I know the temptation is strong to talk smack about the Republicans’ lack of enthusiasm for our excellent adventure in Libya. I mean, it looks like Gaddafi is the hunted rat now, doesn’t it? And it really wasn’t so hard to accomplish if you think about it. Most of the world is fairly pleased or no worse than neutral about our role in this. Innocent people’s lives were saved. We’re on the cusp on getting some justifiable revenge for the Americans who were killed by Gaddafi in the 1980’s. Maybe Libya will get a decent government and actual representative democracy. And the president pulled it off without losing any airmen, or even any equipment as far as I know. So, why not ask some skeptics to eat crow?
I’ll tell you why. Right now in the streets of Tripoli, armed gunmen are running everywhere firing off their weapons indiscriminately, without the slightest hint of discipline. Gaddafi’s compound is being looted down to the copper. And when the Sun comes up tomorrow, it’s unclear who can or will restore order. Yesterday and today, the rebels were united by their desire to oust an odious regime. Tomorrow, powerful tribal and military leaders will be divided over who gets the spoils. Those loyal to Gaddafi may be small, but a small group can create outsized trouble.
I will say this. I was concerned that the war would remain a stalemate for longer than five months and that the country would be torn apart worse than turned out to in fact be the case. So, things have gone better than I feared up to this moment. Libya has a decent starting place, and there’s solid reason for hope. But the really hard part starts tomorrow.
I have one final warning. Congress let the president walk all over the War Powers Resolution, and that creates a nasty precedent for a future conflict or a future president. Sometimes, even when things go well, they set a trap for things to go worse in the future. The easy Persian Gulf War led us to let down our guard about the rise of lethal anti-American terrorism. The easy initial victory over the Taliban led us to think the job was done and gave us false confidence about how easy it would be to subdue Iraq. The War Powers Resolution has been definitively rendered useless. Perhaps, that’s the most dangerous outcome of this war.
So, by all means, give a little dig to the Republicans who acted shamelessly or hypocritically, or who won’t give the president due credit for anything. But don’t get ahead of yourselves. This can still go badly wrong, both here and in Libya.
yeah man.
my thoughts exactly.
40,000 extrajudicial killings in France in June, July, August, and Septermber 1945.
D-Day was a terrible idea. Never should have done it. There was no way to guarantee how it would turn out.
Pretty flagrant Godwin violation.
Also, begging the question. Will Libya be the French Fourth Republic? If so, then bravo.
No one knew then that the French Fourth Republic would be the French Fourth Republic. None of this is known, is knowable, ex ante.
Kind of my point.
What happened in Europe in 1944-45 was obviously of tantamount concern and worth taking massive risks over.
What happened in Libya in 2011?
Not so obvious that we should care all that much.
What are we willing to risk to impact events in Myanmar or Zimbabwe?
This is not World War Two.
Events in Libya were going down regardless of whether or not we intervened. They were rebelling, with or without us and Nato.
We simply speeded up the process, and saved a lot of lives to boot. I’m perfectly happy with how it turned out. We need more of this, not less.
The status quo–us NOT intervening–would have been pretty horrible. Rawanda comes to mind.
I guess my point is that is has not in fact “turned out” yet.
Pretty flagrant Godwin violation.
Nobody invoked Hitler.
It is profoundly irrational to insist that the example of World War Two cannot be used to illuminate questions about war.
Can’t speak of D-Day unless you consider D-Day came about because the U.S. intervened in the moronic stalemate of egos that became WWI. Before the U.S. tilted that one in support of banking relationships, both sides (top down, bottom up) were learning a pretty good lesson about stupidity. That lopsided resolution of Wilsonian stupidity seeded the freaking Nazis.
No, Prescott Bush and Brown Brothers, Herriman and Fritz Thyssen brought about Hitler. No Money, no steel, no Hitler. Get off the Glenn Beck dis-info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Brothers_Harriman_%26_Co. (note this wiki page is scribbed of the WWII era)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Lovely.
