SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Failed Analogy

CROSSINGS MARCH 17, 2011

Failed Analogy

BY LAWRENCE F. KAPLAN

Those showers in Washington last week? That wasn’t rain. That was Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, and the other architects of post-war American foreign policy looking down and weeping on us. Or worse.

The heirs and custodians of their tradition never sounded so thick. In place of George Kennan’s 8000-word Long Telegram about the Soviet Union, the Obama administration’s consultant and its former State Department policy planning chief, Anne-Marie Slaughter, issued a forceful tweet about Libya. Citing (and, in his conduct, faithfully channeling) Douglas MacArthur, Obama’s defense secretary purposefully narrowed the president’s range of options, advising an audience of cadets at West Point, “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.” Not to worry. Deputy National Security Adviser Benjamin Rhodes cautioned even against the temptation “to go out day after day with cathartic statements that make us feel good.” This as the president went out day after day with cathartic statements that didn’t make us feel good, but certainly testified to his own virtue and good intentions.

Meanwhile, the historical analogy industry went into high gear. Was Libya Bosnia or was it Iraq, was it Kosovo or was it Somalia? Which is, really to say, was Libya Munich or was it Vietnam? Since the putative “lessons” of history continue to be stupidly confined to these two events, once the loop got underway, everyone knew their cues. In this atmosphere of slow-motion capitulation to mass murder, subliterate commentators and slippery politicians erased any hope of engaging in a disinterested search of the past in order to find something that might illuminate the present. The headline of a Maureen Dowd column, “In Search of Monsters,” neatly summarized the syllogism that, if George W. Bush searched for monsters to destroy, it follows that monsters must not exist. Likening Libya to Iraq and Vietnam, Gates and other members of the Obama team stage-managed the public’s fears as if they were virtues, exploiting the fact that, as E.H. Carr put it, “today’s citizen has that pronounced need for and is particularly susceptible to analogies.” On the question of what to do about Libya, ignorance has polluted everyday public discourse; dishonesty has nullified it.

 

“The many uses of analogy,” the historian David Hackett Fischer writes in his splendid Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, “are balanced by the mischief which arises from its abuse.” This last week, then, has been a week of abuse, the chief culprit being the combination of an unknowing assumption (Dowd, et al.) and a knowing insinuation (Gates, et al.) that, because two events resemble each other in some respects, they must therefore be alike in all respects. Fischer identifies the central fallacy here: “That rubber ball and that apple are both red. …That apple is very good to eat. Therefore, this rubber ball will be very good to eat.” What makes this, and today’s Libya analogies, so plainly false is not the one thing that two episodes possess in common, but the many more that they do not.

But the ghost of Vietnam follows us everywhere—Beirut, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, and now Libya. (I miss Richard Holbrooke, who constantly argued that “Bosnia was not Vietnam, the Serbs were not the Vietcong, and Belgrade was not Hanoi.”) In its revised version, the Vietnam Syndrome, now called the Iraq Syndrome, has generated “lessons,” too. Senator Lindsey Graham, for one, says about Libya, “You have to think these things through. One thing I’ve learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to think these things through.” Gates, who warns that a “no-fly zone means attacking Libya,” clearly has no use for another Vietnam in the sand. Nor, finally, does the president himself, who came to power on the strength of his opposition to the “bad war” in Iraq and famously previewed the war in Afghanistan by reading Gordon Goldstein’s Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam. Obama insists the Libyan leader “has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave.” Yet, having portrayed the dictator as malignant, Obama, adhering to the lessons of Iraq, has opted for equivocal action.

Is it really necessary to point out that, lessons notwithstanding, Libya is not Iraq? (It is not Bosnia or Rwanda, either, but, given the administration’s modest definition of American purpose, its members won’t be summoning these precedents any time soon.) The Obama team ought to respond to the Libya crisis on its own terms, if it intends to respond at all. That means acknowledging the differences between Libya and Iraq: the disparity between Saddam Hussein’s 500,000-man army and Muammar Qaddafi’s 50,000-man (and shrinking) army; the distinction between the size of Iraq’s population and Libya’s population, which adds up to about 20 percent of Iraq’s and mostly inhabits a thin slice of coastline; the difference between an essentially American enterprise and an undertaking that has the sanction of the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and marches to the tune of La Marseillaise; the difference between a dictator whose crimes (presumably) belonged to the past and one who vows to “cleanse Libya house by house” and, by all accounts, has proved himself keen to do so; the difference between Iraq, with no viable opposition movement, and Libya, which boasts an active and well-armed rebel force; the difference between a country frozen in the amber of authoritarianism a decade ago and an entire region awash in a wave of successful popular uprisings today.

Most of all, paying due respect to reality means acknowledging this distinction between Iraq and Libya: In the former, the population was passive, bulldozed into silence, or it reflexively bucked outside intervention; in Libya, voices from one side of the argument have been roaring Solzhenitsyn’s 30-year-old admonition to “interfere as much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere.” But we have not interfered. Thus another difference from Iraq: President Bush was bent on going to Baghdad; Obama may find himself in command of a juggernaut, but he clearly has a distaste for things military. Bush enshrined preemption in official policy; Obama simply has eliminated any obligation to link punishment to offense.

Although Obama’s Libya policy may not be the product of principled analysis—in matters of national security, the president may entertain certain proclivities or inclinations, but he can hardly be said to have evinced firm principles—it does bear some familiar hallmarks. There is, above all, the sense that the awesome military power of the United States has been somehow tainted, marred by past American support for too many unsavory characters and past involvement in too many suspect conflicts, above all the war in Iraq. For some in his administration—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for one, who has said, “Absent international authorization, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation the consequences of which would be unforeseeable”—multilateralism would remove that taint by guaranteeing that, henceforth, the United States would employ its power only in concert with and on behalf of the “world community.” For Obama, however, this may not be enough.

 

It feels as if nothing has been remembered and nothing learned prior to 2003. The problem in Libya, after all, is not a lack of capability. The problem is confusion—at the top—regarding the utility of force as an instrument of policy. But if what is being proposed is a no-fly zone—and that is what’s on the table—perhaps we ought to be looking at past experience with no-fly zones, rather than, say, full-on invasions and occupations. (Deceptive as they mean to be, some historical analogies do hold more explanatory power than others.) True, the top brass maneuvering inside the Beltway to ensure that Obama, not military commanders, take the fall for this one have resurrected the all-or-nothing arguments of the Powell Doctrine. But the United States military routinely embarks on operations other than war—operations characterized by precision, discrimination, and an exquisite sensitivity to political control and consideration.

