Count me skeptical about the original decision to do whatever it is that some-of-NATO is doing in Libya, and count me even more skeptical about the efficacy, justice or legitimacy of much of what is described as international law, but this recent post by Nick Cohen, one of the more left-wing of the London Spectator’s contributors, is well worth reading. Here are some key extracts:
The war in Libya is destroying the illusions of Europe’s liberal middle class. Think back to how it spokesmen and women talked about international politics in an Oslo [Cohen's comments were first written for a Norwegian tabloid] or London television studio until only a few months ago, and notice how everything they assumed to be true has turned out to be false. They agreed that it was an outrageous breach of international law for America and her allies to overthrow Saddam Hussein – a far worse tyrant than Muammar Gaddafi, incidentally. Now they have a war that meets their demands of “legality,” we find it to be a cruel and dishonest campaign that cannot meet its objectives.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorised “all necessary measures” to protect Libyans from the threat of attack…But the UN’s legal authority is treacherous. Those who praise it would be the first to condemn a European judicial system that elevated a lawyer who took bribes from criminals or a communist who hated freedom of speech to the rank of judge, and would denounce the EU if it allowed a dictatorship to join the European club.
Unlike the EU, unfortunately, the United Nations is a club without membership rules. On the Security Council sits Russia, aptly described by the US State Department as a “mafia state,” and the representatives of the Chinese Communist Party. Such are the arbiters of international law. And to get them to agree to the action in Libya, Europe, the US and their Arab supporters had to promise not to overthrow the regime or put soldiers on the ground to support the use of air power. We are now in the absurd situation where we can offer the rebels air support but not the military units they need to win the war. We cannot target the dictator personally, because his life must be protected, while the wretched people of Misurata suffer and die. We may have to live with the fact that Gaddafi will survive – and by clinging on to power give hope to the region’s embattled dictators and depress the morale of their opponents. What is the point of a humanitarian intervention that prolongs the conflict and leaves the abuser of human rights in charge? None that I can see. But apparently it is legal…
…We may soon see the shattering of a third and final illusion. Post-war European prosperity was built under the US security umbrella. We complained, often with justice, about American policies but we did not have to pay for our own defence or fight our own wars. If ever there was trouble with the Soviet Union or Milosevic in the Balkans, we could rely on the Yanks. Now America is preparing to bring her legions home. One of the four US brigades in Europe is leaving, and although the Pentagon protests that its commitment to Europe remains strong, the direction the US is heading in remains clear. She cannot afford to maintain vast forces in Europe given her budget deficit, and in any case cannot see why she should given that Asia is now at the centre of American interests and Europe is a rich region that can afford to pay for its own armies.
One day Europe will have to fight her own wars and defend her own borders. Although the liberal spokesmen and women in the Oslo and London TV have scoffed at the cowboy Yanks and neo-con aggressors for years, they may miss them when they are gone.
Reality bites.
Thanks for posting this, Andrew.
For me, the money quote is this:
"Post-war European prosperity was built under the US security umbrella. We complained, often with justice, about American policies but we did not have to pay for our own defence or fight our own wars. If ever there was trouble...we could rely on the Yanks. Now America is preparing to bring her legions home.....One day Europe will have to fight her own wars and defend her own borders. Although the liberal spokesmen and women...have scoffed at the cowboy Yanks and neo-con aggressors for years, they may miss them when they are gone."
I think NRO should emphasize this when discussing OUR OWN DOMESTIC spending.
Too often we hear how wonderful Leftist European countries are. (E.g. "They have universal health care; they have a wide safety net.")
They also DON'T have to worry about military spending thanks to us. (And their health care and safety net are still faltering nonetheless....)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy opinions are usually worthless, however, I DO know "surge warfare" such as being waged now. I have 28 years of USAF experience in, well, bombing whoever annoys us.
This effort is pathetic and thin on the ground. Logistics are suffering, equipment is breaking down and maintenance is shoddy not because of the skills of the people but because the commitment of the Administration is less than complete.
We “lost” an F-15 due to mechanical problem!?! We lost exactly one airplane during the first Gulf War due to mechanical error; a stupid pilot ran out of gas and had to punch out. (don’t think his military career progressed much after that!)
Jeez, this is embarrassing to watch; turnaround is lousy, planes are being grounded for maintenance, FOR MAINTENANCE!?!?!
A little known secret, in “real” wartime-flying maintenance problems are reduced and more planes are put into the air than in peacetime and “UTR” problems drop to almost nothing, munitions are being replaced slowly and “dumb” iron bombs are everywhere because of shortages.
This ain’t an “American war” folks, this is kids dressing up like Dad and running around making shooting noises.
It’s enough to make an old NCO cry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, reality sure does.