What you are dabbling on the edges of is that banks are bedfellows of governments, good and nasty. In war they have often played both sides when you dig through the details.
In this case, if you have a stalemate at WWI (what was coming about, including a potential troop strike as the common folks were tiring of being machine gun trench fodder), you don’t have a fertile ground for Hitler. Instead you have BBH and Thyssen bankstering / corpratisming whoever the heck else comes to power after. You might have a healthy misrepresent for authoritarianism.
And don’t get me started on the British back then. Empire is ruthless, and the brits were no exception.
misrepresent = disrespect… Not sure how that got swapped.
I heard that some of those French resistance fighters are communists!
There are a few of us — i realize we really are a tiny minority relegated to the fringe of the extreme left — who still believe in quaint notions of opposing war except in self-defense. You know. Nuremberg and all that.
But I realize that freedom bombs and narrations of good vs. evil and real-life Star Wars enactments are much more exciting these days. Especially when it is a Democratic president doing it.
I’ve relegated myself to that point as well, but just a question for others out there: is there a time when we should mount our arms to stop genocide such as in Rwanda?
The part that makes me angry is that I would probably support more of these military adventures if I trusted the reasons we were actually going to war.
A UN Resolution trumps the elephantine self-regard of the anti-war contingent, as far as Nuremburg goes.
“who still believe in quaint notions of opposing war except in self-defense.”
“Anti-war” contingent to LIbyan protesters: I can’t see you from my back yard.
You are indeed a tiny minority, but keep speaking up on principle. Those voices are needed to put political pressure on politicians to create the institutions that prevent wars.
One of the debates that is going on right now is what exactly the limits of sovereignty are. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 defined the absolute nature of sovereignty in an age of absolute monarchs. Since World War II and the demonstration of the excesses of absolute sovereignty in the Holocaust, there has been serious debates about how to deal with regimes that violate human rights. And how to deal with regimes that commit aggression on their neighbors. This debate has been complicated by the US’s use of the rhetoric of peace and human rights to continue an imperialist agenda.
But the institutions created after World War II have also created space for reducing the scope of war. The presence of nuclear weapons made this more urgent than it was prior to World War II. And they have made human rights and self-determination the standard for a government’s internal operations. That the world is not there is practice yet does not mean that progress has not occurred, even if the US itself is backsliding on human rights.
We are in a post-American period that is sorting itself out. The US blew its wad after the fall of the Soviet Union through the hubris of being the “sole superpower”. At the same time, the idea that terrorism could extort gains for oppressed peoples also hit its hubristic climax in 9/11. What emerged on the other side of the Bush-era spasm of warfare were two things. The Arab street’s (mostly the youth’s) determination that the would no longer be oppressed. And the international community’s determination that it must act strongly to avoid US unilateral action. This meant a more active UN in places like the Ivory Coast, a more active African Union in places like the Ivory Coast and Somalia, a more Europeanized NATO, and the strengthening and expansion of the Chinese-sponsored Shanghai Cooperation Group. All of these are regional mutual security organizations aimed at reducing conflict among their members. The emergence of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League as active organizations is part of this trend.
Those two trends intersected in the Arab Awakening, playing out in different ways in each country. They led to bin Ali’s resignation in Tunisia and Mubarak’s resignation in Egypt. They also put pressure on Morocco’s Mohammed and Jordan’s Abdullah to begin significant reforms.
The capture of Karadic and Mladic and the handover of these war criminals to the ICC by the Serbian government raised the stature of the ICC in war crimes cases. This is a good trend. If Muammar Gaddafi, Seif al Islam Gaddafi, or Abdullah Senussi wind up for trial by the ICC after trial in Libya, that will further raise the stature of the court.
The problem the US left faces right now is looking at the world from an essentially US perspective in which the only reality is US imperialism. There is, in fact, more going on, much beyond US control that is helping. And more challenges to peace and human rights that do not and likely will not involve the US.
And there are major questions about the policing of international territory (and the state of the Law of the Sea) that become more important as the US reduces (as it financially must) its naval footprint.
The appeal of Star Wars re-enactments has gone. Most people know that the accuracy of cruise missiles or drones depends on the accuracy of the intelligence information that is used for targeting. While it is easy to bomb mostly unoccupied defense ministry buildings at nightime, the intelligence required to find terrorist leaders is so subject to error and the use of double agents that collateral damage becomes an objective of the opponents. Under the principle of Sun Tzu that states “If a general is a high-minded, calumniate him.” Being properly calumniated, most Americans now want no part of war, which is one of the reasons that Libya became a tool for Republicans to criticize the President both from the hawk position and from the isolationist position.
What I see in my neighbors about Libya is less celebration and more relief that it will not be a protracted involvement.
I knew Quakers who opposed the entry into World War II and despite the Holocaust insist that theirs was the moral decision. And it probably is. Even under the necessity of action, there need to be some who remind the world that killing is immoral period. The choice rarely is between right and wrong; more often between more wrong and less wrong. And different people can come to different judgments about what that decision should be. One of the factors in those judgments is what will make it less likely that such judgments will be required in the future. In my opinion, a stronger UN, a stronger ICC, and a system of regional mutual security pacts with overlapping memberships are part of what will be required. All of those were spurned in Bush’s march to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of those were strengthened by President Obama’s supposed inaction on Libya. Likely now, President Obama will be criticized for not taking military action in Syria (because it is a client of Iran, you know). For a variety of reasons, not taking military action is Syria is the more correct policy depending on what non-military actions the US takes.
My irritation with parts of the American left is their defense of dictators whose schemes of “direct democracy” are little more than dictatorial astroturfing and anti-American rants. Fortunately, this segment of the left is quite small. And there are quite a few who have been critical of folks like Gaddafi. (And even John McCain found Gaddafi charming.) Being against war and defending a dictator whose oil deals were indistinguishable from what the “war was only for oil” folks maintained about US intentions are two different things.
And the notions of opposing war except in self-defense is not quaint at all. It is primarily the product of the total war that resulted from mechanization after the US Civil War and became a strong popular force after World War I. The extension of that now is how do you create the institutions that reduce the necessity of wars of self-defense. How do you take away the US excuse that being forwardly deployed and active is necessary to global stability.
The incidents in the Strait of Hormuz a few years back had me delving a bit more deeply into this topic. The topic has remained in the news due to all the Somali pirating.
It will be interesting to see if and how these laws morph as the world continues to globalize. These laws mostly date back to British Empire days. The USA, as the follow-on maritime Levathian, has had much the same concerns and attitudes as her British predecessor.
But rising powers elsewhere in the world have different ideas. China has a territorial attitude towards nearby waters. She’s recently announced a plan to build four carriers. How will new naval muscle translate into shaping international law?
Inernational shipping to too important to expect dramatic changes to right-of-passage laws. But OTOH what do I know? I’m just a land-locked observer.
There is a Law of the Sea Treaty negotiated during the Reagan administration but never ratified by the US, that would clarify matters if the US ever ratified it. It is quite detailed and goes into all sorts of issues — ownership rights, mineral extraction rights, fisheries, and so on.
China’s attitude is not toward seas in general but toward the South China Sea, which traditionally China has treated as a territorial sea. The oil and gas prospects in the vicinity of the Spratly Islands (claimed by China, Vietnam, Philippines, and Indonesia) are what have made this issue come to the surface.
The question is how will international law translate into shaping naval muscle. The world is in great need of a military build-down. The whole model of regional security agreements with overlapping memberships uses the balance-of-power dynamics of international relations as a check on runaway power. China is feared to be the next hegemon. That is not an inevitability.
Right-of-passage has so long a tradition that it is generally interrupted only to make a political point.
and I confess I am surprised. At the minimum, the President understood the balance of forces far better than his critics – including me.