The United States has implemented no-fly zones on three occasions over the past 20 years—in Northern Iraq in 1991, Southern Iraq in 1992, and in Bosnia that same year. In Bosnia and Southern Iraq, the aggressors outmatched those we meant to protect even on the ground. But the lethal combination of Kurdish ground fighters and American air cover drove Saddam Hussein’s army back behind lines they never again crossed. A humanitarian triumph was the result. Members of the Obama team argue that a no fly-zone, as its envoy to NATO, Ivo Daalder, put it, “isn’t really going to impact” the tide of battle in Libya, as “they really have a limited effect against ... helicopters or the kind of ground operations that we’ve seen.” This is idiocy. The Kurdish no-fly zone banned all aircraft, helicopters and jets, and, absent either, Qaddafi’s forces would be operating from a severe disadvantage.

Of course, none of these details really matter anymore. It is getting late, and the problem in Washington is will—or, more exactly, its unjust absence. With a similar complaint, then-Secretary of State George Shultz likened America to “the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond” to its foes. Shultz was indulging in a bit of analogical inference. But it was in the Shakespearian realm. So let me add this: If he really does possess the heightened moral awareness that his boosters claim, Obama may soon—very soon—find himself professing shock at the discovery of blood on his hands.
 

Lawrence F. Kaplan is a contributing editor for The New Republic.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 90 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

90 comments

Still no dissenting voices at TNR. TNR never met a war it didn't like.

- Sancho

March 17, 2011 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Libya may not be Iraq or Bosnia, or anywhere else. But after Iraq, why should anyone listen to Kaplan anymore?

- JEFF FREY

March 17, 2011 at 1:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hate war. I was against Iraq. I'm not so sure about this.

- Sophia

March 17, 2011 at 1:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a magazine were the writers and readers are very unlikely to be the ones who have to die because of the advocated foreign policy. It seems to warp everything here. I wonder how many here are intimately involved with a family suffering the loss of a loved one. I lost my my best friend-- who is also my father. How many of you will sacrifice your children or loved ones for Libya?

- Sancho

March 17, 2011 at 4:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sancho "This is a magazine were the writers and readers are very unlikely to be the ones who have to die because of the advocated foreign policy." What kind of a dumb argument is this. Do you prefer articles on war in young macho magazines? Many readers here are veterans or children of veterans. What about you? Where did you? Sancho's offers us a pretty dumb argument.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 5:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How, possibly, can a no fly zone be all that is on the table? Put aside the fact that Leon Wieseltier - in these very pages - argued for putting boots on the ground, who can say what a no fly zone will lead to? Are we going to stop when after our planes are engaged? Do you really think an occupation of Libyan air space is not an occupation? Do you think there's a possibility of some increased Al-Queda presence in the country once we get involved? The reason (how obtuse is Kaplan?!?) people compare Libya to Iraq is that no one knows how things will play out once we "win." No one thinks the countries are the same, and this is evident from the fact that no one has argued this position. Kaplan's last sentence is disgusting.

- NR851651

March 17, 2011 at 6:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm probably in the 99th percentile in terms of my reluctance to conclude that military force is the right answer to anything, but I would support its use in this case. Obama continues to disappoint.

- IowaBeauty

March 17, 2011 at 7:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"With a similar complaint, then-Secretary of State George Shultz likened America to “the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond” to its foes. Shultz was indulging in a bit of analogical inference. But it was in the Shakespearian realm. So let me add this: If he really does possess the heightened moral awareness that his boosters claim, Obama may soon—very soon—find himself professing shock at the discovery of blood on his hands." I hope it wont come to this, but time is running out.

- Packard

March 17, 2011 at 8:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If there are large scale executions by khadafi , NR851651, you and all who argue as you do will also be morally culpable.

- Packard

March 17, 2011 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It feels as if nothing has been remembered and nothing learned prior to 2003. The problem in Libya, after all, is not a lack of capability. The problem is confusion—at the top—regarding the utility of force as an instrument of policy." Or could it be that the confusion regarding the utility of force resides at The New Republic? "Most of all, paying due respect to reality means acknowledging this distinction between Iraq and Libya: In the former, the population was passive, bulldozed into silence, or it reflexively bucked outside intervention; in Libya, voices from one side of the argument have been roaring Solzhenitsyn’s 30-year-old admonition to 'interfere as much as you can.'" Or could it be that as in Iraq the Libyan government and the opposition are divided along sectarian/tribal lines and that what we're seeing in Libya is not another 1789 or 1917 where the entire population of a country rises en masse against a lone despot but an internecine war where one tribe battles another for hegemony? Obviously, Iraq and and Libya are different, but as NR851651 rightly points out the lesson that is rightly being drawn from Iraq is that wars, however easily winnable--and contra Kaplan, master weaver of straw men, nobody but nobody argues that an initial military defeat of Qadaffi would be anything but easy--have spiraling consequences, non of which are readily discernible. What if Qadaffi's support within his own tribe remains strong? What if, as seems possible, he retains the support of a significant proportion of the Libyan population? What if the fact that Libyans required the U.S. military to dispose of their own villain is so profoundly humiliating to them that many of them, including members of the current opposition, feel the need to engage in guerilla warfare to turn the invaders out and save face? Kaplan thinks that because Libya's population is situated mostly along the coast that it would make the country easy to subdue? Just ask the French how that theory panned out in Algeria. And more broadly speaking, what sort of message would and American invasion send to the rest of the Middle East and to the world at large regarding the utility of nuclear weapons?

- AaronW

March 17, 2011 at 8:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read Max Boot's review of Rumsfeld's book and then this post by Kaplan, both so filled with straw men I suggest TNR be renamed W of O. Of course, these two and others of similar persuasion specialize in re-writing history; although to be fair in Boot's case, it's not so much re-writing history (though he does), it's choosing the date on which history began (in Boot's case, the day after the invasion of Iraq). Boot objects to Rumsfeld because the latter has expressed the ultimate truth about the adventure in Iraq: that no matter how one shuffles the generals or the troops, the outcome in Iraq was cast on the day of the decision to invade. Kaplan, on the other hand, at least doesn't attempt to defend his preference for invading Lybia by re-writing history: Kaplan advises that history is no guide (though he alludes to Hussein's 500,000-man army as though that, rather than ethnic cleansing, explains the calamity in Iraq). With Boot and Kaplan safely seated in their ivory towers, ready to advise future presidents, I have no doubt that history will be repeated; unfortunately for those who experience it, it's a history that they will once again have to re-write.

