There is such a widespread impulse on the right to use Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya as some kind of vindication of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. David Brooks joins the party by penning a long essay that looks at the shortcomings of multilateral military efforts. The idea, I guess, is that it wasn’t so terrible to go it alone in Iraq. But he doesn’t have the courage to argue his point frontally, so he opens and closes with the following caveats:
The Iraq war reminded everybody not to embark on an international effort without a broad coalition.
All of this is not to say the world should do nothing while Qaddafi unleashes his demonic fury. Nor is this a defense of unilateralism. But we should not pretend we have found a superior way to fight a war. Multilateralism works best as a garment clothing American leadership.
It’s hard to argue with the anything that Brooks writes in his column, but I have to wonder why he bothered to write it. If unilateralism is indefensible…if we shouldn’t act without a broad coalition…then why is he criticizing multilateralism? If multilateralism isn’t superior to unilateralism, then perhaps no action is ever justified.
As for his last point, I didn’t want to get involved in Libya, but now that we’ve gone ahead, I’d like to see if Brooks is right or wrong. Let’s see if the United Nations can see one of its resolutions effectively enforced by a coalition that isn’t actually led by U.S. forces. Yes, I know that we’re currently the most active partner, but over the long haul I’d like to see other countries tend to Libya’s needs. If that happens, and if it leads to some kind of happy outcome in Libya, then we’ll have reason to doubt that multilateralism works best as a garment clothing American leadership. I don’t mind being the strongest country in the world, nor do I mind being asked to take on some special burdens. But I don’t want us to be the sole enforcement arm of the United Nations. We simply can’t afford that, on any number of levels. Perhaps, in Libya, we will discover whether the UN can work on a more ad hoc basis, with member countries contributing what they can and leadership being more evenly shared. Yes, that will come with all the shortcomings that Brooks mentioned, but it will also come with a lot of upside for the United States, the United Nations, and the world.
But, before you think I am voicing optimism, I really am not optimistic that things will go well in Libya. I honestly don’t know enough about Libyan society to make strong predictions, but I see a high possibility that once Gaddafi is removed from power the real fighting will begin. If Gaddafi is not removed from power, by definition things will not have gone well in Libya.
Either way, nothing that has been decided or done about Libya vindicates George W. Bush one iota.
Killing Libyan civilians will win us no friends just as killing civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan has won us no friends.
The quicker we get out of having any role in “regime change” the better.
Uh, I don’t follow. By definition this is not the correct metric. If it can be reasonably argued that a massacre was averted then I can see it as a success. You might think regime change is the goal, and perhaps it is, but it isn’t what the U.S. or the U.N. or the Arab League are advocating. France is the only country I’ve seen advocating for regime change; and of course among our “intellectuals on the right.”
Mr. Obama said the United States and the world were outraged by Colonel Qaddafi’s “appalling violence against the Libyan people.” Speaking after he met with President Felipe Calderón of Mexico at the White House, he declared, “Muammar Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, and he must leave.”
I guess one could say that technically this isn’t a call for regime change since he didn’t use the actual words. But I’m not sure what else this implies.
But that’s not the declared purpose of the mission. The reason for intervention among the interventionists, as best as I can tell, is to avoid a massacre, not to shape Libyan politics.
The “interventionists” would be the UN Security Council and the meeting of how many nations in Paris last Saturday.
And the declared purpose is in UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and 1973, which are short, a good read, and provides a list of the people who are banned from travel, and the people and entities whose assets were to be seized.
Basically, I’ve seen interventionists’ goal to be akin to what happened when we intervened in Kosovo.
What does it mean? The first statement is an acknowledgment that the US has clear indications that a majority of Iraqis want Gaddafi out and that the attacks on peaceful protesters in Green Square (which caused defections in Gaddafi’s diplomatic corps) was a desperate act of an illegitimate leader. Essentially he is saying that Libyans want regime change, and the US hears them. If Libyans want regime change, the obvious conclusion under a principle of self-determination is that Gaddafi must leave. It is a diplomatic message to Gaddafi. Learn from ben Ali and Mubarak and what is happening to Saleh and the Khalifas and Bouteflikas and leave gracefully; because we know that you will not change and your people don’t believe you will initiate changes. That’s it. At that point. It was stated as US policy on the extremely remote chance that Gaddafi might get smart and actually care about Libya instead of himself.