The end game is pretty hard to see now, but it would be hard to see how it could get worse with Gadaffi out of power.
If Obama and nato don’t start immediately protecting the civilian population of Tripoli from being slaughtered by the rebels, it will prove that the emperor has no clothes and was lying all along about the necessity to intervene in the first place based on ‘protecting civilians.’
Why, oh why would the mad Colonel attack his own base of support? Perhaps if you meant Benghazi..
“The Emperor’s New Clothes?” How quaint.
Read it if you’re interested.
AG
You haven’t been following events very closely, have you?
The civilians of Tripoli welcomed the rebels with open arms.
Protect the civilians of Tripoli from the rebels? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
‘…and the Iraqis greeted the Americans with flowers and kisses.’ Remember that?
Hundred of thousands of Tripoli residents came out in support of Gaddafi about a month ago and he had the support of 85% of the country’s population… and he gave them all guns.
The fighting will range on for months, despite what you’re hearing.
These aren’t Americans; they’re Libyans.
An no, the Iraqis did not greet Americans will flowers and kisses.
Why do you have so much trouble understanding the difference between a true statement and a lie?
Yes, a lie can sound like a true statement. And?
Hundred of thousands of Tripoli residents came out in support of Gaddafi about a month ago and he had the support of 85% of the country’s population…
These Baghdad Bob fantasies would be funny if you weren’t cribbing them directly from a totalitarian dictator’s propaganda releases.
It’s common knowledge that Gaddafi was very popular in Tripoli, where most of the population of Libya lives… that there was not a popular revolt there attests to that fact.
I’m not the one who can’t recognize fact from fiction.
There was a popular revolt there. Two, in fact.
There was the one that was crushed by military force in February, and there was the series of popular revolts before and while the TNC forces were bearing down on the city.
You are making thing up.
I don’t know the ins and outs of American law, but the House Republicans would have voted against Obama’s Libya intervention and it would have been an international embarrassment for the United States, not to mention how it would have emboldened the Qaddafi regime. And if Obama had ignored their vote and continued in Libya, he would have been impeached.
So I could understand why Obama did not seek Congressional approval.
From the world’s point of view, no president worthy of the world’s respect would abandon US foreign policy to hostage-taking idiots like Paul, Cantor, Bachmann and the rest of those ignorant jerks now infesting your congress.
Great point. I would give Obama a warning though: the GOP intransigence is meant to provoke unitary executive action from Obama, which will feed their whole ‘secret muslim who will create permanent rule for himself’ meme.
I think there are a more than a few areas where this sort of behavior will be a tempting way to resolve political stalemate..
It is very very easy for all kinds of factions, countries and people who dont get along or even agree on much to all unite against a thing.
The problem is when the thing has gone it is very easy for the alliance to collapse. For a foreign country to also be a player in the alliance means they are already involved too and with a certain record of action, decision and favoritism.
Sometimes after a revolution it is easier to come as a previous non-player and get the best deal for your interests when things do settle down. Not everyone in a revolution appreciates the involvement of a foreigner especially when it comes to national interests and getting the best deal.
Several western countries are gambling on how this will turn out and that competetive advantage for their companies come with being involved directly in the revolution. It remains a risk, however.
Then we should quietly provoke Mali to attack Libya. It’s the cold war (by proxy) all over again! Fun, fun, fun. So glad we have a re-vitalized CIA.
A typically intelligent post, BooMan. You’ve been right about this war from the start.
He is right about war in general. That’s the easy part, at least you’d think. But it’s just the sort of (generalized) position that gets you labelled ‘not serious’ by the establishment (oh-NOs!).
If you are unwilling to destroy and slaughter for ‘the cause’, they say you must be a dreamer..
People who make up their minds about any particular military action based on their feelings about war “in general” – like, say, the neo-cons – and don’t bother to allow the specific facts of the situation influence their thinking are the opposite of the reality-based community.
Your gut and your ideological stance are no more sufficient at producing a useful understanding about a war than about any other government action. Details matter.
