Bernard-Henri Levy, who we are told “convinced” Sarkozy to intervene in Libya, gave an interview to something called Global Viewpoint Network, and in it we see Western incoherence on Libya in its most naked and cynical form.
Levy brags about Libya being different from past interventions like Iraq because this time the U.N. provided a resolution for intervention:
One of the major differences between this war, inevitable, and the war in Iraq, detestable, is the mandate of the United Nations, its absolutely legal framework. It would be regrettable to stray outside of this legal framework. And I believe France will not do so.
And then, without blinking an eye, Levy goes on to claim that to win the war, France in fact would have to go “beyond that” and “break the military machine”:
The purpose is written in the resolution. To protect civilians. To prevent the bloodbath Qaddafi is anticipating. And, beyond that, to break the military machine that Qaddafi, as you know, had turned against his own people. Protecting civilians, then, is putting the army and the power of Qaddafi out of commission.
Note the traditional French linguistic gymnastics (especially the “then”) when Levy absurdly says both (a) that they are protecting civilians, in accordance with the limited U.N. resolution, and (b) that the resolution really means, beyond that, “putting the army and power of Qaddafi out of commission.” That is the only way to end the war, but most certainly is not the “absolutely legal” U.N. mandate.
And so here we get to the heart of the Libyan/U.N. absurdity: Obama and the Europeans keep bleating about a new sort of intervention based on U.N. (and Arab League) resolutions, and then flagrantly (as the Russians point out) violate it, as they must if they really wish to win the war.
Do Obama, the Brits, and the French strengthen the U.N. by predicating their use of force on a U.N. resolution? Or do they in fact weaken it by deliberately ignoring the specifics of the resolution, and instead doing what they wish and must to win under the “U.N. approval” fig leaf? Which is what it is, unless one claims, as Levy does, that protecting civilians from Qaddafi really means removing him. But if that’s the case, why didn’t the U.N. resolution simply say that? Because then it doubtless would not have passed?
Levy calls Iraq “detestable,” so I would remind him of one embarrassing fact: Under Saddam, the French enjoyed the most cynical and advantageous oil concession in the history of Middle East petroleum contracts; when he was deposed and the U.S. fostered a constitutional government, the new government held a transparent oil auction of leases for the first time in the country’s history, one in which American oil companies did not win a concession.
In contrast, can we expect to see in Libya such a similar recognition that Qaddafi’s past oil-contractual arrangements (largely British, French, and Italian affairs) were similarly morally suspect, and that the replacement constitutional government will, as in the case of Iraq, renegotiate the leases under transparent and democratic auspices?
Anything less, and we will soon learn the proper use of “detestable” — an adjective that Levy most certainly did not employ in 2006 at the zenith of the insurgency when he declared in so-so fashion of Iraq, “I have a lot of friends who came out in favor of the war. I understand why. I myself hesitated to decide. Finally I was against. My line was that the war in Iraq was morally right and politically wrong.” And so on.
I seem to recall Bush bending himself into pretzels in order to win UN Security Counsel approval for his little adventure in Iraq.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I find to be an interesting distinction between the Iraq and Libyan conflicts is that there is apparently nothing archeologically interesting in Libya: Carthaginian, Roman, Greek? Nope, nada. Bomb away with impugnity people when a democrat is in charge, for nothing of historical interest will ever be harmed in the slightest. Apparently Q'Daffy the Good/wise never bothered to build a Museum of Antiguity to joyously loot or if there is one, one gets the sense that nothing of interest is there either. I would have presumed an archeologist here or there would be shouting about this, but no, nothing at all or perhaps they are just being very quiet. How very odd. Oh to be a democrat, and get away with anything, at least until the polls really go south.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow was this war "inevitable"? Libya had worked its way back into the good graces of the international community before the uprisings and Qaddafi's response to them. Meanwhile, Iraq was still under U.N. sanctions for its weapons programs, and the U.S. had been enforcing a no-fly zone for over a decade. Between the two, I'd say the Iraq War was far closer to "inevitable".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarkW,
You must have been in a coma when a) the UN passed 17 resolutions against Saddam's regime and b) Bush gave Saddam over 15 months after 9/11 to comply with them before finally throwing up his hands. "Oil-for-Food"? Oh yeah, that was a raving success, wasn't it?
Did you ever consider that one the primary reasons we invaded Iraq was to enforce the very resolutions the UN passed but couldn't, or wouldn't, enforce. Did you ever once think about that? Did you?
I didn't think so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI seem to recall Bush getting the approval of the US Congress before embarking on "his little adventure in Iraq". It would be nice if Obama could do as much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse[Biggus Rickus: "How was this war 'inevitable'? Libya had worked its way back into the good graces of the international community before the uprisings"]
*sigh* It is tiresome unblinkering willful blindness.
