The strange thing about Juan Cole’s defense of the Libyan intervention is that he didn’t touch on any of my objections at all. I’m not a pacifist; I am not an anti-imperialist absolutist, and I never said that no social problems could be solved by military force. I’m not an isolationist, either. I’m not indifferent to human suffering in places like Benghazi. And I never said that the intervention was intended to take over Libyan oil fields. I said it was intended, in part, to keep those oil fields pumping diesel for Europe’s engines, but buying it is different from stealing it.
The reasons I object to intervening in Libya are:
1. It’s not our sphere of influence, or a country that is important for our national security.
2. Military intervention is expensive. We’re already looking at draconian budget cuts in state, local, and national government. I want us to be reducing our military commitments overseas, not increasing them.
3. Western intervention in the Islamic world has a tendency to cause blowback even when our goals are humanitarian and the lives we save are Muslim. We did not earn brownie points in Bosnia or Kosovo or Somalia, and we’re unlikely to earn them in Libya. Intervening will probably lesson our security, not increase it.
4. Libya has no history of democracy or even much history as a unified country. We don’t understand Libyan culture very well, and we don’t know who we’re dealing with. Will an opposition that is united against Gaddafi remain united once he’s gone? If not, who do we choose to support?
5. If airpower alone is insufficient to drive Gaddafi from power, then we may wind up arming anti-Gaddafi militias and create a civil war that destroys more lives and infrastructure than Gaddafi would have in putting down the rebellion.
6. Who is going to play daddy with any nascent democratic government in Tripoli? We’re not any good at that, and we’re busy at the moment.
I could actually go on, but the simplest answer is that I have no problem, really, in going in and kicking some dictator’s ass who is killing his own people. I have a problem with thinking that that will solve anything and not cause blowback and not cost money we don’t have and not get us bogged down in a country that really doesn’t concern us.
That’s why, once Obama gave the go-ahead, my critique changed immediately. Whereas, before I was arguing against intervening, after, I argued for blowing off the niceties and getting the bastard in Tripoli as soon as possible. Let’s not pretend that high principle drives our foreign policy. I don’t care about hypocrisy in foreign policy. Most hypocrisy only seems that way to people who don’t understand the stakes. We’re not lining up to intervene in Cote d’Ivoire or Sri Lanka or Myanmar. Libya really fit in the same category as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned. That’s how I saw it. Others saw it as a message to Iran. How many more messages are we going to send to Iran? We’re running out of countries to invade to impress Iran. If we want to deal with Iran, then deal with them.
I’d be the first to admit that there are some dumb people on the left who take some really awful positions on certain issues, but most people that I know who oppose this intervention oppose it because it’s stupid. Obama promised us no stupid wars, and then he gave us one.
But, you know, that’s bygones. I thought it wasn’t in our national interests; the president disagrees. So, now I say that we need to go get Gaddafi and not waste time trying to placate an alliance of self-doubters. Do not try to topple him using a rag-tag group of bored teenagers. We don’t need to turn Libya into Somalia in order to save it.
And if anyone wants us to do regime change in some other country, my response is most likely going to be the same. It’s not our job or our responsibility. If someone else wants to do it, I don’t necessarily object and might even be willing to play a part. But we must stop looking to America to be the cop on the beat. John Boehner says we’re broke and that we need to take away granny’s pension. The Myanmar freedom fighters can call me when granny’s got her money back.
Wash the sand out of your vagina.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/27/us-libya-nato-idUSTRE72Q19V20110327?WT.tsrc=Social%20Media
&WT.z_smid=twtr-reuters_%20com&WT.z_smid_dest=Twitter
It’s handed off to NATO, with France leading, you whiny ass titty baby. Sheesh.
There is no such thing as ‘handing over to NATO.’ The UN can do that, the US cannot. We are NATO.
That’s just terrific stuff, sheriff. I can’t imagine why BooMan wouldn’t be immediately swayed.
I was impressed somewhat today by Clinton’s argument on Meet the Press. In particular, she touched on what it means to be an ally. We called on other nations (via NATO) to assist in whatever we thought we were going to do in Afghanistan post 9/11 — and they are still there. Not because they were attacked. Not because Afghanistan is, in particular, in their national interest directly. And so, too, with Libya. Europe, in particular, finds Libya to be in their national interests for fuel, immigrants, etc. What is an ally to do? We can’t just want their help when we want it, but not be willing to help them when they want it… can we?
Actually, we can do that. We can’t do it for long without paying a price, however. But that is why I argued all along that the European powers should take the lead if they wanted to do something. Obama has kind of tried to craft something that appears to be the Europeans taking the lead. It’s an effort, I guess, at reciprocating while limiting our commitment.
I think you’re largely right. But our actions in Libya make sense (not the same thing as saying it’s right) if you conceive of the US an a global empire, as many of America’s critics do, and not merely a powerful nation state. This is especially true in North Africa and the Middle East, where the US directly took over Britain’s and France’s legacy, post-war colonial interests in the 1950’s when Eisenhower told them to leave Egypt alone in the Suez Canal incident and Britain pleaded with America to protect its petroleum interests in Iran, and both powers ceded the region, including Israel, for US diplomacy to manage from that point on.
Conceived that way, America’s involvement in the Balkans, as well as in Libya, makes sense regarding Hillary Clinton’s argument about allies. France, Britain and Middle East powers are all constituents of a global American polity, not sovereign equals, and placating constituent needs is what governance is all about. I think historians will eventually describe Obama as an attempt to formerly govern as if America was a global empire with many foreign constituencies’ interests to balance in addition to those of the domestic US electorate. Juan Cole, which you can glean from his writings about military characters like Napoleon and such, is really a liberal imperialist at heart and supports that aspect of Obama’s outlook, and that’s why he supports the Libyan intervention.