At that point, it was nothing more. And then the world waited for Gaddafi’s response. Which was to talk about killing rats.
Of course it’s a call for regime change, but it’s not a threat that we will be the ones who change the regime.
Libyan rebels have told reporters that they would like to overthrow Gadaffi and put him on trial.
The UN Security Council has made a referral of the regime to the International Criminal Court. (Libya is neither a signatory nor has ratified the Rome Treaty). If Gaddafi falls, I guess he has a choice of venue.
I’d forgotten that. Thanks for that bit of info.
A counterargument. Does trading massacre now for massacre later constitute a success?
Also, the original protests called for regime change. If those protests were as popular as Libyan ex-pats are claiming, the people were advocating regime change. And the diplomatic formulation “respond to the will of the people” de facto calls for regime change.
That said, nobody is clear by whom that change should occur. The interventionists say that it is possible for the people to do it. The folks arguing non-intervention say that Gaddafi is too strong for the rebels to win and that intervention can’t change the situation of the rebels.
Given Afghanistan and Iraq went so badly for the Republicans, it simply isn’t acceptable that Obama should have even a limited success in Libya. Worse still, we can’t have those cheese eating surrender monkey yurpians doing anything right. So correct your eyesight please. This is a vindication of Republican imperialism lightly seasoned with multilateralism (aka Obamayurpianism) for the optics. You’ve got to throw the little people a few crumbs every now and then.
Here is what I am gathering from most of the criticism of the UN Security Council’s decision to suppress as much as possible Gaddafi’s attack on his own people and President Obama’s decision to have the US join in the implementation of that resolution.
So what principle is it that Republicans are acting out of in their criticism of Obama and why should BoBo’s angst bother us once again? For the Republicans, the answer is clear; it is an Obama policy; full stop. For BoBo, we’re mean enough to beat up on dumb animals.
So back to some serious stuff. The relationship between the rebels and the international coalition is complex. The rebels, especially those Gaddafi troops who have sided with the rebels, have information about Gaddafi’s military infrastructure that can aid in protecting civilians, and they likely have backchannels into the units still loyal to Gaddafi. They also know where civilians are being attacked both from their forces in places like Zintan and Misurata and from folks whose relatives know relatives who know friends of people in Benghazi. So if the Libyan National Council representative passes that information on to the international coalition, say through the French envoy, does that constitute improper coordination or not?
About Putin’s criticism, specifically using the word “crusade”. Of all the nations on the UN Security Council, Russia has the closest relationship with Gaddafi, one that goes back to the Soviet era. If any outside council anywhere could get Gaddafi to be serious about a ceasefire, it would be the Russians and specifically Vladimir Putin. But Russia has a relationship with other countries that it has to balance and while Gaddafi might need Russia if he survives, Russia no longer needs Gaddafi. So Putin calls the international coalition a “crusade” using Gaddafi’s framing and Medvedev tells the international community that Putin spoke out of line. Especially before Robert Gates shows up in Moscow. Gates’s stance that the US is turning over command looks like it is driven by Putin’s criticism; Russians rightly feel important; Gaddafi knows he still has an ally for his interests. And Putin calls for a ceasefire without addressing it to either party. It’s called diplomacy. How to get a ceasefire so that military action can stop (Sarkozy’s line in the sand).
About end game and exit strategy. No one can state one because no one knows how it will turn out. But it is not open-ended either. And the discussion going on in NATO and the EU about who commands will be critical to knowing what that is for the US. And it will depend on how well the asset freeze and arms embargo is. Gaddafi is using ammunition quite rapidly. The international coalition is quite likely to attack and destroy any armored or supply column (most likely even if civilians have volunteered or been compelled to travel with it–get ready for this eventuality). At some point the Gaddafi troops run out of ammunition or reduce their use to the point that it degrades his ability to attack. The big unknowns are how quickly will that be and what will be left standing when he runs out of ammo.
