I’ve been traveling lately, with no time for Corner posting. Before we see what’s about to unfold in Libya, however, I’d like to give my take on our policy choices there.
I am not an advocate of establishing a no-fly zone in Libya. When it comes to the freedom agenda in the Middle East, I am a skeptic. Democracy promotion may (or may not) work as a long-term enterprise in places where U.S. troops are in place. I don’t think it should drive our Middle East policy in the short or medium term, however. The Libyan opposition is a complex mix of Islamists, actors motivated by tribal allegiances, and liberals. The last element is probably the weakest of the three, and even their purported liberalism may not guarantee a pro-Western stance. While we might be lucky enough to quickly and cleanly displace Qaddafi, I don’t think the relatively thin prospects of the Libyan opposition developing into liberal democrats justifies the risks of an extended military entanglement.
I take arguments for a no-fly zone based on more traditional considerations of national interest more seriously. America does have an important interest in securing the supply of oil from the Middle East. Libyan oil is not critical to our supply, however, and this operation does not appear to be an attempt to send a signal about the need to stabilize oil flow.
We also have an interest in making sure that Middle Eastern governments do not support terrorism, especially if those governments also have active nuclear programs. There is some danger that Qaddafi will restart his nuclear program and resume his sponsorship of terrorism if he survives this struggle. Nonetheless, it is very far from certain that Qaddafi will move in this direction, and preventing him from doing so does not seem to be the motive for our actions in Libya.
I would rather see us convey a clear message that a resumption of terror sponsorship and/or a nuclear program would not be tolerated, than to have us risk a complex intervention on that assumption now. Targeted military attacks of the sort President Reagan used on Libya could be used in case Qaddafi resumed his nuclear program or terror support, and we could clearly convey that message to him beforehand.
Granted, helping an indigenous opposition overturn Qaddafi might be a quick and cheap way of preventing his return to full-scale rogue status in the future. Yet it could just as well begin a messy and extended military adventure, or usher in an anti-Western, pro-terrorist, Islamist government.
So I oppose the establishment of a no-fly/no-drive zone, which is tantamount to a commitment to overthrow Qaddafi with grounds troops, if necessary. Should air attacks fail to work, we either go in and finish the job with troops, or make ourselves look weak by initiating a military action we cannot or will not carry through to a favorable conclusion. I don’t think the risks are worth it.
There is a cost to the sort of stance I’m supporting. It means leaving opponents of a contemptible dictator in the lurch. Yet we cannot and do not intervene to overthrow every dictatorship in the world. More to the point, I think the West is badly misjudging the motives of many of the protests sweeping the Arab world right now. I do not think we are witnessing a liberal democratic revolution, and I don’t think active attempts by the West to turn the unrest in that direction will succeed any time soon.
I recognize that, given America’s considerable military power, we may be lucky enough to quickly displace Qaddafi. A relatively painless successful military outcome is a real possibility here. But the risks of something that falls short of that are also real. And especially to the extent that we expect this operation to advance the cause of authentic liberal democracy in the Middle East, I am deeply skeptical of this venture.
I mostly agree. That said it is difficult in the extreme to sit back and watch a lunatic slaughter an entire city when you have the tools to stop it and the diplomatic cover to avoid being accused of having ulterior motives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: "A relatively painless successful military outcome is a real possibility here."
Stanley, perhaps. But the American Constitutional dialog to validate that decision should be painful as hell. I.e.,
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...To declare War...
Play it out. In Congress. All nine yards.
America has had enough of obsolete, unaffordable, Neocon cowboy adventurism half way across the globe.
All we we can do is kill and destroy. But we are broke. And impotent. And sclerotic. Enough...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing detered by unspecified fears of something worse emerging or a conflict being prolonged strikes me as letting the left's treasonous campaign against Bush over Iraq dictate the emasculation of US foreign policy.
It is absurd for the United States with all its military power to be detered by the weak an disorganized forces of a fragmented Libya. If we plan on being put off by such imaginary "threats" for the foreseeable future, we might as well pack it in as a country, because we have no future in that case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI recommend the Wikipedia article "Bombing of Libya" for a summary of the 1986 (Reagan-era) efforts. Superficially, it seems to be quite good. I report, you decide.
Congress shall have the power to declare war? Get with the plan. On domestic issues, the judiciary routinely overrules Congress, and on foreign military intervention the president routinely ignores Congress. It's been that way since the end of WWII, I believe. The only exception I can think of is the sadly misguided Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe debate is over, the vote is cast, the days of Qadaffy are numbered. Once we commit, full support by all hands is expected by someone such as myself. I can disagree with Obama on 99% of his policies or logic, but once military conflict is involved, victory is the only option. He is the Commander In Chief and was put there by vote. We can debate issues all of his term, but military conflict demands 100% support. I would never behave as Democrats did regarding Bush's wars. Our troops deserve better. Likewise I will not do so to Obama's, if your in it, you better win it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse'Daffy better take a dirt nap or he will strike out at his enemies.
Don't agree with Kurtz on this. It has less to do with the attributes of the rebels and more to do with preventing 'Daffy's "cleansing" or genocide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuaddafi (sp?) is a mortal enemy of the US/Western World. Why Bush admin decided to setup relations because he supposedly gave up WMD is beyond me. We should absolutely exploit any/every chance to take out him and his regime.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnalogy: Hugo Chavez faces an armed rebel population ready to overthrow him. Hell yes, we should support such rebels to the hilt.
Saying sorry we are already over-extended in Afganistan just begs the question. Like we couldn't move 20,000 troops to Libya if we had to. Libya is a 100x more strategic than Afganistan!