- rayward

March 17, 2011 at 8:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If there are large scale executions by khadafi , NR851651, you and all who argue as you do will also be morally culpable." Bullshit. Need I list for you all of the countries where "large scale executions" or their equivalent have taken place in the past thirty years without foreign intervention or with foreign intervention or with intervention that came too late? To name just one, over the past five years Robert Mugabe has systematically starved to death thousands in Ndebele Land in Zimbabwe's south, the seat of his political opposition. I have not heard any calls from you, Packard, for military intervention in Zimbabwe. (I'm assuming you have not made any and please correct me if I'm wrong.) Should we hold you morally culpable for this failure of advocacy? Military intervention in another nation state, even for a high moral purpose, is a complex, perilous undertaking with numerous unforeseeable ramifications. This goes a long way to explaining why it has been employed so rarely--by ANY nation--even when the moral imperative seems glaringly obvious to all. Questioning such adventures is necessary and right and cannot make a person culpable for murders committed by another.

- AaronW

March 17, 2011 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard: "If there are large scale executions by khadafi , NR851651, you and all who argue as you do will also be morally culpable." Packard, all NR851651 was saying was that no one's addressing the questions arising out of commitment beyond a no-fly zone. You find moral culpability in that? Asking questions about steps 2 and 3 put one on Qaddafi's side? Come on. Those questions need to be addressed, because a NFZ will not be sufficient. Apparently that has been the administration's thinking all along. If we commit ourselves militarily, we will need, at least, to bomb Qaddafi's forces. Notice, though, the people arguing for action aren't actually arguing for that, only for an ineffectual NFZ. The Arab League too--they said they want a NFZ, but no bombing, no "shock and awe". So that's a problem. It needs to be addressed. Maybe the Obama administration is working on it as they gear up for a bombing campaign. I don't know. But I don't align myself to Qaddafi by asking about it. Rayward, you're right. But maybe we should name the straw man, and try to give him some memorable, distinguishable features, because people here are getting woefully confused.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 8:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR straw man: His name is Adlai. He wants to talk, talk, talk, and not do anything. He might not like the ruthless dictators we all hate, not consciously, but he might as well, because he aids and abets. He is objectively on their side, one and all. In regard to Libya, he accepts the notion that its US military intervention or nothing, and he still chooses nothing. He then comforts himself by contemplating his own rectitude. I am not Adlai, nor is rayward, nor AaronW. Only Adlai is Adlai.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 8:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Having made my arguments repeatedly on this subject I will not engage again. However... Tom Ricks, who actually supports some kind of U.S. intervention in Libya, has observed that one of the best arguments against involving ourselves in the Libyan civil war is the identity of the people who want it. It's the same people who led us into the last war, asserting that not to get involved was immoral and, after all, it would be easy and not cost much. It's amazing to me how people in the punditocracy just continue to fail upwards. There is never a price to be paid for being wrong -- at least not by the punditocracy itself. The price is paid by U.S. servicemen and the U.S. taxpayers. But these bloviating ass-clowns? It all just bounces off them. I suppose as long as AEI, The Weekly Standard and The New Republic are around self-styled foreign policy experts who are always wrong about everything will be able to draw a decent paycheck for vomiting up another set of reasons why bombing/invading [insert random Arab country here] is a moral necessity that can be done cheaply and easily. Nice gig if you can get it and had your conscience surgically removed many years ago.

- DC Spence

March 17, 2011 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly DC. The problem with Iraq was that it was neo-con dogmatists shaming the country and Democrats into supporing an invasion to overthrow a dictator who had WMD and was a "Clear and Present Danger". That none of those things were true was lost in the rush to war. But NOW we have TNR (who I assume was against the war in Iraq) trying to shame the Democrats into supporting an invasion to overthrow a dictator. Because "it's the powers of Democracy" trying to throw him out? That's the only difference? TNR is in desperate need of a reality check. I can't believe they're following neo-con reasoning to create YET ANOTHER American war in the Middle-East. You break it, you bought it.

- AllanL5

March 17, 2011 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AllanL5: I'm not sure if what you wrote was sarcasm: "But NOW we have TNR (who I assume was against the war in Iraq)..." In case this was not sarcasm, TNR was an early and very enthusiastic supporter of invading Iraq. The magazine went so far as to endorse Joe Lieberman for President in 2004. Not years I suspect the magazine will look back upon with much pride.

- DC Spence

March 17, 2011 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Add Kaplan to the list of people wringing their hands about Libya and about American reluctance to participate in the civil war that has developed there. He laments our inclination to learn from history - even chastises us for it (we are "think" and "subliterate"). This is how he hopes to persuade us? No sale, Mr Kaplan. Neil

- purcellneil

March 17, 2011 at 9:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm probably in the 99th percentile in terms of my reluctance to conclude that military force is the right answer to anything, but I would support its use in this case." What are your reasons for using military force? Which form will military force take? How long and how much do you want to spend? What about Bahrain, Ivory Coast, etc., where people are being shot as we speak, for protesting? Do you favor military force in those places as well? I am not saying you're wrong for advocating military force, but I'd like to know why you think it should be used (in Libya only?), and how far we ought to go to see this through.

- wkwami

March 17, 2011 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Today you have a civil war with a ruthless bloodthirsty dictator killing his own civilian populace along with the rebels. If Obama orders a no fly zone, by next week you'll have a civil war with a ruthless bloodthirty dictator killing his own civilian populace along with the rebels with a lot of very pretty american planes flying overhead. Take my word, having been over there... if you're looking to stop the killing, a no fly zone will accomplish exactly nothing. Zero. Full stop. If the US is going to act, it will require ground forces. It will entail killing civilians ourselves, no matter how much we would wish it were not so. It will involve the occasional slaughter of a company of rebels we're there to help, thinking they were pro-Ghaddafi forces.... (paging Von Clausewitz, will Mr Carl Von Clausewitz please pick up a white courtesy telephone). It will cause, at best, a modest backlash in the Arab world (and elsewhere) about Americans once again throwing their weight around and widespread speculation about the wish for US hegemony in the region ("Who will Obama hand-pick to be Ghadaffi's successor?", Al Jazeera will write), and the Arab world will very VERY quickly forget that much of the Libyan populace asked us to be there. At worst, major segments of the Libyan populace will be violently opposed to the continued presence of US forces as we help them transition to a new government. We have been down this road before. All of which... and much of the postings on here, as well... ignores the very simple question of "What then?" Yes, Ghadaffi is a monster. I don't know which of Dante's circles is waiting for him, but he needs to be there yesterday. But to make the assumption that because Ghaddafi is an evil monster that should be destroyed it must therefore follow that the rebels are, by nature, "good", and thoe one among them who comes forward to take power post-Ghadafi must also be good is almost touchingly naive. I cannot imagine that US forces will stand blithely by if a tribal strongman takes power and begins pogroms against other tribal chiefs. Nor can I imagine our forces leaving the country while this is being broadcast on the evening news, and Obama saying Hey it's their problem now. Do we depose that person? How will that play in the Arab world? And how far are we willing to go to insure...well, if not "peace", at least order...? solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant, anyone? Make no mistake, I am not opposed to military action. But we need to define exactly what is is were trying to accomplish, how we're going to do it, how much blood we're willing to shed to get there, what our plan is on the ground post-conflict, and how long we intend to stay committed. And the President needs, as no President ever seems to have the stomach for, to explain to the American people that if we're going to do anything that will actually help the rebellion and topple Ghaddafi and hold together what remains, American soldiers will die. Period. We owe it to those still in uniform to at least be honest with ourselves about this.

- Tristan

March 17, 2011 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Since the putative “lessons” of history continue to be stupidly confined to these two events, once the loop got underway, everyone knew their cues. In this atmosphere of slow-motion capitulation to mass murder, subliterate commentators and slippery politicians erased any hope of engaging in a disinterested search of the past in order to find something that might illuminate the present." It is not just that the good man disagrees with those who do not favour unilateral engagement of US arms against Libya; it is that those who say otherwise are subliterate and making stupid arguments. This is not much different from Arnon's typical reply - not just that he disagrees, but that the arguments are dumb - presumably, so is the arguer. Except that - as posters, we may indulge in the occasional juvenalia - I do - but whether a magazine should do so and remain credible, is an open question. I was hoping for some sober analysis. I get, yet again, purple prose. I was hoping for some margin of rational argument about the why, how, what next, of another adventure; I get more attacks on the administration for either saying or not saying enough, and for stating basic truths about the rules of military engagement that are totally indepedent of any analogies to the past. And then, when all else fails, we get the usual ad hominems against Obama's putative lack of morals, knowledge, resolve - whatever - without any evidence of such, other than that the writer disagrees with the course of action taken. And, what is more - the only voices of caution are in the comments. Is it then the editorial policy of this magazine not to have any sort of voice that contradicts the drumbeats of war?

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is not surprising that so many who pimped the unjustified invasion of Iraq now argue with great energy that Libya is not Iraq, and lament with so much evident frustration that some of us see a lesson in recent military adventures that would preclude our entry into a Libyan civil war. Still, this is the reality created by the success of their efforts in 2003 to sell Americans on a war to save us from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and by their knee-jerk militarism. The nation is tired of running when these people cry wolf. Any sane nation would be. Neil

- purcellneil

March 17, 2011 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is one issue that no one is raising. With so many troops and supplies tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, does the US have the military assets to launch and manage a major campaign in Libya, even if we wanted to?

- zardoz67

March 17, 2011 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Prior to the Iraq War, there was a report written called Reconstructing Iraq which described many potential problems in a postwar occupation, including many of the ones that did arise, and actions that could prevent those problems. Given that those in charge of the Iraq War ignored the report, is there any evidence that following the recommendations of Reconstructing Iraq would have failed to prevent the insurgency and all that it entailed? Any reason to think that a military campaign guided by the likes of the authors of Reconstructing Iraq would turn out like the Iraq War?

- sighthnd

March 17, 2011 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lawrence Kaplan has absolutely no standing to advise anyone about how to react to the events in Lybia. He was the author with Bill Kristol (one of the worst people in public life) of an entire book advocating a US invasion of Iraq. He has no credibility, period. My own view is this: the primary, virtually exclusive purpose of the American military (in which I served as an enlisted man and my son as a Navy officer with two tours in the Persian Gulf) is to defend the United States, period. It is not to wander the earth searching for wrongs to correct or avenge. However, there are things that we can and should do to help the rebels in Lybia -- primarily by providing supplies and if possible training. We should also recognize the rebels as the legitimate government of Lybia, as France has done, and confiscate the billions of Lybian dollars in US banks, to be used to finance the supplies furnished to the rebels. The old, repeated question: what happens if despite our help, the rebels are defeated do we go further in support, i.e., what next. The answer is that there will always be another day and we should continue our support of rebels in exile and even within Lybia -- but no American troops. As for no flight zones, we can coordinate with others, including of course the Saudis who have an air force, and only make available airmen who specifically volunteer for that mission. However,

- PeteBeck

March 17, 2011 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

zardoz67: It is true that our land forces are stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not aware of our Air Force being stretched, (if anyone has contradictory information I'd like to know), which is all we would need to establish a no-fly zone.

- sighthnd

March 17, 2011 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that the question of whether using Air Force only assets will be sufficient is debatable.

- zardoz67

March 17, 2011 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, of course, Kaplan does not answer what I think ought to be a rather relevant question: where the hell is the Arab Street? The Muslim Outrage? Is it too much to ask? As for the Arab League, the moment they made any action contingent on UNSC resolutions, it should have been clear to everyone that they have no intention of actually doing anything. As for France - one of the professional war-mongers here was talking about how the French have said, allons-y, in contradistinciton to the feckless and indecisive Obama. Sarkozy cares, you see, because he talks about war, whereas Obama, feckless and ignorant and without any sense of feeling for the poor Arabs (whose agent he is in any event) as he is, did not and does not want to do anything. Except that - where are the French warplanes? When France wants to act - like sinking a Greenpeace ship - it acts; France is even less restrained in respecting international law than is the US, when it serves their national interest. So where is Sarko, except fifty paces behind Obama and screaming, "War, War - but not us"? Yes, none of this matters to those being killed and those who might be killed, but I fail to see why the United States has to puts its sons and daughters in harm's way, when we know - we have seen this movie before - when we know that no matter how much the US acts in good faith, it will be blamed for the losses and instability that will follow.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Differences between Libya and Iraq: “That means acknowledging the differences between Libya and Iraq: the disparity between Saddam Hussein’s 500,000-man army and Muammar Qaddafi’s 50,000-man (and shrinking) army; the distinction between the size of Iraq’s population and Libya’s population, which adds up to about 20 percent of Iraq’s and mostly inhabits a thin slice of coastline; the difference between an essentially American enterprise and an undertaking that has the sanction of the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and marches to the tune of La Marseillaise; the difference between a dictator whose crimes (presumably) belonged to the past and one who vows to “cleanse Libya house by house” and, by all accounts, has proved himself keen to do so; the difference between Iraq, with no viable opposition movement, and Libya, which boasts an active and well-armed rebel force; the difference between a country frozen in the amber of authoritarianism a decade ago and an entire region awash in a wave of successful popular uprisings today.”

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No-fly zones "The United States has implemented no-fly zones on three occasions over the past 20 years—in Northern Iraq in 1991, Southern Iraq in 1992, and in Bosnia that same year. In Bosnia and Southern Iraq, the aggressors outmatched those we meant to protect even on the ground. But the lethal combination of Kurdish ground fighters and American air cover drove Saddam Hussein’s army back behind lines they never again crossed. A humanitarian triumph was the result. Members of the Obama team argue that a no fly-zone, as its envoy to NATO, Ivo Daalder, put it, “isn’t really going to impact” the tide of battle in Libya, as “they really have a limited effect against ... helicopters or the kind of ground operations that we’ve seen.” This is idiocy. The Kurdish no-fly zone banned all aircraft, helicopters and jets, and, absent either, Qaddafi’s forces would be operating from a severe disadvantage. Of course, none of these details really matter anymore. It is getting late, and the problem in Washington is will—or, more exactly, its unjust absence. With a similar complaint, then-Secretary of State George Shultz likened America to “the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond” to its foes. Shultz was indulging in a bit of analogical inference. But it was in the Shakespearian realm. So let me add this: If he really does possess the heightened moral awareness that his boosters claim, Obama may soon—very soon—find himself professing shock at the discovery of blood on his hands."

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

None of the argument for letting Qaddafi slaughter at will civilians are heavy on passion and very light on facts.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Hana El-Gallal: 'He will kill everyone. Do something. Please...'" http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hana-elgallal-he-will-kill-everyone-do-something-please-2244162.html

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The United States has implemented no-fly zones on three occasions over the past 20 years—in Northern Iraq in 1991, Southern Iraq in 1992, and in Bosnia that same year." It is not appropriate to look to the past to avoid getting into war, but it is appropriate to look to the past to get into war. The consistency is blinding.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Benghazi's Citizens Fill The Libyan Government Gap" by LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO http://www.npr.org/2011/03/09/134384820/Benghazi-Update

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So let me add this: If he really does possess the heightened moral awareness that his boosters claim, Obama may soon—very soon—find himself professing shock at the discovery of blood on his hands." A statement bereft of passion and heavy on facts.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The consistency is blinding." There is no inconsistency, icarus, he didn't offer an analogy. He did counter those who argue that a no-fly zone couldn't work.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In Bosnia and Southern Iraq, the aggressors outmatched those we meant to protect even on the ground. But the lethal combination of Kurdish ground fighters and American air cover drove Saddam Hussein’s army back behind lines they never again crossed." Two out of three chances of success - so the question is whether, on the ground, the rebels have not only the lethal force of Kurdish fighters, but also the terrain. Is Benghazi the same as the moutainous regions of Northern Iraq? But, then, I thought we were not supposed to draw lessons from the past ...

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A statement bereft of passion and heavy on facts." Nonsense icarus, it was a conclusion not a statement bereft of facts. The facts preceded the conclusion. Some people prevaricate through their quotes. Here is the complete argument. "The United States has implemented no-fly zones on three occasions over the past 20 years—in Northern Iraq in 1991, Southern Iraq in 1992, and in Bosnia that same year. In Bosnia and Southern Iraq, the aggressors outmatched those we meant to protect even on the ground. But the lethal combination of Kurdish ground fighters and American air cover drove Saddam Hussein’s army back behind lines they never again crossed. A humanitarian triumph was the result. Members of the Obama team argue that a no fly-zone, as its envoy to NATO, Ivo Daalder, put it, “isn’t really going to impact” the tide of battle in Libya, as “they really have a limited effect against ... helicopters or the kind of ground operations that we’ve seen.” This is idiocy. The Kurdish no-fly zone banned all aircraft, helicopters and jets, and, absent either, Qaddafi’s forces would be operating from a severe disadvantage. Of course, none of these details really matter anymore. It is getting late, and the problem in Washington is will—or, more exactly, its unjust absence. With a similar complaint, then-Secretary of State George Shultz likened America to “the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond” to its foes. Shultz was indulging in a bit of analogical inference. But it was in the Shakespearian realm. So let me add this: If he really does possess the heightened moral awareness that his boosters claim, Obama may soon—very soon—find himself professing shock at the discovery of blood on his hands."

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus keeps trying: "Two out of three chances of success - so the question is whether, on the ground, the rebels have not only the lethal force of Kurdish fighters, but also the terrain. Is Benghazi the same as the moutainous regions of Northern Iraq?" They are certainly motivated. They too are fighting for their lives.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Benghazi's Citizens Fill The Libyan Government Gap" by LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO http://www.npr.org/2011/03/09/134384820/Benghazi-Update

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson! Welcome back.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus asks the most important question, "Where the hell is the Arab street?" Nowhere, quite obviously. Certainly not calling for America to come support their popular uprising. Which leads me to think that Kaplan is gummed up with a few false historical analogies of his own. He sees Libya as an uprising of freedom-loving individuals against an oppressive tyrant, when in fact it may be a rising of one tribe--that of the former king--against another hegemonic tribe--that of Qadaffi. He doesn't like the analogy to Iraq. Fine. Liberia perhaps provides a better one, a civil war rather than a popular revolution. Let Kaplan and his supporters explain while universal morality requires us to intervene in Libya but not in Liberia.

- AaronW

March 17, 2011 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To be fair there is another point of view to consider: "Arabs and Europeans are calling for a no-fly zone over Libya. But why should America do the job when those neighbors have ample air power and the responsibility to do it themselves?" By Leslie H. Gelb. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-16/libyas-neighbors-have-the-air-power-to-impose-no-fly-zone-themselves/#

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, Gelb says nothing that the posters here have not said. And yet, when the posters say it, you piss all over them with silly insults, but you wish to be fair to Gelb? Silly man ...

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: "To be fair there is another point of view to consider:" That point of view is not, to be fair, that of TNR straw man. But it is the point of view of many who have been commenting here. Maybe we haven't made ourselves clear enough. I am inclined to be believe, though, that the straw man has impeded comprehension.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That point of view is not, to be fair, that of TNR straw man. But it is the point of view of many who have been commenting here. Maybe we haven't made ourselves clear enough. I am inclined to be believe, though, that the straw man has impeded comprehension." I didn't get the impression that most people arguing here cared what happened to the Libyans fighting Khaddafy.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am ignoring the bizarre comment by icarus.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JacksonDyer under "arnon" pseudonym" but afraid to admit it: "I didn't get the impression that most people arguing here cared what happened to the Libyans fighting Khaddafy." That's because you 1) are illiterate; 2) are not entirely "there"; 3) "ignore" all comments that do not conform to your prejudices; or 4) all of the above.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: "I didn't get the impression that most people arguing here cared what happened to the Libyans fighting Khaddafy." Do you know what "straw man" means? It's a rhetorical devise, created to make non-arguments read like arguments. What you do is, you create a position you well know how to oppose, and you oppose it. Then you insinuate that actual people you purport yourself to be arguing against actually hold that position. And then you say: QED. So, you see, your remark is risible.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Do you know what "straw man" means?" It's straw all dressed up to look like a real man, dpaup. You use it to fool Monk Parakeets or posters to believe that you are real.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus is having another nervous breakdown. Must have read "A Man for a Seasons" once too often.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson "Arnon" Dyer - I wonder if you were barred from these threads because of your extreme attacks on others, and that is why you are hiding under a different name and refusing to even deny that you are who you are. A simple "I'm not Jackson; I just sound as stupid and insulting as he did" would have sufficed. But this evasion ... seriously, man - what's the deal? Jilted lover? Deadbeat dad situation?

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think our Secretary of State has been very clear, the US would not embark upon any action unilaterally. So - what happens if the UN, NATO and the Arab League all agree that help is needed to prevent a massacre in Libya? Are we supposed to ignore this? I reiterate: I was dead set against the Iraq war and uncomfortable with attacking Afghanistan. It seemed like hitting a fly with a B-52 and sure enough it's been ineffective, costly and Bin Ladin is apparently still out there. The author of the piece is trying to get you think outside these obviously bad paradigms. Can we address this, regardless of who he is, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and without all the personal animosity? I myself am very conflicted here. I'm upset that a solid ally, Mubarak, who for all his flaws supported peace initiatives and did his best to help his country whose population has boomed - and which lacks the economic infrastructure to support that very young population, was summarily dismissed by the US without so much as a backward glance. Now, we see the spectacle of SOS in Cairo saying the Egyptian accomplishment is greater than the Pyramids. Bullshit. The Egyptians have accomplished nothing so far. The military is running things and it's unclear that the future will be better than the present and unless people get a grip on basic economics it's going to be terrible. Meanwhile though we have a pretty clear cut situation in Libya - although I agree, the potential for another, worse, tribal strongman emerging there does exist. But what if people just want the right to vote? We dumped our ally who, let us not forget, did NOT attack his people - and when it was clear they didn't want him - resigned! - peacefully! - and now we applaud the "revolution" as being greater than the Pyramids but we can't help the people of Libya. Why?

- Sophia

March 17, 2011 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, the government of Bahrain employed Saudi troops to crush the protest movement three days ago, a place where our Fifth Fleet is headquartered. So the mere juxtaposition of U.S. forces and a crisis is not sufficient to resolve that crisis in the way we approve of. It looks as if it's the declared intention of the American administration that makes the difference. If it looks as if targeted action will follow words, then people will sit up and take notice. If our intentions are confused or uncertain, that will communicate itself to others. For example Ghaddafi. For example the ruler of Bahrain.

- ironyroad

March 17, 2011 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let Egypt lead on Libya http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51464.html As President Barack Obama examines military options to intervene in Libya’s escalating humanitarian crisis, it is increasingly clear that a U.S.-led effort would be detrimental in effectively addressing both short-term needs and the region’s long-term stability. Instead, Egypt should step up and declare its intent to establish and enforce a “humanitarian corridor” to Benghazi. Many would argue that Egypt, and its military, have enough before them without engaging the crisis in Libya. But that neglects the pressing need for Egypt’s military to re-establish itself as a national force, projecting Egypt’s values and interests, rather than it play only its current role as government caretaker and constable pro-tempore. Without a distinguished and elevated mission to protect against innocent loss of life in Libya and enforce the values of Tahrir Square as a regional role model, Egypt and its military will cede its renaissance to Thermidor —-the incipient relapse that may even now be underway. As for Washington’s interest, here is the rationale: 1. This would be an Arab response to an Arab tragedy. It can give credence and sustenance to the historic Arab pro-democracy awakening that began in Tunisia on Dec. 18 and is transforming the Arab landscape, laying the foundation for Arab renaissance. 2. It can serve as an effective declaration of a democratic Egcypt’s intent to again lead the 380 million Arabs to an eminence long lost to external forces. 3. Egypt has the assets and resources to establish and enforce such a corridor in Libya. Its military is closely allied to and trained by that of the U.S. 4. An Egyptian-led and managed response will allow the United States and Europe to take a supportive role — not a leadership position — in solving this Arab crisis. 5. It will provide humanitarian assistance to the Libyan people in the most expeditious and acceptable manner. It can also help stop armed aggression in the eastern part of Libya 6. It will provide an inspiring message to Arabs and non-Arabs that the Arab awakening is an enduring transformation. If the historic and transformative revolution of Sidi Bouzid and Tahrir Square are to avoid a terrible relapse, an Arab-led and managed response to Libya is imperative. A Western-led effort could serve to signal the beginning of the end of this movement. Any enforcement is likely to be messy. But have no doubt Egypt would prevail — and the consequences of that victory would be far-reaching and positive.

- wkwami

March 17, 2011 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unofficial word is now that SC resolution will pass 10-0, Russia and China abstaining. It will include broad authorization for force, short of occupation. wkwami, exactly right, and I think what the administration is thinking too. The SC resltn to be voted on would put pressure on Egypt and other Arab League states to get out front.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia wrote: "Meanwhile though we have a pretty clear cut situation in Libya - although I agree, the potential for another, worse, tribal strongman emerging there does exist." Clear cut, huh? How so? "But what if people just want the right to vote?" I suspect lots more people in North Korea just want the right to vote as well. Hence I propose we invade North Korea. The outcome is even more predictable - we get to reunite North and South, with the new Korea likely to be/remain a pro-American country. What could go wrong? We already have roughly 20,000 troops stationed there, and with the support of the South Korean Armyit should be a piece of cake. We're more likely to be welcomed as liberators, not to mention the return on investment will be much more compelling in North Korea than in Libya. - liberating 24 million people vs only 6.4 million in Libya, while eliminating a nuclear-armed enemy.

- wkwami

March 17, 2011 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You finally said it, Icarus.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 17, 2011 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes, none of this matters to those being killed and those who might be killed, but I fail to see why the United States has to puts its sons and daughters in harm's way, when we know - we have seen this movie before - when we know that no matter how much the US acts in good faith, it will be blamed for the losses and instability that will follow." It is perfectly understandable that the gut reaction to ungratefulness, especially when the stakes are so high, is met with, shall we say, pause. It is understandable and short sighted and ultimately childish. I have this sickening feeling that our lack of willingness, our dithering abdication is going to cost us in tangible ways not yet foreseen. To say nothing of having just lowered the bar for altruistic standards in personal and collective accountability. We have just ratified politics, real and other as the measure of human rights validity. Vagaries Rule, people! Let's all rally around that summum bonum. That'll make a great sign. It won't be too hard to spin a tale of the most powerful nation in the 20-21st century characterized as indifferent to anything but self interest. European and Arab League cynicism will not be the story line. Though even if it should be it is in many respects utterly irrelevant. I think the US has just lost a good sized chunk of moral authority. Which is after all the goal of its detractors. We may have actually by doing nothing here just made their case much more believable. Goddamned Lilliputions. As Binny Boy sups his goat stew with satisfaction.

- jacko

March 17, 2011 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are still dealing in fictions, icarus. I don't care what you call me. You are wrong about 90 percent of what you think.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacko, I don't understand that one at all. Waiting for SC authorization is moral abdication? Word is, we now have Arab buy-in, will get SC authorization, etc. etc., all the sort of stuff that puts concerns of people like me to rest. Now you're saying... what? It's already too late? For what, to go it alone?

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacko, with respect, I think you missed the point of my post. No matter. UNSC authorization for the use of force is coming; looks like, to my surprise, the Saudis will take part in enforcing the no-fly zone. The biggest opponents of action was not the US, but Germany and India. There is no dithering here or unwillingness, in the abstract. There is unwillingness to go to it alone and in defiance of the law. Now let's see what happens next.

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday during a visit to Libya's neighbour, Tunisia, that the council must authorize air strikes in order for a ban on Libyan military flights to be effective. "It is important to recognize that military experts across the world know that a no-fly zone requires certain actions (be) taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defence system," Clinton told reporters. She said options under consideration also include using drones, and arming the rebel forces. She insisted that U.S. troops would not be directly involved in ground action. [...] France said in a communique Thursday that "several" Arab countries have pledged to participate in imposing a no-fly zone. Diplomats say Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are among the Arab countries that would take part."

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr "JacksonDyer under "arnon" pseudonym"" More of the same lies.. You better check the TNR management before you post more of your fantastic nonsense. Otherwise I will refer them to you as a mindless stalker.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dpaup: I hope that I am just howling at the moon. I truly hope that I am very, very wrong. That said, we have indeed lost something with our hand wringing and supplications. Not to say that we haven't gained in other ways. I question what it is we have gained. Do we truly desire this trade off? Is it right and just, all things being equal, to bow before an undeserving body of politicians dressed in judges robes that bring their own purposes to the table? It all just kind of feels like an unholy matrimony to me.

- jacko

March 17, 2011 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... I fail to see why the United States has to puts its sons and daughters in harm's way, when we know - we have seen this movie before - when we know that no matter how much the US acts in good faith, it will be blamed for the losses and instability that will follow." More claims that have been shown to be utterly misleading. The US will not be acting alone since many countries have already stated their opposition to Qaddafi. This includes the Arab League and a previous vote at the UN. And no one is asking for American soldiers on the ground there.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/03/17/intervention-without-the-u-s/ is a very interesting analysis of whether Obama is trying to get other countries to deal with Libya, without the US leading, breaking the habit of waiting for the US to 'lead'. I am not firmly in any of these camps - and solely think maybe, just maybe, this is the wrong moment in history for the US to stop leading - but then I just wanted to see Qaddhafi disappear in a giant sandstorm. Yes, I watched the film "Hidalgo" again - great swallowing sandstorm. I think it is time to wait for the UNSC vote tonight, and then see what happens. TNR blogposts on Libya are now too scattered, and threads are same-old, same-old, whereas I am more interested in seeing if anyone can take Qaddhafi, self-anointed King of Kings of Africa, down. Yes, I am cheering for the Saudis to show what they can, because it seems Egypt has decided to NOT join the military coalition of the willing. If you step back, and follow the chronology since March 3, of what Obama said, and then what Qaddhafi said, and then has done, it really is turning into a diplomatic defeat for Obama if Qaddhafi bombs Benghazi into rubble. Not that Q has that many bombs, but it surely would be interesting to see what happens if ANYONE bombed the Qaddhafi logistics convoy sitting on the highway outside Abidjaya as shown in CNN footage this afternoon.

- K2K

March 17, 2011 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

relax jacko. outside TNR and Bill Kristol's fantasy world, there hasn't been all that much gnashing of teeth over the response. Compared to how these things usually go, it's been fairly swift. In any case, results matter, and if current reports are borne out, we'll get what we want. If people stop expecting US to jump in headfirst and alone, that's a good thing.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon is absolutely NOT jackson (jdyer). does icarus have nothing better to do than invent distractions. I hope jackson is ok, even though I do not miss his admitted curmudgeon-ness. "...And no one is asking for American soldiers on the ground there." absolutely correct. so many nervous nellies hysterically flailing on so many slippery slopes.

- K2K

March 17, 2011 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is unwillingness to go to it alone and in defiance of the law." Ick. I was kind of throwing down in general. My post wasn't a response to you in particular. That said your whole 'defiance of the law' thing rattles my cage a bit. All groups look to enlarge their scope. Be it the neighborhood bridge club, boy scouts or the International law folks. Everybody talks their book. I remain unconvinced on the validity of the entire UN enterprise. Law is only as effective as the underpinnings it is founded upon. We can slice and dice to our pastiche lovers content and still be utterly vacant of virtue.

- jacko

March 17, 2011 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Law is only as effective as the underpinnings it is founded upon." True. The UNSC makes law in certain specific circumstances because we have agreed to give it authority to make law. And international law generally exists only at the sufferance of the states to which it applies. This is no different from domestic law, by the way, and my perspective on domestic law is no different. There are times, such as in Nazi Germany or Iran of today, when the law is subverted into the service of evil and, thus, loses its moral force at law. For the most part, however, it retains its attractiveness, for superpower and weak alike, as Holt says (in the mouth of More), "for my own safety's sake". That the very same process that was to protect him, failed him and sent him to the block (in the play) does not really change the essence of the issue. Except in extreme cases where the moral foundations of the law are questionable - and this is not a situational matter - the law is our best guarantor of morality.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon: "The US will not be acting alone since many countries have already stated their opposition to Qaddafi. This includes the Arab League and a previous vote at the UN." In that case, I don't see what is your source of disagreement with anything I (or anyone else) have written. From the first post on the subject on various threads, the only real issue has been unilateral versus multilateral (for authorization); and going in alone or with others (for action). And the consistent line of at least most "liberals" here has been: don't go it alone, on either account. Make sure there is either UN or regional support, and make sure Arab states and Europeans are fully involved, and not just as adjuncts. There appears to be a UNSC resolution authorizing force, and there are no anti-American demonstrations anywhere in the world on that score. That's positive.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You better check the TNR management before you post more of your fantastic nonsense. Otherwise I will refer them to you as a mindless stalker." 1. My apologies - you sound just like him. 2. As the rabbit said, "not the bre'r patch!!" 3. You promised to ignore my posts - you did not keep them. I promise to ignore yours from now on, and I will.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr “Arnon: "The US will not be acting alone since many countries have already stated their opposition to Qaddafi. This includes the Arab League and a previous vote at the UN." In that case, I don't see what is your source of disagreement with anything I (or anyone else) have written. From the first post on the subject on various threads, the only real issue has been unilateral versus multilateral (for authorization); and going in alone or with others (for action). And the consistent line of at least most "liberals" here has been: don't go it alone, on either account. Make sure there is either UN or regional support, and make sure Arab states and Europeans are fully involved, and not just as adjuncts.” This is not what has been happening here. Many posters don’t want the US involved at all. I don’t know what your position is since your posts are never clear. However, if you say that you don’t object to the US being part of ( and probably leading it) of multinational force, then I have no quarrel with you.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

live blog at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-united-nations-air-strikes-live "...Voting for the resolution [voting yes]: Permanent members: United States, Britain, France Non-permanent members:: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa Abstentions Permanent members: Russia, China Non-permanent members: Germany, Brazil, India ..." [I find it a good sign that all three African non-permanent members voted yes, even if the governments of more than half the world's population abstained. According to the Guardinan's live blog, France will be launching fighters in a few hours] as to anyone else? "...[Congressional] officials said they expected the effort to enforce a no-fly zone and ground Muammar Gaddafi's air force could begin within a few days if the UN takes action by day's end. They spoke after a briefing for members of the Senate. One official said Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were among possible participants, in a showing designed to demonstrate that the effort to aid anti-Gadhafi rebels had support from other countries in the region. ..." Viva la France!

- K2K

March 17, 2011 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

UNSC Resolution passed. "French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said if the resolution was approved, France would support military action against Gadhafi within hours. The U.S. said it was preparing for action. Several Arab nations were expected to provide backup. [...] "The U.N. Security Council has no mandate," Gadhafi said. "We don't acknowledge their resolutions."" Now it does, and the first Libyan plane that goes down will be the official Libyan acknowledgement of the resolutions. This is Obama's Bush I moment; Clinton's Great Baker Accomplishment.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 7:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am posting from U.S. Eastern Daylight time, and it is one hour later than the time stamps on TNR's comments, which is why I could post the UN vote.

- K2K

March 17, 2011 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K - it sounds like a no-fly zone, but it is a lot more. "all necessary means ... to secure the civilian population" coupled with the previous resolution effectively declaring Gadhafi a criminal means that he is a legitimate target.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I find it a good sign that all three African non-permanent members voted yes, even if the governments of more than half the world's population abstained. This is hopeful. "According to the Guardinan's live blog, France will be launching fighters in a few hours] as to anyone else?" As far as I know the Guardian editorial board was against intervention. They also gave a lot of space to those who opposed intervention.

- arnon

March 17, 2011 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One thing the administration wanted but didn't get: Authorization of ground forces, if needed, in this resolution. That would have had more Arab buy-in up front, in fact (since the US has already said no on our own troops), it would have been an implicit Arab commitment. They don't have that now. So that's still up in the air. At some stage ground forces will be needed, and they will have to come from Arab states; but which?

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dpaup: it excludes a foreign occupation force, but does not exclude ground forces. The two are different, in my view. Nothing to stop the Arab League to pony up. The Saudis, Qatar and the Emirates will supply air cover, I believe; once the Saudis are done slaughering Bahrainis, they might deign to go to Libya. There is also Egypt.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus: I have been reading about the changes to the UN resolution while you are busy posting comments. it also seems Hillary's announcement that she will not stay on past 2012 is directly related to Obama's dithering silence since March 3 - seems Hillary has given office space to the Libyan diplomats who resigned in opposition to Qaddhafi's use of lethal force against what started as peaceful protests. arnon: yeah, but the Guardian has a live blog, so it is a good source - they do sometimes report the news in addition to the editorializing :) and, I am now really distressed that it is so difficult to get even basic food to so many of the displaced Japanese in the NE. not enough fuel for the trucks and helos to make food deliveries! see you guys tomorrow!

- K2K

March 17, 2011 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ground troops? why not wait and see how fast Qaddhafi's army of mercenaries and Touregs lasts once their convoy is bombed. the councils in opposition cities were doing a fine job of running their cities without Qaddhafi. the real question is what has to happen for all the skilled foreign workers to come back.

- K2K

March 17, 2011 at 7:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh - an sorry - the "No fly zone" decisions and authorities are different from the "protection of civilians" decisions and authorities, and so there can be no question that "all necessary means" means precisely that, air and ground, but that it excludes occupation of the country.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus, thanks for the clarification

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would add that naval forces will also be involved. Italy is NATO's giant aircraft carrier in the Med, and Italy has just opened their air and naval bases to the effort. In other news, Kuwait is sending their navy to protect Bahrain, at Bahrain's request (the Gulf Co-operation Council treaty is a mini-NATO) The WSJ reports that Egypt has been supplying small arms and ammo to Benghazi for the past few days even though hundreds of thousands of Egyptian migrant workers remain inside Libya.

- K2K

March 17, 2011 at 8:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/africa/18nations.html?hp Ha! Looks like Kaplan, Peretz, Weiseltier and everyone else slamming Obama for his apparent inaction on Libya owe the president a big, wet kiss on the ass. This is how you do it, old men; you keep the rhetoric under control, you keep your efforts out of the press, and you get a resolution through the UN-fucking-Security Counsel! Obama just took all these neocon jokers to school. Not that I'm holding my breath waiting for any of them to apologize.

- AaronW

March 17, 2011 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the other hand, some of you guys sound like the folks in this cartoon: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/12/nato-to-libya-what-seems-to-be-the-problem/

- Sophia

March 18, 2011 at 2:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus: "all necessary means" means precisely that, air and ground, but that it excludes occupation of the country." So what? A technicality. If we're there, when do we leave? When do we get the boots off the ground? How long do they stay there to secure the region?

- MOLLYSIMON

March 18, 2011 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW: If you think any of those undersigners will ever feel a sense of shame and embarrassment over their grandstanding, you're nuts. Weiseltier has spent the decades in a little bubble. Not that many readers, not that many letters of disagreement. So his sense of having wisdom has never been tested. It is now impossible for the man to recognize and admit that he may have been too quick. He's been too quick about everything in the past two months. And what's fascinating to me is that many readers have posed a very valid question: Why did he not speak out about Congo? Or Ivory Coast? He obviously doesn't feel the need to defend himself EVER--which is a scary quality in anybody. Shall we lay odds on whether he ever acknowledges Obama's "decent" job here? I personally think this new adventure is a mistake. There is no plan of getting out. We could be there for years. More lives, more treasure that could have been spent elsewhere.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 18, 2011 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly, as I think I indicated, I don't expect any mea culpas from LW or any of these TNR characters. I didn't mention Congo (though I thought if it) but it was me who mentioned Liberia and Zimbabwe. The reason behind LW's, MP's and LK's relative silence on such sub-Saharan conflicts as compared with Iraq and Libya is pretty obvious, isn't it? I consider myself relatively pro-Zionst--more pro-Zionist than my Jewish wife, as it happens--but I do find Weseltier's, Peretz's and Kaplan's flailing efforts to couch their personal pro-Israel, anti-Arab bias in terms of universal morality borderline comical.

- AaronW

March 19, 2011 at 3:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close