Not to a pacifist..
Umm Congress has allowed every President since the passing of the War Powers Act to ignore it. This not something unique to this administration.
What the President should get credit for is not intervention but restraint. Had John McCain been President the US military would have troops on the ground and the situation would be a mess. It is unlikely that the Congress would have done other than what it did for Iraq in 2002.
By restraint, I mean that the President insisted that there be an international consensus on action before the US acted. And that occurred primarily as a result of Libyan diplomats who in March defected to the side of the protesters.
By restraint, I mean that the President waited (and was criticized for not acting) until the Arab League made a decision about what it was going to do.
By restraint, I mean that the President did not try to expand the US role but reduced the US role fairly quickly, which shut up the bigfooting military PR people who thought they were Colin Powell briefing about the first Gulf War.
You overstate the chaos in Tripoli, and where it is coming from. Tripoli is a city of 2 million people. The total number of deaths since the uprising Friday night is 400 dead. That will increase because what is going on is the rump units of Gaddafi’s military are indiscriminately firing Grad rockets into neighborhoods. Besides this, the main area of violence is in the Nasr forest (a scrubby forest at best) between the Rixos Hotel and the Gaddafi compound.
A portion of the the Transitional National Council (the council members themselves) are expected in Tripoli later today. By Friday, the TNC expects to all be in Tripoli to begin the process of getting the normal functions of government going.
The TNC announced today that it will honor existing contracts. That includes contracts (small) with Russia and contracts (large) with China.
What I suspect will happen is that the Gaddafi elements attacking neighborhoods in Tripoli and the transition in the remaining towns will be the main focus of activity. Bin Walid has already shifted. Negotiations between the tribal sheikhs in Sirte and the former Gaddafi military generals in that garrison town are ongoing. Even as hardline military in Sirte are firing Scud missiles at Misrata (which NATO has so far successfully intercepted).
Rescuing the journalists held hostage at the Rixos hotel might wait because there are suspicions that that is where the Gaddafis and Moussa Ibrahim (the press secretary) are hiding.
You will likely hear more broadcasts of rants by Gaddafi through satellite channels like the Kuwaiti channel that carried last night’s rant. Libyan TV now is in the hands of the TNC. And Chavez and Noriega will be stepping up the anti-imperialist “NATO is going to invade you.” propaganda to a fever pitch. It is interesting to see what elements of the American left (and interestingly the American right) are tied into repeating those propaganda lines.
As for disorganization, you do not bring down a power like Gaddafi by seizing a city of 2 million in three days without being highly organized. And able to execute the timing of those plans well. And having most of the 2 million people in that city on your side.
Of course, we haven’t seen a real revolution in twenty-two years. So it’s hard for the US media to adjust to the fact that (1) Libyans are smart enough to handle their own affairs, (2) Libya is not as divided as Gaddafi made it sound (apres moi, le deluge), (3) US troops are not necessary to “liberate” anyone but the US can be helpful if it actually listens to popular sentiment, and (4) the Arab Awakening is not a US-driven enterprise.
Man, I just have to wander off-topic to tell you how consistently incisive, well-informed, well-written, and just plain excellent your contributions are. Thank you.
TarheelDem, I was about to write a reply to you, but I see that janicket not only beat me to it, but also conveyed the message much better than I could have. I will just add a big thank you for your contributions!
Let me third this. I’m always glad to read Tarheel Dem’s thoughts.
Yes. Things can might possibly maybe even are likely to go south at any minute.
We have a term for this: “life”.
Nothing is perfect and I am sure some bad news will soon emerge from Libya. But what is happening right now is good news. When good news happens, how about allowing for a bit of enjoyment of that rarity?
Guns fired into the air? Happens EVERY TIME armed revolt turns into victorious revolution. Looting? Ditto. Neither is an indicator an impending long term disaster.
Journalists freed by ICRC from Rixos Hotel
How you know that Tripoli is returning to normal, if without Gaddafi.