About the rebels. Going forward as rebels succeed in retaking towns (if they do), their success will depend on their treatment of the civilians in those towns and their prisoners of war from the Gaddafi forces. Humane treatment of prisoners of war will increase the likelihood that even Gaddafi’s most loyal forces could collapse. Especially important in this is the treatment of Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte should they succeed in taking it. The citizens of Sirte welcoming the rebels as liberators should it happen most likely will seal Gaddafi’s fall from power.
As usual, these are WAGs. But they are bolder WAGs than BoBo’s tripe.
Boso’s use of demonic fury sounds like a romance novel. He does not seem able to connect with reality.
What Gadaffi was doing was killing his own people.
It is up to the Libyan people to decide what happens with their country.
When the first US pilot was rescued by rebels, it was reported that the US airman had his arms in the air and said OK, OK.
A rebel told him that it was okay, they were his friends.
when does he every write anything worthwhile.
In a word, never. His novel is tripe. He gets paid a lot of money for his writing and I really think that is insane. I can’t read him at all.
But wait…I thought the UN did approve an attack on Iraq. And the US was only one of dozens of nations (the ever-shrinking “Coalition of the Willing”) to participate.
Both arguments were endlessly parroted by the right circa 2003. Which is simply to remind us again that they will say anything, anything if they think it can either help their agenda or undermine their opponents’ agenda. We’re seeing a lot of that with Libya.
I’m also opposed to the intervention and would like to see the US hand off its involvement quickly. But I find it hard to take any of the criticism from the right seriously. Especially since only a week ago you had McCain et al. kicking up a fuss because Obama wasn’t acting.
The UN approved an ultimatum to Iraq but never authorized action. They were for it before they were against it, according to the neocons.
Understood. But one of the neocon arguments at the time was also that the 1991 UNSC use of force resolution still applied, because Saddam had fired on planes enforcing the no-fly zones and was therefore out of compliance with the agreement that ended the Gulf War. (The UN had never approved the no-fly zones, either, but that niggling detail didn’t factor in.)
The neo-cons will say whatever as long as it ends in “national sovereignty”.
As I remember, Saddam was scrupulously avoiding any provocation after the first UN Security Council Resolution. It would not surprise me to learn that he actually turned over documents that proved he was not pursuing development of weapons of mass destruction and that the Bushies refused to admit that Clinton’s policies had worked in getting him to stop. We know now that his public ambiguity about weapons of mass destruction was meant to bluff Iran.
Once again, Brooksie proves to be a great disapppointment to Bucky.
It took only the usual savage barrage of tomahawks and a bunch of assorted air attacks for sympathy for the no-fly zone to collapse around the world. This was entirely predictable. A no-fly zone that was about attacking things in Tripoli was always going to be seen as massive western inteference. As usual the incompetent military heads are allowed free reign to kill, maim and destroy anything as to do this may have reduced casualties to them by one although even this is moot, but it plays well to all those civilain wannabe rambos who worship military power, destruction etc especially when it involves killing muslims
Killing civilians is not the way to go.
And the rescue operation strafe and kill routine is all over the news.
And now who gets to lead operation we’ve screwed it up as the arab league and Turkey get cold feet in hours? The US dont want it. The French want some suddenly invented quasi international body (coalition of the willing part two anyone?)
Oh and of course the massive military action actually gave cover for Bahrain, Yemen and now Israel to all kill their civilains and for the ultra-oppressive regime of the region Saudi Arabia to meddle in stopping any country near it people’s getting their rights.
Total disaster that was entirely predictable as stupid blind belief in military prowess and stability over self determination, freedom and democracy once again mark every idiotic western decision. Myab eRussia and China now rue the day they didnt veto the stupid resolution.
And has anyone correctly reported how Egyptian pro-democracy protestors tried to attack the UN head over this piece of classic imperialism?
How many more are radicalized by the day to line up for attacks against the west and interests and people by the insane foreign policies?