We can't continue as the world's policeman, and we shouldn't want to. This is an opportunity for the Arab League to step up and and use all those shiny planes we sell them to impose their own "no-fly" zone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt took, what, 9 months to find Sadaam Hussein after the 2003 invasion of Iraq? And that was with boots, lots of them, on the ground.
For this misadventure the mission creep has already started - it's now a "no fly, no drive" zone. Just how are we going to do this effectively without ground troops directing fire at moving ground targets? Are the Brits and French going to give the rebels radios and let THEM call in airstrikes? I think not. How do you "protect civilians" when you cannot tell who from whom? It's not like there are two camps in an open field who are easy to see and ID. This will be urban, and it will be messy.
And even with all of that, Qaddafi stays in power and is able to direct his thugs while safely in hiding. All this is going to do is prolong the agony in Libya. We should let the strong horse win, and deal with whoever that is. The rest of this is happy talk Liberal fantasy about "protecting lives". There is zero evidence that any kind of moderately Western pluralistic government will emerge. This UN action is going to intensify and drag out the killing while preventing a clear winner. The most anyone should want is a Dunkirk evacuation of the rebel tribes, but I'm not sure that is possible now.
If the UN *actually* wants the rebels to win, then this resolution is stupidly worded non-committal mush. Do they expect victory FOR EITHER SIDE via no-fly/no-drive zones? The UN doesn't *do* victory. They do demilitarized zones, and peacekeeping troops, and saving-face negotiations...all of which prolong conflicts and magnify regional instability.
And just for grins, since pretty much everyone knows that the U.S. will eventually have to support militarily, we have subordinated American sovereignty to the United Nations. Not a bad day for Barack Obama...no matter the outcome he wins, and America is diminished in the world. Win win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow- so wrong on so many levels!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1)The United States was a revolutionary development in the history of the world- promising liberty and freedom and that "all men have inalienable rights"
2) democracies and western oriented governments are much less a threat to US national security interests
3) Qaddafy is a mad dog who has the blood of HUNDREDS of American citizens on his hands
4) Iran is watching, Syria is watching, Hizbullah is watching. To let a mad dictator massacre those civilians protesting for democracy is to ensure Iran gains greater strength at our expense
5) To allow the US to look like a paper tiger after France, UK and Obama stated Qaddafi must go harms our national interests in the Middle East and around the world
I'll never claim to be a foreign policy expert, so I ask these questions with all sincerity.
What exactly is our strategic interest in Libya? I agree, Qaddaffi is a disgusting dictator, but he has plenty of company around the world.
If we step into the Libya crisis, what then? What if we did enforce a no-fly zone and Qaddaffi just relied on ground forces to quell the rebellion? It might take longer, but what if he won? What then? Qaddaffi is still in power, and we would have taken clear sides against him. How does this impact our standing in the Middle East (if we still have any)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Mr. Kurtz, and for the record, "Radical in Chief" should be required reading prior to the 2012 election..
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@JAF:
1) Yeah, for ourselves not the entire planet, and
2) there is zero evidence the rebels in Benghazi intend to form some sort of pro-Western liberal democratic society. They are a tribe.
3) Then why don't you just say, "America should invade Libya"? In for a penny, in for a pound!
4) They've been watching that's for sure. They've been watching America apologize for all of your above thoughts, run away from them, pull back from the world, abdicate leadership. Libya is no exception.
5) It's a little late for face-saving, feel-good, smart bombs. Message received: America cannot be trusted.
This is a mistake. All a UN "no fly zone" will do is prolong the conflict.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy biggest problem is the Obama indecision, dithering and perceived weakness which just creates a host of pernicious problems everywhere. Obama could never decide where he stood. So, now, who is in charge of foreign policy really? Is this Hillary's war? Will Obama turn around and blame Hillary when this is a failure and try to exculpate himself? I think that is his MO. We may not like our position in the world as a superpower. But we have it nonetheless and whatever our decisions are, we cannot abdicate that position. So, when Obama resigns, we can call it Abdication.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am also skeptical of the motives of the resistance. That said, we have experience with Qadhafi and his motives.
We don't want a long term commitment in the area, but I for one am glad that we are providing a bit of support to the resistance to keep Qadhafi from mowing them down.
One can only hope that the Qadhafi regime is toppled, and that the remaining society remembers the day that we gave them a fighting chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe destroy all of their airplanes and defenses from the air. We move quickly and decisively. We don't need to send troops or to have any loses, the rebels will take care of the rest. We let the world know that we're doing it just to destroy Qaddafy. That will show the world, including the rebels themselves, what happens to someone who makes the US their enemy and conspires to kill american people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The debate is over, the vote is cast..."
Which vote? I only know of the UN vote. And I couldn't care less.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, well ... It looks like 'ol Muammar is backing down.
It's amazing what a little display of backbone can accomplish, isn't it?
Too bad this same kind of intestinal fortitude wasn't on display from the west three weeks ago when Muammar was reeling, on his heels and poised for the knockout.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA phony cease fire is straight out of the old Arafat playbook (and the strategy itself must be ageless).
When the spotlight is upon us, press pause, play nice, and appear reasonable until the world is distracted elsewhere, then restart tyranny.
These guys all took the same despot's correspondence course and it shows.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe destroy all of their airplanes and defenses from the air. We move quickly and decisively. We don't need to send troops or to have any loses, the rebels will take care of the rest. We let the world know that we're doing it just to destroy Qaddafy. That will show the world, including the rebels themselves, what happens to someone who makes the US their enemy and conspires to kill american people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse