recognize the hard infrastructure of realpolitik that he has stumbled America into while at his military playstation.
Well, the bottom line here is that you can hang Qaddafi thirty times and let his body rot in the Tripolitan breezes, but it will not fix what has been started here.
For every laudation of the latest from Arab Spring there will be ten unintended consequences, for Libyans (in case you thought that this humanitarian mission was about Americans), that Qaddafi and his regime kept under its hat.
He's a loathsome nut, but in the arena of the Middle East, now, worse is likely to follow him. So let's not play that realpolitik card so easily.
Those who cheered this on before the attacks can't get themselves off the hook for it by claiming it must be seen through because the U.S. has disturbed Qaddafi's hornets nest.
There is still a solution short of continuing support for the "rebels." It would consist of a protected zone for those civilians who want to flee the regime while allowing the "rebels" to continue their insurgency, at their own risk and peril.
These Libya rebels and tribesmen are different from all others. Once Qaddafi is gone then these freedom loving democratic people will be our new allies in the Middle East. The Libyan people will reject radical Islamists. These tribes have special skills in civilization building. Obama is a genius.
Yeah, this movie is going to end different - it has a happy ending.
If you believe the above then I have a Unicorn ranch in California for sale where money grows on trees and where the deficit fairy lives to solve all budget problems.
To begin or support military action in Libya vs. Qaddafi at this time in history is foolish. So, it is not surprising that the Obama administration has proceeded. What is utterly perplexing is that any conservative would support it. What's more, if any American believes that a post Qaddafi Libya is going to an improvement over Qaddafi's Libya, they will be greatly mistaken. McCarthy has again spelled out the reality of the matter in his piece "Decoding Libya". It really is a one-stop-shop for what you need to know concerning the end game.
An interesting way to wrap up the editorial:
“As a practical matter, our goal is primarily the end of Qaddafi, a terrorist with the blood of Americans up to his elbows and a dictator so heinous even the club of Arab dictators could no longer abide him”.
No, as a practical matter, our goal should be to prevent Libya from descending into a Jihadist Islamic Republic. Instead we are essentially guaranteeing that will happen much sooner than we had hoped.
The specious argument is, We allied with the communists to defeat the fascists in WWII, so we can support one set of terrorists to defeat another set of terrorists this time around.
Here's the problem, here's why the analogy fails. Hitler was the immediate threat; Stalin was the remote threat (albeit a potent one, and not extremely remote, either). In this case, it seems like we're supporting the immediate threat - the young and violent terrorists - and opposing the aged and remote threat (Khadafi, who was - not is - a menace to us).
I have to admit, this is a tough case. While McCarthy's right that there are many terrorists among the rebels we're supporting, I get the sense there are more genuine reformers in the mix, too, than there ever has been in the Middle East. And by "genuine reformers" I do not mean Abdullah Madison or Mustaffa Jefferson. I mean people who simply believe that international terrorism isn't in their best interest, people who want a reprieve from violence for a while. They may want to oppress women and mame theives because they think that's the will of Allah, and they may not like us anyone else really, but they've got no program for a grand jihad against the whole wide world.
Might such people be innocents over whom the terrorists trample on their way to power, as in Afghanistan where the "neutrals" are used as shields for the terrorists? Maybe, but maybe not.
I guess at the end of the day, I'd defer to Obama and let history be the judge. He's got access to more information than we do, and someday the consequnces of this foray into Libya will be clear.
Anyone who thinks they know for sure how this will go, is fooling themselves.
Bring the God hammer down upon him, and let the fires of war follow. We have undertaken the mission to stabilize the region most aggressively and effectively under Bush. This is a national objective that our president has mis managed disastrously with the failure to act in support of the green revolution. The USA ought to be there from momento uno directing the play either behind the scenes or center stage. In the Truman fashion, crushing the weeds that sprout out to prevent a big problem later. Free elections will do nothing if not accompanied by progress ( human rights for the ladies, protection to religious minorities like Jews Christians Indians et. al. and true terror for anyone considering offending western sensibilities on such matters). It's time we win this, and if were not willing to cross the finish line and get the rewards after running all these years then we should pull out leaving a sea of rubble and dust, maintain excellent intel, update our rusty military equipment and double the amount we have of it, Siphon off the oil in the region with the worthless paper we print (let them have the paper it's just paper), and flex our muscle where we can commit to the task.
"Meanwhile, we should be engaging with the Transitional National Council in Benghazi and helping it build its capacities, so it can better govern the areas it controls and be better prepared to govern — or share in governing — the country in the event of Qaddafi’s fall."
Is there any way that we can realistically do this without becoming heavily involved on the ground in Libya?