I think America’s main internal struggle with itself over the next century will be how to deal with the paradox of being an anti-imperial empire.
The slippery slope argument now entering the room by those who choose to see a generic Middle East with narry a distinction, is once you intervene to stop one dictator from bashing his people into the dirt how can you stop at the next country under siege? A good answer has been, by going into Libya it demonstrates our willingness to stop and punish a ruler who abuses his people and so it sends a message by action to all those who seek to crush their people that they are being watched and there can be international intervention.
Oh I’ve seen that Left all over the liberal blogosphere.
what I’ve seen is that same straw man all over the blogosphere. DKos is full of centrists happily cheering a Democratic war and calling critics “pacifists” and “isolationists”. Bullshit. I have no problem with the US govt defending vital national interests, I just agree with BooMan that this is not such a case.
Cole is usually smarter than that and it does not improve my opinion of him when he falls back on the traditional whine “everyone left of me is a communist moron”.
Here is the reason why the French and the British were highly motivated to establish the No-Fly Zone in Libya. I can sum it up in one word REFUGEES. Both governments went into panic mode when they saw Muammar Al-Gaddafi’s tanks and airplanes on the outskirts of Benghazi, the last rebel stronghold. This along with witnessing Gaddafi’s blood curdling speech describing just how he intended to massacre the rebels, conjured up visions of hundreds of thousands of Libyan refugees eventually winding up on the streets of various European countries. Many would eventually find their way into France or the UK.
A huge torrent of improvised refugees descending upon the economies of small struggling European nations would most likely be the straw that breaks the back of the European Union, specifically the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) nations. IMHO France and the UK probably would not have acted if Gaddafi simply indicated that he would impose a siege on Benghazi to starve the rebels into surrender. This would not have stopped the refugee problem, rather the Libyan refugee flow would have been a small steady trickle, creating a situation that Europe could deal with over some period of time. Instead with Gaddafi’s panzer style attack poised to speedily crush Benghazi; all Europe could clearly expect to see was a virtual deluge of refugees streaming out of Libya and into their respective homelands.
Preventing this massive refugee problem is the primary urgent goal of the “No-Fly-Zone” mission. Europe, the UK, and the U.S. really don’t care about any so-called “end game” strategies at least for now. The “No-Fly-Zone” tactic is essentially a political cover mechanism that is being used to legalize the blistering destruction of Gaddafi’s war machine. Once all of the hardware and any dangerous chemicals have been destroyed, the entire operation will stand down to a low key monitoring mission. The ideal situation to come out of this carnage would be one where the rebels get serious and decide to roll up their sleeves and create a constitution that will both address the ancient tribal grievances, and form a strong representative government that all factions can support. But for now suppressing the potential refugee problem is job #1 for Europe, the U.S. and NATO.
BTW, if you think that Europe (EU), and the UK don’t have a tremendous political influence here in America, I think you have another THINK coming!!
“It’s not our sphere of influence, or a country that is important for our national security.”
I disagree that Libya doesn’t present substantial national security interests. Not as large as Syria or Jordan or Yemen, but not insubstantial. And those interests are both ideological and practical.
We have all the money the FED will print. The Great Recession continues in part because government is reducing spending. Shooting off Tomahawks and replacing downed planes reduces unemployment, although that is no reason to do it. “The government is broke” is a Republican theme. Were we too broke to fight WW II?
Cole wasn’t talking about the type of reasoning you do,Boo which is thoughtful.
Go over to Atrios for an example of the type of things the The Left have been saying. The bashing of the Libya mission is a part of Obama sold us out and it’s all Obama’s fault.
agree indeed.
“Whereas, before I was arguing against intervening, after, I argued for blowing off the niceties and getting the bastard in Tripoli as soon as possible.”
It seems as though the administration is determined to disappoint you twice; both intervening in the first place, and then insisting this is a limited operation, and that we are not seeking to overthrow Qadaffi ourselves. Juan Cole takes a similar position, conditioning his approval on the fact this is a limited intervention: “Assuming that NATO’s UN-authorized mission in Libya really is limited”
I really hope I’m wrong, but this all seems so misguided. It’s the old story of not answering the question, what do we plan to do if things don’t go the way we want right away?
Gaddafi’s hometown of Sitre fell to the rebels tonight. that’s 5 towns fallen within 36 hours.
this is a nice post..keep posting…
“So, now I say that we need to go get Gaddafi and not waste time trying to placate an alliance of self-doubters.”
So now you want US ground troops in Libya with the mission to capture or kill Gaddafi? What else could you mean otherwise?
“I thought it wasn’t in our national interests; the president disagrees. So, now I say that we need to go get Gaddafi and not waste time…”
I’m sorry Boo, but I just can’t get behind the old “I think we should just support our President in everything he does …” line of “thought”.
It sounded bubble-headed when Brittany said it about Bush & it sounds bubble-headed now.
There are good reasons to support the action, & good reasons to oppose – but THAT is not one of either.
that’s not what I’m saying. We’ve already committed ourselves. We can’t take it back. This isn’t some grand moral question anyway. It’s a matter of priorities. Now that we’re involved it is a priority to get it over with and not let this turn into some long civil war with covert arms shipments, secret trainers, etc. This could turn Tripoli into Beirut if decisive force isn’t used. If the rebels can keep advancing and take care of business themselves, then great. But if I’m Sarkozy, I’m readying some ground forces to go get Gaddafi out his compound and away from his human shields.