I agree totally with Will. My point exactly after a trip to Europe in 1979. Europeans have freely exercised their anti-American emotionalism like kids who don't have to pay the bill. For all the mistakes made in the Bush White House, still reality is slowly revealing the values and real necessities of their actions. Now look at the mess we have following the Obama "doctrine", i.e. if anybody knows what it is or cares in the entire world. The left screamed, "No blood for oil!", when practically speaking that is not what happened in Iraq. You could easily argue that that IS what is happening in Libya, and where is the Professional Left on this? Meanwhile, the humanitarian abject disaster that is Syria makes a mockery of Clinton and this State Department that is incredibly, stunningly selective when it comes to human rights issues. Libya, we (sorta) invade, Syria we pout and throw letters? Is there any rational American left who is proud of this pitiful "Administration"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And to get [Russia and China] to agree to the action in Libya, Europe, the US and their Arab supporters had to promise not to overthrow the regime or put soldiers on the ground to support the use of air power."
That's not quite half-true. The enabling Security Council resolution explicitly stops short of any occupation force, but so long as they aren't occupying, boots may indeed temporarily be on the ground. And the resolution emphatically does NOT rule out regime change (including by decapitation). That's a self-imposed pair of handcuffs that Obama insists on putting on NATO, and that the Brits have very publicly disagreed about.
In other words, Cohen is untrustworthy on even the most basic facts. Why is he being quoted on National Review without a warning of that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"They won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."
At any rate, the one 'graph not highlighted contains this little gem of buyer's remorse, "Barack Obama was Europe’s candidate in the 2008 election. [...] But I do not suffer from the illusion that his record on supporting liberation movements from Burma to Iran has been anything other than appalling – one has to go back to Richard Nixon to find an American president so indifferent to the victims of dictatorship. He persists in saying that Ameirca and Nato will intervene in Libyan affairs, but not intervene strongly enough to overthrow the regime."
Methinks Europe's middle class is disillusioned not only by the paradox of the Libyan invasion when contrasted with the Left's reaction to "War Crimes:Iraq", but also by the *deceitfulness* of the Libyan invasion. It is as if the fig leaves of UN approval in front and "NATO not U.S." leadership in the rear are sufficient camouflage for the naked truth: There is no plan; the Allies are adrift; the U.S. most certainly is in charge; the mission has most definitely "crept" towards ground forces (oddly, the CIA's "boots" don't count); and the war as all but disappeared from news coverage out of sheer embarassment, and a desire by State Media to protect Obama at all costs. Like Europeans in 2008, Obama was and is NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPost, etc's candidate. They will do whatever it takes to re-elect him, which is why follow-up questions are extinct at Obama pressers. It's better for Obama if they just. don't. ask.
But most of all, Libya has put to lie 8 years of Democrat propaganda in the U.S. and that of lefty Europeans abroad. It is clear that they did not mean it, not really, about Bush. All those smallish protests, the war crimes faux trials, the Bush**ler bumper stickers, "Bush has the One Ring", etc...all of those were pablum, fakery, not really distinguishable from Raider Haters in Denver or Cowboys Haters in Pittsburg. It was mindless boosterism, with no philosophical core beyond getting power and keeping it as long as possible.
And that deceitfulness is what the European, and American, middle class have noticed. And they are not impressed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Bill: You could drive a truck through that UN resolution. It means whatever the Allies and Obama decide it means. What's Russia going to do about it anyway? Merkel has her own problems in Germany. China could care less. After all, Obama gets away with not calling it a war, or an invasion...but tell that to the guy driving the tank. Last I checked, tanks don't fly.
"Those aren't troops, they're CIA. Oh, you mean those guys? They're military advisors 'coordinating' with the al Qaeda rebels." Or, Obama will simply say that it isn't what it clearly is, and the bootlickers in the media will pronounce it the truth.
The whole thing is a sham, but at least it shows how full of B.S. liberals are. Turns out, they didn't really mean it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCohen has long been one of the best left-wing writers for quite some time in that he is not afraid to swerve away from pre-arranged talking points or call out the left for much of their rank hypocrisy.
And, yeah, it's a mystery why the US still retains any substantial amount of troops in Europe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee, I wonder from which North African country the UK and France get its oil?
Funny how that sort of thing changes one's moral compass.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"One day Europe will have to fight her own wars and defend her own borders." Ouch. I was tempted to cheer, but this whole Libya thing and the prior Iraq mess at the UN that prevented European approval does make me confident will that Europe will be any better fighting wars and defending borders than in the previous two centuries. That Europe even could is an illusion only in a European mind.
Post-war world prosperity may be found to be a bit fleeting as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA BCT from the 82nd Abn on the coast road just out of arty range of Tripoli would end this in a matter of hours. The thing is, between the Grits, french, and Italians that capacity exists, albeit they'd need us for airlift,resupply,TAC air,arty,light armour....oh never mind. Just ring up Ft. Bragg and be done with it. OBTW, I'm ex=Eightydeuce 11B3P 78-84
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse