As someone on the interventionist side of things here at NRO (I’d use “hawkish” but I don’t think that word really makes sense in this context), I’d like to offer a little push-back on one of the main anti-intervention talking points.
Yes, Obama is being inconsistent, hypocritical, or misguided in one way or another. Not to mention Joe Biden! But I fail to see why Obama’s hypocrisy should be a huge concern to conservatives. If he’s flipping to the right policy, who cares what his old view was? And if he’s flopping to the wrong policy, it’s not the flop that should concern us, but the wrongness of the policy itself.
Anyway, the argument that we shouldn’t be intervening in Libya because we’re not intervening elsewhere is a pretty weak claim, by my lights. As I said in my column, the way Obama has gone about this requires him to make an argument about why Libya is different from, say, Bahrain based on some objective standard. That’s his mistake.
But the simple fact is that foreign policy is never a fertile ground for perfect consistency. You do what you can, where you can, when you can. If we could topple the Iranian or North Korean regimes at no cost in lives or treasure whatsoever, I’d argue for doing that tomorrow. But we can’t. This is a game opponents of any intervention always play, “What makes X so different than Y?” The easiest answer is that we have a ripe opportunity in X and not in Y (as I’ve written, I think the opportunity in Libya probably lost its ripeness a while ago).
Now, there are many good substantive arguments against intervening in Libya. I find some more compelling than others. But saying “Why not Saudi Arabia, too?” is not one of them.
I agree the consistency claim is not a strong one.
Among the strongest reasons for not supporting Libya might be that one of the few clues we have about the aims of the rebels is that a senior Al Queda leader reportedly supports them.
External Link
If this is true, then we're fighting on the side that Al Queda is rooting for?!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose of us absorbed in the minutiae of politics often forget the voting public is a relentlessly "big-picture" group. They see memes in black and white, and hear soundbites without shading, nuance or equivocation.
Major rule of messaging: If any meme can be expressed in one compound sentence with a co-ordinate conjunction, it becomes especially devastating (and damaging.)
In this case the meme is: "The Republicans were all in favor of Bush's war in Iraq, but now they're opposed to the action in Libya just because Obama is president."
That is true inconsistency in the mind of the public... and it's very dangerous for a political party to be tagged with it.
538refugees
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I agree that only hobgolbins harp hypocrisy, there *is* one major difference in this event: Barack Obama's entire raison d'etre was his supposed moral clarity and righteousness. Just as men of the cloth typically can't survive failings of the flesh, Obama is far more wounded by his hypocrisy than politicians who have heretofore pursued flexibility.
Aside from the debate about whether this was the right decision or not, you fairly believe that Obama has *now reached* the right decision, thus he shouldn't be punished for his hypocrisy. Unfortunately, the trouble with hypocrisy, particularly in international relations, is the not-insignificant danger arising from mixed messages. It's bad enough when our allies can't trust us-- it's downright dangerous when our *enemies* can't trust us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree. Got to wonder whose side all these critics are on.
It's in our interests for these autocratic, terrorist shielding, American hating regimes to fall.
The American public agrees.
The American right is too bored. The treading of water by the right awaiting the next campaign looks more like the flailing of a drowning victim in this instance.
Good Riddance to Khadafy and his like.
If Syria comes unraveled, it will be the biggest victory for the post 9/11 American foreign policy since they pulled Saddam Hussein out of his hidey hole.
gb
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"if he’s flopping to the wrong policy, it’s not the flop that should concern us, but the wrongness of the policy itself."
I'll have some comment to make on the rightness or wrongness of his policy, just as soon as he figures out what the heck his policy is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@filistro,
OK, so then why isn't the meme this?: "The Democrats are all in favor of Obama's war in Libya, but they were opposed to the action in Iraq just because Bush was president."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA few points:
The stated motivation for your favored intervention begs the relevant, timely and as-yet unanswered question of the relative magnitude of the humanitarian crisis.
When the US military is being used to further almost purely humanitarian aims, then YES INDEED it becomes incumbent on the proponents of intervention to differentiate why the particular crisis we enter is more morally compelling than any number of other fiascos brewing around the globe.
When morality is almost the entire justification to go to war, not strategic interest in protecting our national security, then too bad it is that you proponents will have to answer the really obvious question about relative magnitude of the crisis.
At least answer the concern? No, say they, we'll just deny the relevancy of the question. Gentlemen - the relevance is inherent in the justifications for intervention. (And that increases mightily if one relies on Pan AM 103 to justify this).
And as for a Dem president helping al Qaeda: DEJA VU, DUDE! Kosovo, anyone? We were fighting Slobo on behalf of the KLA, a group labeled a terrorist organization by Clinton's own administration. This movie is a very stupid, unnecessary re-run.
But, indeed, thanks for highlighting that the "Why not go to Country X" concern is surpassed in urgency over the concern of fostering the interests of our enemies, another concern neither interventionist here even begins to tackle, conveniently.
But again, if you don't want to answer that tired question of "Why not attack X?", then choose other motivations besides do-goody-good tendencies for which to send our military off to blow things up and kill people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"In this case the meme is: "The Republicans were all in favor of Bush's war in Iraq, but now they're opposed to the action in Libya just because Obama is president.""