Recall, after Libyan officials disclosed Kaddafi's personal role in masterminding Lockerbie (and BEFORE Odyssey Dawn commenced), Kaddafi vowed to RESUME targeting civilian airliners.
External Link
In what alternate universe is the failed Christmas panty-bomber a combatant; while the mastermind of TWA840, PA103, UTA772, etc. is (somehow) NOT an imminent threat?
None so blind...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook it is all very simple. Bush was right about everything and by now everyone knows it, since the left has had to handle the same practical realities he faced. But no one in the modern world is willing to admit it, since they spent the last 10 years screaming at the top of their lungs that everything Bush did was wrong. They screamed it not because they believed it; they couldn't care less. They screamed it to take power and replace him in running the world. OK, now they are running the world. And they have nothing else to do but emulate Bush and his policies, but are too petty and to ashamed to admit they were unjust in the extreme in their attacks on that man, and on the US.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarkJ, I think that was MarkW's point...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusenobookcontract,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't forget another distinction: every city in Iraq is also a "holy city."
Plan B: Urge the Saudi royals to offer handsome bounties for Kaddafi klan heads.
Doesn’t anyone in NATO recall Kaddafi’s 2004 plot to assassinate Saudi royals?
External Link
What’s the expiration date on Saudi blood debts?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVictor, thanks for this note. The Security Council resolution "demands" an end to all violence by both sides to this conflict. The substantive provisions of the resolution are written in neutral terms; civilians are to be protected from threats of attack by both sides. It clearly does not authorize the campaign presently being waged. The whole point of the resolution was to freeze the combatants in place so that the UN and African Union could send representatives to Libya in pursuit of a political solution to the conflict. For once, the Russian representative is right.
The questions you pose are right on point: "Do Obama, the Brits, and the French strengthen the U.N. by predicating their use of force on a U.N. resolution? Or do they in fact weaken it by deliberately ignoring the specifics of the resolution, and instead doing what they wish and must to win under the 'U.N. approval' fig leaf?" Why doesn't the UN Secretary General speak up?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarkJ: Read my post again. I'm on your side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy whole point was that the Levy declared that Obama's actions are legitimate because he got a UNSC resolution backing his actions.
I was just pointing out that Bush also got such resolutions but Levy still felt that Bush's actions were not legitimate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJasonC, I think you have a mispelling. I believe you meant to write "ruining the world" not "running the world".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of the benefits of the Iraq war was that it convinced Qaddafi to undergo a strip search on WMD in exchange for a kind word about him from the U.S. Not a bad deal, and a clear benefit to the U.S. on the nuclear proliferation front. (Would even Valerie Plame approve?)
So when the "revolution" came to Libya, Obama started to fight the last war and arguably backed the greater of two evils.
But it taught all the remaining mad nuclear dictators out there that nuclear weapons, why, they must be a deterrent!
Fortunately, and here's the good news, the Libya incursion fell across the first anniversary of the fabulous ObamaCare and was helpful in the sense that Obama would not be distracted from his war duties by the need to defend that indefensible monstrosity. (He was out of country anyway.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Kaddafi_Delenda_Est,
I have not argued that Qaddafi is a good guy. However, he had been welcomed back into the international fold until his brutal response to the uprisings. At that point the war was by no means inevitable. Why would you link to a story that doesn't address, let alone refute my point? That threat in your link is a very good reason to ensure he is taken out now that the bombing has begun. It doesn't mean that this war was inevitable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, what does "traditional French linguistic gymnastics" mean? I wasn't aware there was such a thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's be honest, the only reason the French are taking the lead (the French for crying out loud) and Barak is following behind is because Quadaffi is a fat target. So be it, like shooting fish in a barrel. But what sort of vacuum are you creating in Libya? Do you really think the "people" will get it together and pass a constitution modeled after France and have free elections? even if they did become sophesticated over-night and elect a velvet dictator with an iron fist a la Putin? Will the people's freedom finally ring clear? Or will Libya's version of the Muslim Brotherhood aka the next Golden Caliphate, wring it's ugly head? Just saying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is a scary thought; does this set the precedent for military action by the UN towards Israel for humanitarian reasons? It wasn’t just Hillary harping for this; it was also Susan Rice and Samantha Powers, no friends of Israel to say the least.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProf. Hanson, U.N.S.C. Resolution 1973 authorizes U.N. member states "to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in [the state of Libya], while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." As I've argued elsewhere, that is actually a diplomatic triumph because of the exclusion. The exclusion means that if it doesn't involve setting up a new chow hall anywhere on Libyan dirt, it's authorized. So yes, regime change, including regime decapitation, is fairly within the scope of the authority Resolution 1973 grants -- for whatever that authority is worth (and I agree that it's merely a useful thing to have, not a prerequisite for American or NATO or coalition action).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse