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 Necessary and Sufficient

POLITICS MARCH 24, 2011

Necessary and Sufficient

BY WILLIAM GALSTON

Writing in 1977 on the topic of humanitarian interventions, a noted political philosopher had this to say:

“[W]hen a government turns savagely upon its own people, we must doubt the very existence of a political community to which the principle of self-determination might apply. ... When a people are being massacred, we don’t require that they pass the test of self-help before coming to their aid. It is their very incapacity that draws us in. ... Any state capable of stopping the slaughter has the right, at least, to try to do so.”

Returning to this topic in 1999, he observed that “the greatest danger most people face in the world today comes from their own states, and the chief dilemma of international politics is whether people in danger should be rescued by military forces from the outside.” The problem, he argued, is not that individual states are prone to engage in such interventions, but the reverse: There have been “a lot of unjustified refusals to intervene.” It is, he said, “more this neglect of intervention [by individual nations] than any resort to it that leads people to look for a better, more reliable, form of agency.” And he offered a number of reasons why humanitarian interventions conducted under U.N. auspices might well meet this standard.

I agree with this distinguished scholar, who is (as you may have guessed) Michael Walzer. And that is why I disagree with his recent critique for TNR of our intervention in Libya.

Walzer begins his case against the administration with three prudential points. First, it’s unclear what the purpose of the intervention is, and therefore what the endgame might be. Second, the attack lacks significant Arab support. And third, technical passage of the enabling resolution in the U.N. Security Council should not obscure the breadth of international opposition, which includes not only the usual suspects (Russia and China) but also an important ally (Germany) and two of the most significant rising democracies (India and Brazil).

I could quibble with each of these propositions, but, as Walzer and I agree, that would divert us from the core issue. As he says, “[n]one of this would matter if this were a humanitarian intervention to stop a massacre.” But, he contends, “that is not what’s happening in Libya today.” That depends on what he means by “stop.” As the revolution faltered and government forces surged east, Qaddafi made a blood-curdling speech about the fate that awaited the residents of Benghazi. His threat to hunt them down “alley by alley” has been set to music and has become his supporters’ unofficial anthem.

On any impartial global index of leaders’ veracity and trustworthiness, Qaddafi would rank near the bottom. But in matters of organized brutality, there’s every reason to take him at his word. At the very least, there’s a very real possibility of mass reprisals and killings that would dwarf the slaughter at Srebrenica. That brings us to the nub of the matter: Were we required to wait until the slaughter began in order to “stop” it, or are we allowed to intervene to prevent a humanitarian disaster that is probable but not absolutely certain? The example of Rwanda suggests that if outside parties wait until the murder begins, it may be too late to halt it before many thousands have died. I don’t understand the basis for Walzer’s conclusion that unlike Rwanda, the threat to innocent life in Libya is not “extreme” enough to justify we what are doing.

All things considered, then, there is good reason why the impending fall of Benghazi moved President Obama to act. Bill Clinton has stated more than once that his failure to intervene in Rwanda was—morally and humanly speaking—the worst decision of his presidency. I agree. If I had been sitting where Obama was sitting last week, I would have acted as he did to prevent what could have been a similar stain on my administration. To be sure, there’s a chance that this wouldn’t have happened, even if we hadn’t intervened. But would we have been morally justified in taking that chance?

Yes, there are costs and risks. But let me use a philosopher’s example to clarify the issue. Suppose you’re a skilled swimmer walking along a beach. You hear a cry for assistance and observe someone struggling in the water a hundred feet offshore. Although it’s highly likely that you can bring the endangered swimmer safely to shore, there’s a small chance that you can’t, and a smaller but not negligible threat to your own safety. You also know that no one else can act with equal odds of success. Would it have been right to walk on by?

Since Kant, we have been familiar with the proposition that “ought implies can.” But in some circumstances, the reverse also holds: “can implies ought.” Our massive, ongoing investment in military capacity has a range of consequences for defense and diplomacy. It also has moral consequences. Because we can act in ways that others can’t, we are not as free as they are to ignore threats that we have the power to abate.

Having said this, let me grant a point Walzer rightly makes: Humanitarian protection is one thing, regime change quite another. This is a distinction that Obama also makes. No doubt his ringing and (many believe) unwise declaration that Qaddafi must go has muddied the waters. But while it may be complicated to say that our military intervention is bounded by the requirements of civilian protection and that we will use non-military means to bring about Qaddafi’s fall, it is not on its face incoherent.

Let me grant, as well, that the endgame is murky at best. There’s a non-trivial possibility that Qaddafi will be able to hang on to power in a substantial part of Libya. If so, we and our allies may have committed ourselves to protecting “Benghazistan” against retribution for the indefinite future. We’ve seen that movie before. Let’s hope this one ends better.

William Galston is a contributing editor at The New Republic and a current senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 97 comments

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

97 comments

William Galston article is a strong rebuttal to Rieff’s hasty and cynical criticism of Obama’s engagement with Libya. However, an endorsement or a critic can sound good (or badly conceived) when read, but in the end its actual events in the real world that will determine if a policy is correct or not. It may not be true that if you save a life you own it, but it is true that the life you save will become in unforeseen ways part of your own.

- Newly84

March 24, 2011 at 12:51am

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

Cohn has an excellent post that supports the intervention but poses questions about it that need to be worked on rather than just blindly opposed by supporters. He also leaves one out that is in my view of great importance: where is Congress? I think R2P is a significant step forward for the UN, one that may go far in improving the chances of that organization (finally?) living up to the ideals of its Charter. But as in this, past, and likely future interventions, the actual fighting and dying are going to be done by the militaries of (almost exclusively democratic) nation states that are responsible through their governments to their people for the command of those militaries. The UNSC is not The World Government, and is certainly not the ultimate authority over national armies in the field. We need Congress on board, and this is in my view long overdue.

- Robert Powell

March 24, 2011 at 5:15am

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

Sweet Jeebus, we get the message, TNR: You really, really, really like the Libyan intervention -- except that you think it should have been sooner, bigger, etc. TNR is starting to resemble the Washington Post op-ed page in the months before the Iraq War.

- DC Spence

March 24, 2011 at 6:50am

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

The best case against intervention was recently highlighted by, of all people, Tom Friedman. Most of the time I see Friedman as a blandly likable purveyor of pap, but in his midweek column he asks what seems to me the most pertinent question about the Libyan conflict: is the war in fact a case of a nascent popular revolution being brutally suppressed by a universally hated dictator? Or is it rather an intertribal civil war wherein a repressed tribe seeks not democracy but merely to replace the current hegemonic tribe at the top of the heap? None of this is to suggest that the fact of a conflict's being between ethnic or religious groups automatically precludes a mandate for intervention. Genocide, for example, is almost by definition a conflict between "tribes," albeit a very lopsided one. At the same time, though, it may be that the fighting on the ground in Libya is more closely analogous to the Crips battling the Bloods for drug-selling turf than it is to Praque in 1969. It behooves us to determine whether and to what degree this is the case before we expend very much more in either lives or treasure in support of "freedom fighters" who may in fact care for no freedom other than the freedom to turn the tables on their erstwhile oppressors and practice some oppression of their own.

- AaronW

March 24, 2011 at 6:55am

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

"TNR is starting to resemble the Washington Post op-ed page in the months before the Iraq War." Or, er, TNR is starting to resemble TNR in the months before the Iraq War.

- AaronW

March 24, 2011 at 6:56am

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

should have said Prague in 1968, not '69.

- AaronW

March 24, 2011 at 6:59am

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

Galston should stop attempting to write about economics. He does a lot better here. I have only one quibble, Galston waltzes past the point that this intervention has the sanction of the UN Security Council and hence is a legal action under the UN Charter. That is far from trivial in my opinion, it is essential. If we ever want to see such an authorization again, it is imperative that we stick to what is authorized by UN1973. If we subvert it, as the TNR editors want, to pursue regime change, there will never again be a case where such an authorization is forthcoming and we will have aborted the evolution to an international system of limited sovereignty in which the legitimacy of states depends in part on some level of respect for human rights. That would be a very big and costly setback for the millions of people who, after this intervention is over, will still be living under regimes that do not respect human rights. We have a duty here not only to the Libyans, but to the evolving international order, a duty to which TNR's editors appear to be utterly oblivious.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2011 at 7:38am

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

I guess the trick is that among idealists, action in this case all comes down to gut instinct. According to the interventionists, there was not enough time to deliberate, that a massacre in Benghazi was imminent, and that a call for measured reflection or diplomatic negotiation is not much different than a call for the massacre to occur. Though that's cold comfort for those killed if the intervention actually causes more harm than the massacre. For those against intervention, particularly those figuratively burned by the Iraq experience, any foreign adventure should be weighed carefully, because the consequences may outweigh the desire to do good, or even the immediate prevention of harm. Though that's cold comfort for those killed in the imminent massacre. Which means in cases like this, you should either scrap idealism and look toward national interest to be your guide as the only (arguably) rational way of deciding about military action. Or stick to your idealist guns, use the best intelligence you have and roll the dice one way or the other. There are only (hazily observed) facts on the ground, there is no ought. This contention that one side is 'philosophically flawed' is ridiculous, and only holds if there is a gross oversimplification of that side's arguments. To revise Galston's swimmer example, imagine that you are walking on the beach, and observe two people struggling in the surf. From where you stand, one looks like he is assaulting the other. You are a particularly unlucky person, and had come across a similar situation not an hour ago, and when you tried to help, you ended up drowning both people by accident. You're still wet and tired from that effort. Do you wade in and attempt to drown the person you assume is the assailant? A real moral no-brainer, huh? And that doesn't come close to capturing the situation in a trite example. There's uncertainty, you do the best you can. Either decision has its merits, the debate should be on what to do now, not trying to hammer out a 'philosophically sound' general principle. --jt

- modelj

March 24, 2011 at 8:00am

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

What if it turns out that it's a shark in the water and not a drowning person? That the obvious questions (Cohn's, Friedman's, etc.) are considered as shedding light on the inquiry confirms how little analysis is undertaken by the interventionists. One gets the impression that the interventionists prefer to make their decisions in the dark.

- rayward

March 24, 2011 at 8:18am

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

Terrific thread by all - on balance, I'm with RP. I wish we had a Congress we could remotely trust, but the fact is that we manifestly do not. It doesn't make it right that Obama had to go around them in any sense though. (I do throw up my hands at arguments about philosophical flaws though: blood in the streets versus pleasing philosophers - ugh). But yes: slippery slope, why bother having a Congress, are we not a Democracy - etc. I cannot disagree with these points. Again: the merits of both arguments are quite sound.

- WandreyCer

March 24, 2011 at 8:33am

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

Re: Congress: Before they were against the no-fly-zone, they were for it. Just watch this week's Jon Stewart. Somehow, "flip-flopping" is only used by Republicans against Democrats. When Republicans do it, they don't even blush.

- AllanL5

March 24, 2011 at 8:38am

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

Republicans don't blush at uttering the most preposterous lies. Why should they blush at mere "flip-flopping?" I am not at all knowledgeable about the status of the War Powers Act in current law, but it is permissive as well as restrictive. Thus, the intention is that he president have certain latitude to engage in hostilities without the prior approval of the Congress. I believe Obama is as yet well within it. If he is good to his word, clears out Libyan air defenses (and apparently concentrations of heavy weapons), and then turns it back to the French and British, I don't see that he would have either a statutory or constitutional problem. The politics and "political ethics" of engaging in even limited hostilities without Congressional authorization is a different matter. But that is plainly what the statute intends. For what it is worth, I do not recall that Clinton obtained such approval for his Yugoslavian interventions that everyone seems to think were the greatest thing since German surrender.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2011 at 9:10am

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

While TNR is once again practically drooling over this intervention at least this article actually examines and attempts to counter some legitimate arguments against intervention. However, I'd love to see TNR take their 'philisophical' angle over to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay or to the families of the civilians we are killing on a daily basis. Geoff G. said this on another thread but those against intervention are concerned that the cure may be worse than the disease and that it is very likely that our contractor obssessed government can no longer provide genuine humanitarian aid without the cost being nearly as bad as the original problem. Let's not forget, Qadaffi was never a good guy and who provided him with weapons despite that? I think the American people want to be the good guys and I think that, honestly, most of us have good intentions, but our government is too corporately owned to actually make good on any of its promises without there being some sort of strings attached. So, this is one of the better articles I've seen for intervention, but please, lets not forget to add a little reality to the philosophy.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 9:19am

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

In February of 1999, as the rhetoric of possible United States use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia began to reach a crescendo, Congressman Tom Campbell and thirty-eight other members of Congress sent the following letter to President Clinton: February 19, 1999 Honorable William Jefferson Clinton President of the United States The White House Washington, D.C. "Dear Mr. President: We have serious constitutional concerns about recent reports that you are planning military intervention in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia, and again respectfully remind you that the Constitution requires you to obtain authority from Congress before taking military action against Yugoslavia. As we stated in our letters of August 4, and October 2, 1998, military intervention by U.S. forces into the war-torn region of Kosovo in order to stop attacks by Serbian forces against civilians and halt the fighting with the Kosovo Liberation Army in an area the United States recognizes as sovereign Yugoslav territory cannot be construed as "defensive" action within your inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief. Rather it would involve military actions against territory and air space which has not been the source of an attack on the United States. This action falls within the exclusive powers and responsibilities of Congress under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution--the war powers clause. No provision of the United Nations Charter or the North Atlantic Treaty can override the requirement of United States domestic law as set forth in the Constitution. In fact, Congress conditioned U.S. participation in both the U.N. and NATO on the requirement that Congress retain its constitutional prerogatives." And etc. As in the case of Bosnia earlier, Clinton didn't ask for the authorization of Congress OR the UN Security Council. Now, I'm glad Clinton saved the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo, and he might not have been able to do so if he'd gone to Congress. He almost certainly wouldn't have been able to if he'd gone to the UN. I suspect that going forward presidents will ask for UN and Congressional approval when they are confident that it will be forthcoming. When they're not, they'll do what they think necessary.

- Robert Powell

March 24, 2011 at 10:48am

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

OK then it follows that this administration should have also intervene in Bahrain where people are slain my external Saudi military to help the kind. If it has to do with the amount of people being massacred Obama should have long ago bomb Sudan for the continual genocide of African non-Muslims by Sudan's Muslim. Then there is yesterday' slaughter in Syria of peaceful protesters. Last year Ahmedinajad promised that he was going to obliterate Israel while building nuclear bombs. Should the US wait for him to drop the first nuclear bomb on Israel or is his declaration like that of the drowning swimmer enough and sufficient to intervene? Then what about all the other nations not moving a finger or supporting Ahmedinajad's aims?

- Poupic

March 24, 2011 at 11:16am

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

I am inclined to agree in a general way with the view of the Constitution presented in that letter to Clinton. However, the War Powers Act gives the president certain latitude to act, for a limited period of time, without prior congressional approval. It may therefore represent a constitutionally adequate authorization within its bounds. While I don't doubt the Congress cannot unconditionally delegate its war-making powers to the president, there is quite a bit of precedent for these sorts of practical and limited solutions to allow government to function effectively. The Bush-Yoo view is that the president can more or less do whatever he wants. That would be quite contrary to the limitations in the War Powers Act and any historical, pre-Yoo, understanding of the Constitution. I think Obama is still well within the bounds of the Act. Whether the Act discharges the congressional function under the Constitution would be the subject of reasonable legal debate, but it certainly takes away any claim of illegality.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2011 at 11:26am

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

"There’s a non-trivial possibility that Qaddafi will be able to hang on to power in a substantial part of Libya." I have yet to see anyone make out a plausible scenario in which Gadhafi survives. It is not just the east that is outside of his control, but a series of towns and small cities due south of Tripoli and the 3rd largest city Misurata. Without munitions resupply and new oil revenues coming in just how long can he hold out controlling Tripoli, Sirte, and a few other places? Aaron, and do you really imagine that Tom Friedman is now an expert on Libya? Some of Gadhafi's own relatives have defected over to the opposition. There are members of his own tribe in the coalition government, just observing the extent of the uprising and with how much force Gadhafi had to use just to retake a small city like Zawiya (which is nearby Tripoli) is pretty evident at the extent that people are sick of him. Of course I have no idea what will happen after he leaves, what I find the most likely scenario is the east of Libya will get substantial autonomy with direct control of the oil in the east, this does not mean that Libya might not devolve into a few warlords running different sections of Libya with a figurehead President down the line. So be it. And rayward, what evidence can you present that it is indeed a "shark in the water" Gadhafi is a known sociopathic mass murderer with delusions of grandeur and a ton of oil wealth, the chances of another such person coming out on top in Libya are slim at best. Look at history, was Ceaucescu replaced by someone worse, was Milosevic, was Hussein, was (even in non revolutions) Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot? You have never lived in a 3rd world dictatorship that survived great upheaval. I have known Communist party members in China say they would fight to prevent another Cultural revolution, such a time is now unthinkable for the average Chinese (and they had no revolution). And if Libya turns out to become a moderately run country, perhaps with an oligarchy with some degree of democracy, will you state how utterly and completely wrong you were, that Libyans have the capacity to change and are not hopelessly tribal and primitive?

- blackton

March 24, 2011 at 11:30am

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

blackton... I don't know even know where to start because you have valid points but I think you are misunderstanding some of the opinions of those against intervention. Whether we should intervene in Libya is a murky issue with great points on both sides. However, if Iraq is any example then we know that our interventions can turn into something else entirely. People are being indefinitely detained, civilians murdered on a daily basis and it's all in the name of fighting terrorism. I wouldn't ever say that a by-product of our intervention couldn't be some positive things, but I fear based on our past record in these areas that our corporately-owned, contractor-obssessed government will not truly help these people but will rather take advantage of the situtation for their own ends. Qadaffi has always been a bad guy and yet we supplied him with weapons and support until it was no longer convenient, so what does that say about us and our judgment? Also, those who talk about interventions needed in other countries are simply pointing out that if all we need is humanitarian reaons to get involved then why haven't we been doing that for other countries that need the help? I don't think it takes a large leap in logic to see that our goals in Libya are self-serving and are not truly a humanitarian effort as evidenced by our lack of intervention in countries such as Bahrain, Darfur, Rwanda and so many other places where, in some cases, genocide was occurring right before our eyes. People bringing up these points simlpy want it acknowledged that replacing one bad situation with another may not be the answer. However, I will certainly concede that doing nothing seems troublesome too, this is not an easy issue.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 11:42am

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

“ We have a duty here not only to the Libyans, but to the evolving international order, a duty to which TNR's editors appear to be utterly oblivious.” We have a duty to help people in immediate danger and we have a duty to uphold our own values, but we have no duty to anything as abstract and dubious as “the evolving international order.” This this bloodless abstraction replace a duty “to the working classes” or otherwise “oppressed” people?

- TomLessing

March 24, 2011 at 12:29pm

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

Considering that my claim is the equivalent of, "We owe a duty to a system of lawful order to observe the law," I would say you are dead on balls wrong, Mr. Lessing. But then, the essence of unilateral interventionism, stripped of its cloak of high moral rhetoric, is simply vigilantism. And that is precisely what the unilateralists, of whatever stripe, are in favor of and what I am opposed to. That we uniquely owe any duty to the Libyans is doubtful in the extreme. That there is a great deal of utility in a world order in which the world, collectively, puts boundaries on despotism and moves toward sovereignty limited by respect human rights seems quite clear to me. If our intervention, with the sanction of the UNSC, is in the service of the latter and is devoted to preventing atrocities, I think it will advance a worthy cause. If it is an exercise of the former, it will cause, in my opinion, more harm than it prevents. The history of people going to war "for their values" is a rather dismal one. The history of people in the US seeking to impose their values on other members of the society by force of law is also rather dismal. We probably don't have the same values, Mr. Lessing. Hence, a crusade to uphold yours, the expending of American lives, treasure, or other assets to that end, appeals to me not at all. That is not an abstraction. It is something quite concrete for which I have no use.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2011 at 12:56pm

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

This is what you said before. And this is what I am opposed to. “We have a duty here not only to the Libyans, but to the evolving international order, a duty to which TNR's editors appear to be utterly oblivious.” This is not the same as saying “Considering that my claim is the equivalent of, "We owe a duty to a system of lawful order to observe the law," I would say you are dead on balls wrong, Mr. Lessing….. That we uniquely owe any duty to the Libyans is doubtful in the extreme….” Given that I am not a “unilateralist, nor that I thing that we owe a “unique duty to the Libyans” I don’t know to whom you are replying. Hardly anything you said I believe happens to be the case. I won’t waste more time with someone who can’t seem to distinguish between what someone actually said and his own fantasies.

- TomLessing

March 24, 2011 at 1:18pm

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

tgatz85: However, if Iraq is any example But why should it be? one great truism of war is not to fight the war the same as the last one you fought. Iraq and Libya are vastly different countries and the war that will be fought in each would be very different. Libya has a population of under 6 million, nearly half of whom are already in rebel controlled areas, and a large portion of the rest that Gadhafi is controlling is being done by sheer terror, as in Zawiya (which held out a week with little more than basic arms) Adjibiya was the staging area for Gadhafi to move into Benghazi, and it was the place where many of his troops fled from the open desert, they are dug in there because they have nowhere else to go, but once it falls, the road is open all the way to Sirte. I think it is entirely likely we will be surprised at how quickly the Gadhafi forces collapse when it gets to that point. The only strategy I see that Gadhafi has is to take as many cities as he can and hold the citizens hostage. This will prevent the coalition from making many more bombing raids and will give the impression of a stalemate, but it won't be. The rebels will have time, money, munitions and the people all on their side. The question now is when will Gadhafi loyalists dump him and make a deal to secure their own place in a post Gadhafi Libya.

- blackton

March 24, 2011 at 1:51pm

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

Blackton... Why do you think we are actually there? For humanitarian reasons? I think that may be where we are diverging in opinions here. We are there for our own purposes under the guise of a humanitarian effort which is how wars are generally sold to the public. It's very manipulative and works because most people like the idea of helping others. Some might say that the motivation doesn't matter as long as the results are good, but I guess I question the outcome of a plan that has its roots in deception. If this is truly a humanitarian effort because the US Government wants to help the Libyan people then where were we when Darfur or Rwanda or any number of countries needed assistance? If our primary motivation is not to help Libyans then what does our presence mean for the Libyan people? If the government wants us to believe in and support their 'humanitarian' military ventures then perhaps they should stop being hypocrites and simultaneously helping other dictators to maintain their power. One good thing is that the public is watching Obama very closely, so by virtue of us looking over the government's shoulder we may be able to influence how long we stay there and what the mission is.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

Why do I think we are actually there? To prevent the massacre of civilians in Benghazi which would have led to an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Egypt, a key US ally in the Middle East and an ally that just itself has gone through unprecedented change. A million refugees, the sight of Benghazi and then Tobruk being razed would have been a disaster for a Democratic President (hell, any President) especially when the whole world was practically begging for our action (remember it passed in the UN security council) But once we took action then we had to do it in such a way that would ensure Gadhafi not survive. This is undoubtedly a popular uprising, it is not a Civil war, people of his own tribe have joined the coalition, including some of his own relatives. I don't deny it might turn into a Civil war later but being that the winners are from the East I imagine the citizens of the area know they can't rule Libya but will seek out autonomy within Libya, this will prevent any future Gadhafis. "where were we when Darfur or Rwanda or any number of countries needed assistance?" Now this really annoys me. So if Firemen can't save children from every burning building they should save NONE of them? The simple fact is firemen can't save everyone, some fires are too big, or it is too dangerous to enter, or it is too high, a whole host of factors. Look at Darfur, what you had was a case of Janjaweed miltia on horseback attacking small rural farming villages and killing and driving away the inhabitants, taking the land for themselves for grazing. There is virtually nothing that can be done about that short of stationing troops in EVERY village in an area as big as Texas. You have to balance probability of success with their attendant costs. Would it be nice if the US could free Tibet? Absolutely, is it worth World War 3...no. But we have made a commitment to Taiwan that we would guarantee their defacto independence in such a way that the Chinese themselves have come to the conclusion that WW3 is not worth it. But shall we renege on Taiwan and say, because we did not help people in Darfur we feel obligated to let China attack you now? I don't get this inverted logic at all. Simply put, help when you can and when the cost benefit analysis comes out in your favor.

- blackton

March 24, 2011 at 2:46pm

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

I will stress that I never said that not helping other places serves as a reason for not helping Libya. When I bring up that point it is to highlight that our goals there are not humanitarian in nature. Also, from looking at the following: "The purpose of the no-fly zone, the administration official said, is to prevent Gadhafi from attacking his own people. 'It’s not designed to have him go. That’s not the purpose,” the official said. “The purpose of the military action is to prevent massive humanitarian loss of life, to stop the violence. If the violence stops, then you shouldn’t leap to say then the military action will continue until he leaves.'" -http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/18/obama-statement-on-libya-leaves-many-questions/ Most of those in favor of intervention, correctly, point out that overthrowig Gadaffi is necessary. If the above statement is true, we are simply asking Gadaffi to cease hostilities which is a lot different than throwing him out. So once again, why are we there? If he continues to oppress people and kill them off through more indirect means such as poverty and repression are we ok with him staying in power and does that help the Libyan people?

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 3:07pm

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

Also, I should say that I am not trying to call you out specifically blackton. These are overall questions I have about the intervention and much like Jonathan Cohn, I feel uncomfortable declaring there's a right answer. I can see strong cases on both sides.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 3:35pm

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

"Most of those in favor of intervention, correctly, point out that overthrowig Gadaffi is necessary. If the above statement is true, we are simply asking Gadaffi to cease hostilities which is a lot different than throwing him out." No, it is not. We are not throwing Gadhafi out, the people of Libya will do that. I don't know why you are disregarding the rebels, they themselves know they have to drive him to power or they will die. Look at the map, as I have pointed out Nalut, Haouamed, Kabaw, Rehibat, Jadu, Rogeban, Zintan, Yafren, and Misrata are all in the West of Libya and are in rebels hands. Gadhafi has to control these cities and towns to consolidate his power in the west, to do so he has to target civilian populations there to terrify them into submission, as we degrade his ability to do so the people themselves will push forward. "So once again, why are we there?" I don't know why you want me to repeat what I wrote again but I will: To prevent the massacre of civilians in Benghazi which would have led to an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Egypt, a key US ally in the Middle East and an ally that just itself has gone through unprecedented change. A million refugees would create incredible instability for years. "we are simply asking Gadaffi to cease hostilities which is a lot different than throwing him out." My point is NO IT IS NOT. If Gadhafi ceases hostilities he will be stuck in control of Tripoli and a few minor towns nearby, he will have no access to oil. The rebels themselves will certainly not cease until Bin Jawwad in the East which will give them access to all the oil they will ever need. In the west, how long until the rebels retake Zawiya? Gadhafi can not cease hostilities, therefore his forces will be rightful targets and when they are sufficiently degraded there will be nothing left for him. Just today a large group of loyalists in Adjibiya have signaled their desire to retreat with the rebels demanding their surrender. When Adjibiya falls it becomes just a matter of time. Again, we are not throwing Gadhafi out. The rebels will. Gadhafi is in a no win situation. Without control of all these towns in the west he is doomed. I seriously doubt he can subdue all of these places in the next few days when he couldn't when he had no worries of outside intervention.

- blackton

March 24, 2011 at 3:35pm

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

"After the uprising, the rebels stumbled as they tried to organize. They did a poor job of defining themselves when Libyans and the outside world tried to figure out what they stood for. And now, as they try to defeat Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s armed forces and militias, they will have to rely on allied airstrikes and young men with guns because the army that rebel military leaders bragged about consists of only about 1,000 trained men." -http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/24/picture-of-libyan-rebels-emerges-a-force-of-1000/ Whether 1000 trained men will be enough to subdue Ghadafi on their own without outside help is questionable. This intervention which was originally estimated at days will require more time and if we're not committing to overthrowing Gadhafi, the rebels may not be able to. Not only that, if Gadhafi backs off and pretends that he's not going to be a horrible person, we've left it open to continue our relationship with him. Maybe we can help, but I'm still not convinced that our goal is to help the Libyan people. Honestly, it might be better if we did actually have a plan for regime change since leaving it to 1000 men isn't really a plan. Like I said though, helping the Libyan people is probably a by-product and a cover for whatever it is we're really interested in. Also, who takes over when Gadhafi is gone or do we just hang out like we have everywhere else indefinitely? The best way to have prevented this would have been not to arm and train Gadhafi's regime, but I guess that's moot now which is why we keep doing it. Once it's over and done with we just get a pass apparently and a chance to come back later and look like heroes for saving these countries from the dictators we armed.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 4:08pm

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

"Like I said though, helping the Libyan people is probably a by-product and a cover for whatever it is we're really interested in." tgatz. There are always a million intrigues in war. One of which is the number of different reasons, rationales, stated and unstated attributions and speculative imaginations which will spring forth as a holy grail that unlocks all understandings. That said perhaps it might be well to consider that minus altruism and only to embrace self interest as a motivation that maybe a wholesale slaughter on my watch while I dithered might not look too good on the resume. Not to speak of the backlash which would undoubtably would ensue form not only the ME but from the rest of any groups of persons who would stand to gain by making me look like an abject and utter heartless mercenarily self interested soul. Thereby painting all of those whom I am elected to their charge to share the ugliness of my decision. I think though that what you're seeing here is what you get.

- jacko

March 24, 2011 at 4:40pm

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

Yes I know... everyone who questions the wisdom of an intervention is a heartless, tyranny-loving cold soul. Can you tell me the count of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afhganistan or the number of people indefinitely detained and tortured not only in Guantanamo Bay but around the world as a result of our war on terror which started out with needing to topple Saddam for the greater good? That's also happening on our watch as a result of turning a war with potential to be a greater good into something ugly. I don't think you can fault people for being weary about the long-term effects of our decisions.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 4:50pm

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

I should say that I don't doubt that an intervention of some sort was much needed, but I do doubt whether the US is capable of doing it in a way that ends up being helpful in the long term. I also doubt we're there for the reasons we say we are.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 4:55pm

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

"I don't think you can fault people for being weary about the long-term effects of our decisions." It's good to go about ones business as clear eyed and informed as one possibly can. That applies on an individual basis and a collective basis. There are good reasons to look to relative wisdom as to weigh consequence. One reason is to head off the counterproductive " I've been victimized" ditty so often heard whistling about in the background of our collective musings. tgatz: "Yes I know... everyone who questions the wisdom of an intervention is a heartless, tyranny-loving cold soul." Never ever said nor implied that. You are engaging the problem and that in itself is a buy in. Good on you. Accept what is yours and leave the rest.

- jacko

March 24, 2011 at 5:03pm

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

Hmmm... perhaps I misunderstood the following? Does this not imply that being against intervention means I am ok with "wholesale slaughter on my watch while I dithered"? "That said perhaps it might be well to consider that minus altruism and only to embrace self interest as a motivation that maybe a wholesale slaughter on my watch while I dithered might not look too good on the resume. Not to speak of the backlash which would undoubtably would ensue form not only the ME but from the rest of any groups of persons who would stand to gain by making me look like an abject and utter heartless mercenarily self interested soul. Thereby painting all of those whom I am elected to their charge to share the ugliness of my decision. " Here's the problem though, I don't think you're wrong necessarily about the cost of doing nothing, I just think that those against the intervention also have good points. That is why I find this issue difficult. I have been willing to say this whole way that you guys are making good cases for intervention: "I can see strong cases on both sides." "I don't know even know where to start because you have valid points but I think you are misunderstanding some of the opinions of those against intervention." It is those that are for intervention that keeping brushing off the very serious and important questions that those against it have.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 5:21pm

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

I'm sorry that I was unclear. The I intended was none other than me. The Master of All I Survey and otherwise King of my Domain. It was a hypothetical couched in machiavellian brackets. I submitted to my own perfect self interest any way in which I might benefit or be hurt by action or inaction. Thus weighted came forth my wonderings and speculations per social math.

- jacko

March 24, 2011 at 5:28pm

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

I am sorry but some bullshit from firedoglake about the rebellion only having 1,000 men is ridiculous. I have shown a list of towns throughout Libya that are still in the rebels hands, divide them up and you are going to tell me a 100 fighters is keeping the tanks and army of Gadhafi at bay in Misurata? Or ten people in Zintan are holding off 40 tanks? Firedoglake has been a freakshow of a webpage for as long as I can remember, might as well quote Scientology or Freerepublic. Of course the rebels have far more than 1,000 men, it is not that that is the problem, it is that they do not have much in the way of offensive weaponry. My only fear is that the Benghazi forces will stop at Bin Jawwad and then take a long breather because they can not take Sirte which is a Gadhafi stronghold. Gadhafi's only chance is to hold the line there and promote the idea that it is a stalemate which will lessen western resolve and you will have people scream how the whole thing was a failure, which will be bullshit. And you have completely ignored what I wrote about the rebel held areas in the West. These people are completely motivated because for them it is win or die. Are you telling me in a city like Misurata with a population of 300,000 that only a dozen people will fight for their lives? Remember that Gadhafi is using snipers to randomly shoot people, it is literally win or die.

- blackton

March 24, 2011 at 6:01pm

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

Ok, lets assume that my skepticism is completely unfounded.. which seems to be your position. Let's also assume that you're right and Gadhafi will be ousted by his opponents. How do we acknowledge and deal with the following: "The best way to have prevented this would have been not to arm and train Gadhafi's regime, but I guess that's moot now which is why we keep doing it. Once it's over and done with we just get a pass apparently and a chance to come back later and look like heroes for saving these countries from the dictators we armed." We'll never end this cycle the way we're going.. maybe all this outrage should be pointed at our government so that they'll stop arming dictators and we don't get rushed into situations that result form it with no plan. Also, how come this: "Can you tell me the count of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afhganistan or the number of people indefinitely detained and tortured not only in Guantanamo Bay but around the world as a result of our war on terror which started out with needing to topple Saddam for the greater good?" Doesn't this factor into the equation? Why is it considered ridiculous to question what the aftermath of all this might be? I think an intervention of some sort was necessary but I am against this particular one because I think we've handled it poorly.... we waited until the last minute even though we knew what was coming and then rushed in without a plan.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 6:29pm

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

"The best way to have prevented this would have been not to arm and train Gadhafi's regime" The arsenal is Russian, not American, hence the cyrillic writing on all the weaponry. And if not Russia then Chinese, bemoaning this is useless, there are a lot of bad actors in the world, but we did not arm Gadhafi. "Can you tell me the count of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afhganistan or the number of people indefinitely detained and tortured not only in Guantanamo Bay but around the world as a result of our war on terror which started out with needing to topple Saddam for the greater good?" Doesn't this factor into the equation? No. Might as well say doesn't Obamacare factor in the equation, or innercity schools. Gitmo should be closed, no question because the Castro brothers are old and if there is a revolution there Gitmo will be a great rallying point for the commies, and if Democratic forces win and they demand the prison be closed, what then? But this has nothing to do with Libya, nor does Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq was fundamentally different than Libya. We are in support of a popular uprising, had papa Bush made a condition of the cease fire the removal of Hussein back in 91 who knows what might have happened, but he didn't. The rationale to go into Iraq in 03 was a LIE, a search for WMD's that did not exist, no one anywhere can claim the city of Benghazi or Misurata don't exist or the fate that would have befallen them.

- blackton

March 24, 2011 at 7:06pm

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

"Ok, lets assume that my skepticism is completely unfounded.." I am not saying it is unfounded, nothing is guaranteed. The rebellion can stop at Bin Jawwad and not go further causing a defacto partition of Libya. Gadhafi can then crush Misurata, Zintan, etc. the way he did Zawiya, and there is little we can do to directly stop him. Long term Gadhafi is gone, but he has 6 billion in reserves in his own country and lord knows how much in China, Russia, etc. This is the greatest danger we face. Of course, we are not helpless, we can have weapons smuggled into those towns, without them Gadhafi has no way to get oil and even 6 billion won't stave off the inevitable. And, of course, we can always get lucky and take him out with a bomb. But I don't want to state that the removal of him will necessarily be easy, unless we get lucky. But the most important thing in my mind is that the east of Libya will not be destroyed, so in my mind what I most wanted to happen has already happened.

- blackton

March 24, 2011 at 7:17pm

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

Galston is no more convincing here than in his most recent joke pieces on economics. One does not need to be a philosopher to understand that we are at war - we have already used more firepower than the anti-Qaddafi forces dream of ever having at their own disposal. The President insists this is not about regime change, while insisting that our policy is - you guessed it: regime change. We are pulling back from leading the war effort; it will now be led by NATO. Perhaps a philosopher will explain how that removes us from the lead, or how that avoids the need for Congressional authorization. No doubt the same philosopher will explain how we will avoid killing civilians in our unacknowledged regime change effort - civilians we are explicitly committed to protecting. It is all so incoherent. And illegal. Neil

- purcellneil

March 24, 2011 at 8:17pm

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

I have to say that I think the question of Guantanamo Bay is completely extraneous to this discussion. My own position is that Gitmo should have been closed five or six years ago (as Gates and Rice tried to get the president on board with in 2006 but Cheney stuck his oar in), but Gitmo was a policy decision of the Bush administration that really, as blackton said, has as valid a place in thinking about this intervention as Obamacare does. Bad foreign or security policy decisions in the past are just that, bad decisions from the past, and do not automatically replicate themselves as current decisions. Nobody is planning to use U.S. ground forces in Libya; we find ourselves on the same side as the Libyan rebel forces; Islamic revolution is, at least at this moment, to all intents and purposes irrelevant; we have a UNSC resolution and support from the Arab League. The only support we don't have, it seems, is from the USA! USA!! crowd who will no doubt in a week or two want to impeach the president for going to the UN. Again, this is not against asking questions now -- I have several, including what happens if things don't go to plan? But bringing up Gitmo is like suggesting that we shouldn't invent new drugs because in the past some drugs have had nasty or dangerous side-effects. Obama is not going to make the Gitmo error and in fact the damn place would be closed by now if a combination of bipartisan scaredy-cats and jackasses hadn't made it impossible to transfer prisoners. And -- if Gitmo was genuinely closed, a dead issue, wouldn't some people bring it up anyway?

- ironyroad

March 24, 2011 at 8:18pm

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

Gotta love the whole NATO No Fly Zone + thing. Good lord there are some jokes in that ism. Yard would make quick work of it I'm sure. I support it nonetheless.

- jacko

March 24, 2011 at 8:23pm

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

Gitmo was more an example of the long term results of war which is completely relevant. I get it though.. when a plane crashes we shouldn't examine how it happened and prevent it from happening again we should just look forward and ignore the past since it already happened. It's moot, let's not think about it anymore. If that's where you're coming from then there's nothing I can say that will be relevant to you. I respectfully accept your opinion even if you won't even consider the relevance of mine.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 8:25pm

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

Also, we'll see about the ground forces ...

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 8:26pm

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

There's no point in just lobbing analogies at each other, tgatz, and but surely you're not claiming my analogy of the drugs was a plea to ignore the side effects of a previous drug and not to correct them when designing a new one (as in airplane accidents, in fact)? If it wasn't clear that that was where I was coming from, then I apologize for the lack of clarity on my side. So, in one sentence: drugs, aircraft -- let's not repeat the mistakes. That said, however, Gitmo was a long term result not of war per se, but of the execution of an unthough-out policy decision in relation to one particular military intervention, Afghanistan. Notably, the spirit behind it flowed into a the scandal in Abu Ghraib, but equally notably there was as late as 2009 a bipartisan Congressional effort to stymie Obama's efforts to terminate Gitmo. I have enough confidence in Obama to say that I regard it as unlikely to the point of fantasy that he would repeat the mistake of the Bush administration -- certainly in relation to Libya, which at the moment is governed by a UNSC Resolution with no authority to detain prisoners at the pleasure of the U.S. And in that sense, this airplane is not the same as that airplane.

- ironyroad

March 24, 2011 at 9:05pm

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

Right but once again, we can argue about Gitmo all day or acknowledge the fact that the questions i'm generally asking about the Libyan war in posts previous to this are relevant even if you choose to brush them aside.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 9:48pm

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

tgatz85. Now I know that you are a new guy round here and welcome to the fray.......here it comes.......but........ I think you're being a bit thick. If you are making a general statement about war or even a personal conviction that all war is prone to bringing out the worst that humanity has to offer thus your refusal, well fine. Say it. Own it, believe it, live it. Right and rock on. But insisting parallel parity on the grounds you have offered is ,well, thick. Speaking of thicker we now have a NFZ plus. More of it to love. Neil. I'm with you on the salesmanship schtick. Too much. Yeah. This is war. Let's just admit the plus is code for, 'whatever it takes to can your ass, Qaddaffi!' Actually I get this disjointed kind of hit every time I see a general or admiral explaining tactics and announcing intentions. That is very much something that what you see may or may not be what you get. Only a fool will telegraph his battle plan to you before the event. Reminds me of the time davey jones pretended to NOT show me his cards and set me up to fold when he had nothing. Took a sweet little pot on that one.

- jacko

March 24, 2011 at 10:16pm

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

"If this is truly a humanitarian effort because the US Government wants to help the Libyan people then where were we when Darfur or Rwanda or any number of countries needed assistance?" It's hard not to see this as "not helping other places serves as a reason for not helping Libya," but you say that's not what you mean. Indeed, the charge of moral inconsistency would be an absolutely incoherent argument against behaving morally in a specific case. But neither does it make any sense (alleging an immoral consistency) to suggest that since we didn't help people in the past, helping them now necessarily must have some shady ulterior motive. (Especially when, you know, the people making the decisions have changed.) And since the charge of *current* hypocrisy stems from the fact that we're supporting some dictators while fighting others, it seems to me that the problem is the former, not the latter. I would welcome a predictable Obama Doctrine on intervention, but the lack of one doesn't mean that an individual, ad-hoc response to a crisis is necessarily wrong.

- frippo

March 24, 2011 at 10:28pm

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

Well... I never said that... I said that the US in particular is not equipped to handle humanitarian efforts in a way that doesn't hurt the very people they're trying to help. I never made or tried to make a blanket statement about war. However, I have posted quite a bit so I don't blame you for not reading all of them. Also, parallel parity. You mean it's too much for me to request that my arguments not be ignored but be given the same amount of consideration? I'v acknowledged several times now that a pro-intervention stance has valid arguments, but have not seen any of the people I've been debating with give any serious consideration or even an acknowledgement that there are valid points from the anti-intervention side as well. Apparently I need to fall in line and accept that intervention is the correct answer since its thick to expect that serious thought be given to the other side of the argument. Please correct me if that is not what you're saying, also, thank you for the welcome.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 10:34pm

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

frippo.. it doesn't mean that its right either. Both sides of the argument have validity.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 10:35pm

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

". . . we can argue about Gitmo all day" If it's a useless exercise, tgats, I'm sorry, but you were the one who introduced the issue as a specific and fateful outcome of war (at least, I think that's what you were doing) and all I want to do is point out -- if I may be so bold -- that there are at least some rational grounds for seeing Gitmo NOT as an outcome of war in general but as a specific policy choice of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis in 2001, unlikely to be repeated by Obama. I'm sorry if this point that you raised yourself, at no-one else's bidding, gets in the way of a smooth delivery of your argument.

- ironyroad

March 24, 2011 at 10:38pm

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

Actually, Gitmo helps my argument but I don't want to extend this debate in that direction any further except to say that the war on terror has A LOT to do with Gitmo, torture, and inefinite detention. I like the satisfaction you've derived from supposedly smacking down everything I've said by pointing out what you think about Gitmo.... Like I said, apparently all the questions I've raised about the intervention are ridiculous and I should just be pro-intervention or wrong. I don't know why I thought it was possible to debate this, you guys have already decided you're right and that dissenting voices are just wrong. That's fine, just clue me in a little earlier next time and save me some time.

- tgatz85

March 24, 2011 at 10:45pm

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

Tgatz, if you were around here a little earlier -- for example, last week -- you would have seen that I and many others raised pretty much the questions that you are raising now. I don't want to "smack down" everything you've said because I agree with some -- but not all (if that's permitted) -- of the serious objections you bring forward. If you just assert, however, that Gitmo "helps [your] argument" when a bit of perspective might suggest that that's not what it's doing here, then I wonder what your real argument is. Speaking just for myself, I admit that I was somewhat more easily able to accept the intervention given (a) the Arab League call, (b) the UNSC Resolution, and (c) the president's clear declaration regarding ground forces. That does not mean that I am either gung-ho or delusional about what can go wrong (even my comments on this damn thread might tell you that) in this exercise.

- ironyroad

March 25, 2011 at 12:44am

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

Jacko makes the relevant point that all wars have lots of reasons behind them, most of them hidden or at least left unstated. Here are a few I think are relevant in this case that don't/didn't exist in the cases of Darfur, Rwanda, or Bahrain: --Gaddafi has killed a non-trivial number of Europeans over the years as an instigator and paymaster for terrorist groups. --Libya plays a significant role in supplying petro to Europe, especially some of the countries in the forefront of this effort. --a successful military campaign with humanitarian goals is great politics, and both Sarkozy and Cameron could use a lift about now. It's not going to hurt Obama either, especially as a demonstration of how to be multilateral. --Rwanda, Darfur, and Bahrain would be difficult to the point of damned near impossible from a military perspective. Libya is easy. It's basically six million people strung out along one main road along the coast, with easy access from our fleet and multitudes of airbases. There are probably some others, but this should suffice to address the concerns about moral consistency, which are already on shaky ground when it comes to blowing things up and killing people.

- Robert Powell

March 25, 2011 at 5:20am

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

The President is catching hell from the right and left, and this is as it should be. When you go to war without Congress, you deserve to find yourself in this position. I hope that there is serious talk about impeachment. As much as I love Obama, I'll stand by the Constitution. Neil

- purcellneil

March 25, 2011 at 7:21am

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

I absolutely agree irony and Robert, please forgive me for being a bit short in previous posts, but I was posting rather quickly and responding to several commenters at a time. What Robert mentioned about Libya and its resources is especially relevant as one of my concerns about our purpose there. It seems that you guys actually agree that our primary purpose there may not be humanitarian in nature (as expected there are going to be politics involved) and perhaps it is too much to ask of a country to not have some self-interest in choosing who it does or doesn't help. However, the result, which could potentially be saving a lot of people initially may make the motivation less of an issue. Unfortunately, the motivation matters to me quite a bit because I don't want us to take advantage of the situation later. However, on the point of moral consistency, there is nothing moral about what we're doing there. We're mostly fixing a fire we started. We will probably have to continue to do this since we are in a never-ending circle of supplying dictators and then acting shocked when those dictators turn them on their own people. We supplied Ghahafi with weapons and training even though we knew that he was treating his people horribly. I must admit that this doesn't mean we shouldn't help Libya, but we should seriously reconsider this plan of supplying these guys and then having to rush in after they go off the rails. I honestly think that in a lot of ways I am for the intervention (I think helping people is important, especially people in need), but I am against this idea that we are heroes in this situation or that we are the right guys for the job. I guess only time will tell and as others have said the decision has already been made so we might as well do what we can to make the best of it. I just hope that the administration actually listens to us which they have a poor track record of doing so far...

- tgatz85

March 25, 2011 at 9:44am

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

With all due respect tgatz, the Libyan military is a 100% Russian and Chinese operation--aircraft, weapons, radar, training, the works. Our only previous military connection to Qaddafi was to bomb him during the Reagan Admin. Also in my view there is not only nothing wrong with having some self-interest involved, it's mandatory. I am not interested in getting involved militarily under just about any circumstances unless it can be shown that we have substantial interests involved. The American military is not the Red Cross. It's worth checking Cohn's blog again on that count--he's put up an excellent response to his previous post posing some relevant questions on this subject.

- Robert Powell

March 25, 2011 at 12:42pm

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

hello again, Robert Powell. just catching up at TNR, and remain surprised that the reason why UNSCRes1973 was introduced and passed was because of 1) the Responsibility to Protect - which was a legacy of Rwanda, and 2) that Qaddhafi is not just using his military to 're-take' cities from his opponents in Misrata, Zawiya, al-Brega, Zintan, Adjabiya. He also has these cities under siege by cutting off telcom, then water and electricity, and normal supply of food and medicine. THAT siege tactic is what makes Libya different from Bahrain, Yemen, add Syria today, and even the growing civil war in Ivory Coast. It was not just the real threat to Benghazi. It was the reality of what Qaddhafi had already done, by laying siege. I am still wondering what happened to the 40,000 Berbers of Zawara, a city almost on the Tunisian border. Berbers have long been in opposition, are certainly not Islamists, and nothing has been heard from Zawara for at least two weeks. I also believe the threat of hundreds of thousands MORE refugees (last night's total was above 335,000 from Libya, although still mostly foreign migrants) would indeed destabilize Tunisia (still salvageble by the EU), and Egypt (closer to economic collapse every day). Whether R2P is going to be the new way for 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene in the sovereign affairs of any nation remains to be seen, even with a positive outcome in Libya. I actually think Obama's embrace of multilateralism and the UNSC for authorization without really getting Congress on board may become a huge campaign issue for him. I am personally ok with America as one hegemon among several, but a surprising range of political stripes seem to still think America always has to "lead". note: Italy has recently supplied some very snazzy littoral speedboats to Qaddhafi's navy, and I thought he had some French Mirage jets, but not even his tear gas says "Made in the USA". The opposition has to re-capture as far east as Ras Lanauf in order to control most of the water and oil infrastructure. The natural gas fields are east of Ras Lanauf. I still wish Algeria and Egypt had just invaded, but, Egypt has chosen a quiet role and Algeria may even be helping Q. The Touregs are on Q's side and their range crosses into Algeria. .

- K2K

March 25, 2011 at 1:18pm

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

correction: "and remain surprised that the reason why UNSCRes1973 was introduced and passed STILL eludes most blogposts and comments, because of 1) R2P..." adding, yesterday my little house was taken over by a nice carpenter, alternating teams of plumbers who fortunately did NOT have to cut off my main water supply, and, in the midst of all this controlled chaos, my house started losing all electricity except in the bathroom where the work was being done. After they all departed, and the power continued to stop, luckily, an electrician came by, once I determined it was an unknown problem inside only my house. he replaced the corroded main breaker, needing to come back another day to discover how water did that damge. I can not imagine what it is like to have your government turn off your water and electricity and start shooting from tanks...

- K2K

March 25, 2011 at 1:26pm

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

Robert... what the army is made up of is less important then the fact that Qadaffi was in charge of it. I should thank you Robert for pointing out one of my problems with the way this intervention is being sold. This is NOT some humanitarian effort, and as you said, I don't know that we should be expected to be the American Red Cross as you put it. However, if people claim they are concerned about the welfare of the Libyan people (and I think most people genuinely are) I think that distinction is extremely impotrant. With all due respect, here is a link to information about our part in building up their military: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/us_libya_arms_training/index.html Some snippets: "That year more than 20,000 components and parts of aircraft were authorized for sale to Libya. In 2008, $46 million in military sales were approved by the government." "There's also evidence that Libya has purchased American weapons. More than $15 million in arms sales from U.S. manufacturers to Libya were authorized by the government in fiscal 2009 alone, according to the State Department." On that last snippet they do follow up with the fact that only $400,000 could be accounted for in for in 2009 and that the data on the rest which would have gone out in 2010 is not yet available. However, I think our approval of that amount is interesting. Also, I know that reporting at Salon.com can sometimes take the conspiracy theory route but if you follow the provided links in that article there is support for their claims.

- tgatz85

March 25, 2011 at 2:55pm

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

Hmm... it seems my comment did not post completely. Link: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/us_libya_arms_training /index.html A snippet: "That year [2009] more than 20,000 components and parts of aircraft were authorized for sale to Libya. In 2008, $46 million in military sales were approved by the government." I know Salon can sometimes go the conspiracy theory route, but if you follow the links in the article there is support for their statements.

- tgatz85

March 25, 2011 at 3:03pm

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

tgatz: I'm fairly sure that you understand that 46 mil is a piddling sum in relative measure for military gear. I think it is well advised to be careful with whom you consent between the sheets. But this kind of chump change can in no way be construed as to situating a regime.

- jacko

March 25, 2011 at 6:03pm

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

Thanks for the link tgatz. It's a great example of the kind of sophistry that asserted that the US had armed Iraq. In that case, the total was .4% of the foreign military support over the ten year period that included the Iran-Iraq war during which we provided some spare parts, elevator equipment, and ammunition at the point it looked like Iran was going to win. In this case the dollar figure is low, and the "aircraft parts" were almost certainly in commercial aviation as their air force is mostly Russian. What's represented here is the kind of non-critical lubrication that made the scrapping of their nuclear program possible. K2K--sorry to hear the house is a mess. Lack of power and, especially, water is a humbling experience. I trust you'll be okay. You're right about the seige tactics representing a major distinction here, but I'm pretty optimistic. If there was any competent command and control left on the Q side the armor would have been pushed into the middle of Misrata, Adjabiya, etc. to maximize it's effectiveness and make air supression impossible given concerns about civilian casualties. Instead it's been pulled back in attempts to shorten the supply line and, presumably, avoid being killed in street fighting. I'm pretty sure we can tip the balance here with the provision of anti-armor rockets (along with water) to the insurgencies, which we can relatively easily do. On the politics, I think O's on the right track. Most voters don't want us involved unless we're prepared to pull out all the stops and accomplish whatever it is we've set out to do and get the fuck out. And if this turns out to be a credible case of "burden sharing", all the better. At this point the mission looks, IMHO, doable. If it looks like a reasonable facsimile of success by 2012, it's a big plus.

- Robert Powell

March 25, 2011 at 6:06pm

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

RP: my ordeal was only for eight hours, and I now have a beautiful new Toto (low water)toilet and sink in the bathroom, and a local electrician who will come back to solve the independent problem. Only half of my power was lost. My furnace, bedroom, and bathroom still worked. and the only gunfire outside is the local young men practicing in their gravel quarry a half mile away although they might have added illegal fox hunting last week (this is rural Western Massachusetts.) My bit of empathy when I heard a family (CNN tonight) escaping Adjabiya who said they have had no water or electricity for TWENTY-FIVE days. I worry about the Berbers of Zawara the most. Silence since March 15 - ironic that was NYT's Anthony Shadid last story before he and his colleagues were taken as they tried to flee Adjabiya. I do not know the capabilities of the French and Italian aircraft carriers (the DeGaulle and the Garibaldi) deployed to the Libya coast, but US carriers have the ability to de-salinate 400,000 gallons of water per day, which would still not be enough to supply a city of 100,000 and the carrier itself, but certainly would help. I am optimistic that the water and electricity return to Adjabiya once the opposition has re-taken all of it, and al-Brega. Even so, no news about who is protecting the water infrastructure, which is why al-Brega and Adjabiya are so important - they are the terminus for the Great ManMade water tunnel system, according to my maps and some news a few weeks ago. The western cities like Misrata and Zawiya are also in peril. I assume all sorts of humanitarian aid is already being delivered to the port in Benghazi. The USS Ponce is designed for that kind of delivery. I assume Marine boots on a dock in Benghazi delivering food and medicine is ok :) the opposition is going to have to get their anti-armor rockets and heavier weapons from Egypt, or anyone but the USA. I firmly believe Obama wants everyone but the USA to supply weapons to the opposition. New babies in Benghazi are being named Sarkozy. Hate to write it, but the GOP has been staunch and unyielding about the primacy of US sovereignty since at least WW1 - that is how they defeated Wilson's League of Nations. If this mission works out well and quickly, the GOP may not be able to make it a major issue, but they will certainly try because it is in their DNA. I am personally ambivalent - much more intrigued with how R2P is used beyond Libya. Shooting protestors with live ammo (Yemen, Syria, Bahrain) is NOT going to be the trigger for R2P. and, of course, the credibility of the UN and the AU is now on the line in Ivory Coast. If they fail to effect the peaceful transfer of power after a free and fair election, and the incumbent's intransigence leads to a civil war and one million (so far) refugees, how does anyone effect 'regime change' in Libya using soft power? I await Obama's speech on Monday night.

- K2K

March 25, 2011 at 9:19pm

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

"I await Obama's speech on Monday night." Why?

- noga1

March 26, 2011 at 11:26am

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

Because . . . bee-cozzzzz . . . he's the president?

- ironyroad

March 26, 2011 at 6:04pm

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

I was just wondering whether K2K is under the impression that the President on Monday might be clarifying all the questions that baffle us so about this intervention and about the principle of future interventions. If there is no such expectation, what's the point of awaiting his speech?

- noga1

March 26, 2011 at 9:41pm

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

I think there is such an expectation. Unless of course you're Marty Peretz who thinks that Obama is a clueless but intermittently articulate black guy elevated by well-meaning but deeply mistaken white liberals into a job he clearly can't do.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2011 at 12:18am

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

"Unless of course you're Marty Peretz who thinks that Obama is a clueless but intermittently articulate black guy elevated by well-meaning but deeply mistaken white liberals into a job he clearly can't do." What's the matter? Too much Victory Gin at dinner?

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 7:59am

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

Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before this proposal emerged: http://tundratabloids.com/2011/03/norway-socialist-left-party-to-vote-on-motion-calling-for-bombing-israel-if-it-acts-against-hamas-in-gaza.html "NORWAY: SOCIALIST LEFT PARTY TO VOTE ON MOTION CALLING FOR BOMBING ISRAEL IF IT ACTS AGAINST HAMAS IN GAZA"

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 8:08am

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

ironyroad: Here is a more serious attempt to deal with your statement: "Unless of course you're Marty Peretz who thinks that Obama is a clueless but intermittently articulate black guy elevated by well-meaning but deeply mistaken white liberals into a job he clearly can't do." Obama is indeed black (at least as far as you are concerned). He is also "clueless but intermittently articulate" guy. That makes him "a clueless but intermittently articulate black guy". Like Woody Allen famously said, on being called a self-hating Jew (quoted from memory): I am indeed a Jew and I do hate myself, but not because I'm Jewish ... Of course it is possible that being an occasionally articulate black guy and being clueless are mutually exclusive conditions.

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 9:07am

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

Thanks irony, and noga, but I am mostly curious to hear if Obama actually uses the words "Responsibility to Protect", and tries to explain how this UN principle emerged after Rwanda and Darfur, when he speaks to Americans on Monday night at 7:30pm. And, whether he tries again to emphasize the cutting of water and electricity to Misrata and Zawara, cities that are east of Surt (Sirte) as a benchmark of when R2P is considered. This is his chance to rhetorically clarify the (an) Obama Doctrine. I have not been personally "baffled", but I certainly find it interesting that Obama has not made the R2P principle totally clear to everyone. AND, perhaps he may try to define the threshold which triggers R2P, e.g., Bahrain and Yemen. I bet the Norwegian Air Force just can't wait to destroy the Israeli Air Force...I would love to see the faux-Vikings try :) Anyone want my bed and Ekornes chair, both Made in Norway?

- K2K

March 27, 2011 at 10:09am

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

"I bet the Norwegian Air Force just can't wait to destroy the Israeli Air Force...I would love to see the faux-Vikings try :) " Hah. I only just read about it, here: http://www.israelwhat.com/2011/03/26/socialistic-left-dubious-moral-tradeoff-for-bombing-libya-use-armed-force-against-israel/ "The credibility of the world community in its confrontation with the Gadafi regime is undermined when there is no reaction against other states in the region who commit injustices against civil population. The greater world community must therefore also react against Israeli air attacks on the Gaza strip."

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 10:17am

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

even though R2P emerged after the very real genocides in Rwanda and Darfur, it is certainly true that the Israel-bashing left in the west certainly wants to deploy R2P against the "Israeli occupation". I read earlier that the IAF destroyed an electric transformer inside Gaza, and really hope Israel understands the one thing you do not do if you want to deflect R2P is cut water and electricity to any population. I wanted to clarify that, although i understand how R2P and deferral to multilateralism girds Obama's decision to join the alliance of the willing in the enforcement of UNSC1973, I am personally still ambivalent (observing from a fence) about whether US foreign policy should be taking such a tectonic shift. When I consider America as the "sole superpower", I always think of Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", and also always think the USA should be charging for being the global policeman, especially regarding keeping the sea lanes free for global trade. Part of the "Eisenhower Doctrine" transferred responsibility for a security umbrella from the british to the USA for the Saudis and other oil-producing natons, e.g. UAE, that had previous such agreements with the British. I am not sure how America can sustain those real commitments with 1) a shift to mulit-lateralism 'one hegemon among several' that staunchly supports R2P under certain circumstances, and 2) the cumulative national debt that both the GOP and Dems have brought us. I mostly blame the GOP infatuation with "starve the beast" under Bush43, but the Dems now bear their share of the blame for being in denial about federal spending. I am beginning to wonder of Hillary is going to challenge Obama...

- K2K

March 27, 2011 at 10:36am

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

nice to see Peretz got his permanent link as a columnist. now that the Libyan opposition has re-taken al-Brega, and Ras Lanauf, they have most of the oil and water infrastructure. I expect they will consolidate now and not race east even though Misrata is still under siege, and no word from the Berbers of Zawara since March 15. signing off.

- K2K

March 27, 2011 at 10:46am

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

In my view the crucial decision right now is whether to fight for Surt/Sirte, or bypass and go for Tripoli and the knock-out. I'm for the latter. Still no word from Zawara, but the best way to find out is to go there. Now, we can. This is nowhere near Mission Accomplished, but it looks like a potential success. Pretty good so far. Thanks for the reminder K2K. My memories of New Haven feature prominently Paul Kennedy and Carol Gilligan (on loan from Harvard). Life improved after I moved to the Berkshires. Please don't worry about the Norwegians--loose talk doesn't translate into action. They are reliable Nato partners. Denmark has had aircraft in theater and active since the Libyan operation began and will follow through. Vikings rock.

- Robert Powell

March 27, 2011 at 3:59pm

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

Noga, I'm just wondering how a 10-day diplomatic struggle ending with (a) getting a UNSC vote for a fairly expansive intervention in Libya going beyond a no-fly-zone, (b) keeping to a timetable for handing over U.S. operational command, (c) keeping the Arab League on board, (d) and by accident (but still!) provoking Putin and Mevedev to carry on a public dispute on the issue, all adds up to the "cluelessness" you so clearly see in evidence. And what the clued-in alternative might have been.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2011 at 4:00pm

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

ironyroad: You may have noticed that my comment was a direct response to your repeated charge that Marty Peretz is a primitive racist "who thinks that Obama is a clueless but intermittently articulate black guy elevated by well-meaning but deeply mistaken white liberals into a job he clearly can't do." If you want to discuss Obama's wondrous wisdom as a statesman you should not be dangling that sort of red herring in front of my nose. No, I don't think Obama is clueless. I think he knows very well where he wants to head and doing it step by step. He wants the US to take second place to the UN when it comes to deciding which war to fight. He wants to create a precedent that the US will follow UN diktats before even the American congress is consulted. He is re-organizing world order and puts the USA in the same row as Europe and the Arab League. We are just a republic, not an empire, he says.

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 5:30pm

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

You were in favor of a Libyan intervention, Noga, if I recall (it was only a couple of weeks ago). Now we have a military intervention which is secure at international law and has dragged both Europe and the Arab League respectively into (a) action and not just pontificating, and (b) taking some responsibility for crisis events in its region. This doesn't constitute at least modest success, in your view? Although success on the ground is not guaranteed and consequences, as ever, unpredictable, in the light of recent turns of events your complaint makes no rational sense. A UN Security Council resolution, passed with no veto cast by permanent members, cannot be a 'diktat' in any sense of the term, especially as that very resolution was called for by the United States -- also a permanent member with veto power. There is a question of congressional authority, yes, but there was no congressional vote for Kosovo either -- were you against that too? The United States is indeed not an empire. In that Obama would be echoed by practically every other president with the possible exception of Theodore Roosevelt.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2011 at 5:50pm

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

RP: The only way to find out what is happening in Zawara is for someone else's (not the USA) boots on the ground. I do have confidence that the coming week will focus on 1) evidence of what happened in Ajdabiya, al-Brega, and Ras Lanuf after Qaddhafi forces took control from the 'rebels', and 2) efforts by the 'allies' to end the siege of Misrata, Zawiya, and Zintan. Maybe there is a Berber special forces unit from Morocco who can enter Zawara? Ah, the Berkshires DO make a difference. (I am in the eastern Hilltowns where some joke it is Tolkien's Shire) noga: [Obama] "wants the US to take second place to the UN when it comes to deciding which war to fight. He wants to create a precedent that the US will follow UN diktats before even the American congress is consulted. He is re-organizing world order and puts the USA in the same row as Europe and the Arab League. We are just a republic, not an empire, he says." And, imo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that except 1) the GOP, assuming they can actually find a credible candidate, will make deferrence to any higher authority a major issue regarding US sovereignty, 2) Americans would suffer a campaign about American exceptionalism and the indispensable America, and 3) the rest of the world has developed a habit since 1945 of expecting the USA to lead the free world. In every organization, someone has to lead. Otherwise, the search for consensus and any action usually devolves into endless discussion and inaction. imo, Obama is clear on his vision, but the reality of an increasingly nationalistic devolution in the world makes his vision very impractical, more Wilsonian than Wilson. more on Norway and R2P for Gaza: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/27/european-left-applying-libya-precedent-to-israel-calling-for-military-action/ My concerns with R2P: 1) does every country wait for the UNSC to make it legal under international law? 2) UNSC1973 left it to member states to decide whether they wanted to get involved with Libya, so, in the case of Gaza, could a 'coalition of the willing' join Norway? Actually, Norway would most likely insist on a UNSC resolution. Would Egypt? or Iran? or Turkey? or, in a most unlikely scenario, a coalition of Egypt, Iran, and Turkey? I remain hopeful that Egypt's military sees a better prospect in protecting the Cyrenaican oil fields from Qaddafi, for a share of the profits. Got to be frustrating for Egypt to see all that oil in a country of 6.5 million (and I still am not clear whether that includes the 1.5 million migrant workers, of whom almost 2/3 are...Egytptian.

- K2K

March 27, 2011 at 6:19pm

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

"You were in favor of a Libyan intervention, Noga, if I recall " Not really. I was and remain pretty agnostic about it. There was one moment when I was unambiguously in favour after I heard that Gaddafi was threatening a bloodbath. As the campaign began, the Arabs started prevaricating again, the lack of any leadership or organization among the rebels became clear, and the question of who the rebels were unanswered, I reverted to my agnostic position. Have you changed your position and are now in favour of the intervention? What made you change your mind, if so? Anyway, the question is not whether intervention is needed or not. The question is: Why Libya? Why not Syria, where Assad opens automatic fire on protesters? Why not Bahrain? Why not Iran? What is Obama signaling by choosing this intervention over other interventions? Aren't you puzzled? Do you expect to get clarification tomorrow from your president?

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 6:58pm

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

"And, imo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that " Really? Do you really want the world's conflicts get managed by an organization in which automatic majority goes to undemocratic Muslim, Arab and African countries with a chronic and incurable grudge against the West? What's the future of democratic progress when the Arab League calls the shots? What's the future for Israel?

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 7:05pm

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

Yes, I did change my mind. Fairly publicly, I think (certainly in the argument with blackton on one of the other threads). In as much as I can re-create it, it was a mixture of (a) the public request from the Arab League, (b) the ethical (I guess) pressure for action just before the threatened Benghazi siege/massacre, and (c) the clarity of resolution 1973. I've been impressed with this White House/State Dept/UN ambassador team. It seems to me that there was a lot of thought and honest argument (I don't know for certain, of course) and this relieves me of some of the worries I had. That said, there is still a menu of unpredictable outcomes waiting down the road. One can hope for the best, while remaining realistic.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2011 at 7:27pm

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

Oh, I should say I did in fact forget that you were agnostic on intervention, Noga. Sorry -- it comes back quite clearly now. And I did overlap with some of that position too (esp. regarding Europe and other Arab countries). I'm particularly in support of the European component of this operation and it's political coordination. They can damn well do something other than whine, for a change.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2011 at 7:30pm

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

"I should say I did in fact forget that you were agnostic on intervention, Noga. " You might have noted that I did not make a big deal of your forgetfulness because I considered it all too predictable and expected. The Ministry of Truth's work in re-writing the past is a lot less onerous that one would imagine when you consider how people's memory likes to arrange things so as to clash as little as possible with their most cherished beliefs. Now you will complain that I deliberately cut off that following sentence about being sorry. I cut it off because it means nothing more than just a throat-clearing.

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 7:57pm

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

No, I was apologizing for having forgotten. If I was interested in re-writing the past, I wouldn't have posted a separate comment admitting that I had forgotten, immediately after I remembered. But take it as you prefer. Why you wish to cause/intensify hostility and misunderstanding, however, I have really no idea.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2011 at 8:42pm

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

"You were in favor of a Libyan intervention, Noga, if I recall " Why would you recall something that did not happen? As I said, I knew why you recalled something that did not happen. It makes sense to me that you would carry an incorrect memory about my position. I believe you have a certain preconceived notion about me, and your memory follows that notion. The fact that you remembered after I reminded you means very little. The harm has been done.

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 9:43pm

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

What "harm"? Why is it harmful if I temporarily mis-recall a position that many people on TNR took? Sometimes I wonder if you think at all before you press "save"!

- ironyroad

March 27, 2011 at 9:57pm

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

It's just a message board. I haven't seen you scold anyone here for not thinking at all before pressing "save". And I've seen plenty of posters here, among whom some of your friends, who might have benefited from such a scolding. How come I'm the exception?

- noga1

March 27, 2011 at 10:28pm

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

It's difficult to answer your question because I don't accept the "some of your friends" assumption contained in it, so if I respond it's as if I'm endorsing that assumption, which I don't want to do. But -- If I just squint for a second and block out the assumption, then the answer is that, for whatever reason, it matters to me what one individual writes and it doesn't matter to me what another individual writes. Maybe someone who, if they'd thought for 30 seconds, would realize that what they were accusing me of made no sense, gets to me more than someone who e.g. just posts a stream of opinion where a seven-year-old could see through the holes in the logic.

- ironyroad

March 27, 2011 at 10:55pm

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

noga and irony--both of you have more interesting contributions to make than this squabbling. In terms of noga's concerns re: "why Libya", I addressed several above (3/25). In terms of "why not Syria, Bahrain, Iran" I guess the answer is "because Obama isn't psychotic". Starting a war with any of those three countries (which in the case of Bahrain would also mean confronting Saudi Arabia), would be a full-out catastrophe. And we would be absolutely alone in doing so. Libya is much more important to the Euros than it is to us because it's close--which also makes it easier. Several of them get a large proportion of their petro there, and they would also end up with many of the refugees if things turn sour; Qaddafi has killed quite a few of them over the years as a terrorist paymaster (along with hundreds of Americans); and both Cameron and Sarkozy will get a political boost from their actions. For us, any action within reason that gets the Euros, the Arab League, and the UNSC to take meaningful action to protect human rights deserves our support if for no other reason than as a useful precedent. And it's worth pointing out noga that the UNSC is not the General Assembly. It hardly has "a majority of...Muslim, Arab, and African countries...". How Obama managed to get the votes he did in the SC is a mystery I look forward to finding out more about, but it can't have been easy.

- Robert Powell

March 28, 2011 at 4:34am

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

"And it's worth pointing out noga that the UNSC is not the General Assembly." True. But there is some sort of relationship between the two bodies and attitudes from the UNGA do get transferred by a sort of osmosis to the UNSC, via proxies and temporary members.

- noga1

March 28, 2011 at 7:44am

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

It's a pretty tenuous osmosis. All the jillions of GA Resolutions about Israel have had no, zero, meaningful effect as far as I can tell, and the record of the SC is much more that of the individual Permanent Members voting according to their own perceived self interest. So far this seems to be working about the way it's supposed to. The SC members who see a need to act do so, and everyone else either pitches in or bitches impotently from the sidelines.

- Robert Powell

March 28, 2011 at 12:42pm

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

It's noticeable, too, that a considerable number of resolutions e.g. for the first Gulf War, for the International Criminal Courts for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, and notably 1441 for Iraq were not vetoed and had the support of a wide range of member states (often with some suprising 'yes' votes). Abstentions (e.g. Yemen for the first Gulf War) take place, but rarely active 'no' votes. The assumption is, however, as RP suggests, that the permanent members have essentially sorted out their intentions before a formal vote.

- ironyroad

March 28, 2011 at 1:06pm

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

Bob, I don't think we had to get votesd in the UNSC. The Russians and Chinese decided that if the Arab League was OK with it, they weren't going to stand in the way. I generally support the CinC, as you know, but this one is a real odd duck. Even under the 1973 res, when the rebels are advancing, how can it be said that Qaddafi is "threatening civilians" so that NATO planes can still destroy Libyan conventional forces? Isn't that stretching the resolution beyond recognition? Yet that is what is occurring, leading me to the belief that the real aim of NATO is to overthrow (to the extent possible from 20,000 feet) the Libyan regime. This is not, as others have pointed out, a humanitarian mission. It is a war. Also, I share your concerns about Congress not being involved. Especially when Sen. Obama, circa 2007, said that if a POTUS did NOT do so, the action would be unconstitutional. Is it? Perhaps the speech tonight will shed light on these and other topics. Probably not. BTW, "turning command over to NATO" is laughable - whose planes do you think will be flying the vast majority of sorties? If cruise missiles are needed, whose will they be? It's just very hard to get my head around.

- butchie b

March 28, 2011 at 3:07pm

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

Hi butchie, If we didn't have to get into horse trading so much the better. My guess is that getting the Arab League was due to O's handling of the transition in Egypt, and if that brought along the Russkies and the Chinese, so much the better. I still see their interests in fucking us trumping going along with their Arab pals, but whatever works. And as for "stretching the resolution", IMHO that's what we should have done in 1991. "All necessary means" is pretty much carte blanche, and if we hamstring ourselves by anticipating the concerns of those who wish us ill rather than leaving the onus on them to get some modification of the Resolution while we take down the Libyan inventory, we'd be foolish. I don't think O is at all foolish. He's handled this nicely so far, getting all the available ducks in a row before crying Havoc! and unleashing the dogs of "time-limited, scope-limited kinetic military action". He'll have Congress eating out of his hand well within the 60-day timeline.

- Robert Powell

March 28, 2011 at 3:54pm

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

The "TL, SL KMA" had better be over well before the 60-day deadline. By Memorial Day Qaddafi had better be dead or gone. I don't think there is much patience for this action, especially on the Hill. Hope the speech does more than reaffirm Obama's skill in reading a teleprompter. But I am not optimistic.

- butchie b

March 28, 2011 at 4:18pm

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

"In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands." He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?" Now, such questions are coming at him." Guess I'm not crazy....

- tgatz85

March 29, 2011 at 11:54am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close