That's cute. Why isn't the meme: "The Democrats bitterly opposed Bush's war in Iraq even though they voted for it, but now they support action in Libya just because Obama is president"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDave... the Democrats AREN'T all in favor of Oabama's war in Libya. In fact, they're pretty ticked about it...and Dennis Kucinich is busy mining their disaffection for all he's worth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not much "concerned" at all about Obama's inconsistency. I just love sticking it to Liberals who attacked Bush and Conservatives relentlessly while declaring Iraq and Afghanistan lost, etc. Libs set the standard for consistency and we are enjoying watching them being skewered by their own past statements. This reveals them to all the world as the opportunistic, cynical frauds that we always knew them to be.
It's a beautiful thing!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehi flenser! I don't believe I've sparred with you since the good old days at Captain Ed's. :-)
Nice to see you again.
538refugees
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI should also point out that I'm in favor of liquidating Khadaffy Duck at the earliest opportunity. It's a shame that Ronaldus Magnus did not take care of that back in the '80s.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept, there is no opportunity in X, ripe or otherwise, that justifies this intervention. Here's the bottom line: What we've established, by an example *directly* on point, is that any cusp-of-nuclear-capable dictator that foregoes that development is an idiot. That the wise course is to stall through dipolomacy and accelerate implementation. That the North Korean/Iranian approach is the only approach.
How is the removal of an aged strongman within a decade of natural death worth sending that message, and the consequences that will inevitably follow?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConsistency is not a major argument at all. VDH put it on his list, but his list is misunderstands and understates the case against Libya. VDH is not the relevant advocate of non-intervention re: Libya. It's not even clear that he is against it!
Ask McCarthy, Krikorkian, Manzi etc, to give you their list and then argue with that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the good old days at Captain Ed's."
You're making me feel old.
Who or what are the "538refugees"? Are they seeking humanitarian asylum here at NRO?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're bombing Libya. What's not to like?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll take a shot at defending Jonah's point.
Even assuming that humanitarianism IS the reason we are intervening in Libya (rather that simply taking out a longtime enemy of the US), then there is not some higher threshold of consistency that needs to be met in order to justify it.
His argument is that, "If you cannot topple every horrid dictator, then you ought to topple none" is not measurably different from "If you cannot relieve every humanitarian disaster you ought to alleviate none".
The point is that you do what you can in an imperfect world, and if you can only slay a Hitler instead of a Hitler and Stalin, you take that shot. Not a great comparison, I know, but I think it gets to his point.
All that being said, I'm not sure that intervening was the right idea, and I haven't seen any compelling arguments from the White House as to why we should. That, however, probably reflects more the fecklessness of our current leadership, rather than the inherent merits (or demerits) of intervention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course consistency matters. Who can trust what the guy will do next? Abort? Aid the protestors in Syria? Iran? When you lead with jelly legs, those who are lead aren't fully with you. And as we see already, the coalition jitters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseflenser... 538refugees were displaced when the stats genius Nate Silver when to the NYT, and so they started a blog of their own. It's similar to this place in that both sides can be heard from without getting crushed or banned... a rare thing on the Intertubes..... but the topics don't change so swiftly so the discussions can go a bit deeper.
We all love The Corner and would welcome a flenser in our midst, too.. I've heard they're pretty sharp implements ;-)
Hey... I already have a STAR. This is awesome!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFilistro:
There is nothing hypocritical at all here about conservatives opposing military intervention that:
1) Very well may leave the thug causing all the problems in power;
2) Very well may be materially advancing the interests of our terrorist enemies who became opposed to Quaddafi when he canceled their nuclear program and cooperated with int'l western police agencies;
3) Was launched without any approval from the Legislature which is constitutionally and statutorily obligated to approve the same.
I doubt 1/2 as many conservative voters would have supported the Iraq invasion if we were told by our Commander-in-Chief, before he ordered launching the mission, that ousting the dictator causing all the problems was NOT ON THE AGENDA, and that Bush had no intention of seeking congressional authorization!
NO ONE has yet to justify supporting military intervention in Libya that results in Quaddafi remaining in power. I fail to see how any intelligent person could countenance that, especially in light of the fact WE KNOW LITERALLY NOTHING ABOUT THESE REBELS! And more imprtantly, especially in light of the fact that the humanitarian aims here are the most compelling reason for action.
Nothing about this situation is even remotely parallel to Iraq. In Iraq, we knew plenty about the various groups and players involved. In Libya, we have NO CLUE who these rebels actually are. Bush received Congressional OK. Obama didn't even seek it. Bush took the lead to establish a broad international coalition. Obama hopped on the caboose of a rather small one. Everyone in the world believed Saddam had WMD, thus tying the mission to our and our allies' national security interests. I fail to see how, all of a sudden, removal of Quadaffi from power (which ISN'T EVEN THE MISSION) is suddenly NECESSARY. OPPORTUNE, yes, but again, the policy is to perhaps leave Quaddafi there.
Get it, now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse