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 Darkness Falls

WORLD MARCH 11, 2011

Darkness Falls

BY LEON WIESELTIER

Barack Obama’s policy toward the Libyan struggle for freedom is no longer a muddle. It is now a disgrace.

Here is what his administration and its allies have told the world, and the Libyan dictator, and the Libyan rebels, in recent days. The director of national intelligence declared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a chilling example of self-fulfilling prophecy, that “over the longer term Qaddafi will prevail.” The secretary of defense continued to insist that the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya is too much for America to do, and to frighten the public with the warning that it would constitute a military operation, as if all military operations are like all other military operations, and therefore the prelude to the sort of wars that would require us, as he put it in an earlier outburst about Iraq and Afghanistan, to have our heads examined. Of course nobody is suggesting that a single American soldier step foot on Libyan soil: Gates’s exaggeration of the logistics and the implications of a no-fly zone, which the Libyan resistance is begging for, is the purest demagoguery, a way of inhibiting the discussion of what really can be done in this plainly just cause, a revival of Powellism, a cheap slippery slope argument tricked out as a responsible concern about the ladder of escalation. The secretary of state, also on Capitol Hill, insisted that a no-fly zone must have the support of some international authority. “Absent international authorization,” she instructed, “the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation the consequences of which would be unforeseeable.” Of course the United States, which is after all still the United States, could go and arrange international authorization, as it has sometimes done in the past; but this would require American leadership, and the Obama administration seems to regard American leadership as an early form of American hegemony. It may be, as Clinton said, that the consequences of a no-fly zone would be unforeseeable, but the consequences of the absence of a no-fly zone are entirely foreseeable. They are even seeable. We see them daily, most recently in the massacre at Zawiyah. And in a press briefing prior to the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels, the secretary general of the alliance began by intoning that “the whole world is watching” and then announced that “NATO has no intention to intervene in Libya.” He did not grasp the heartless illogic of what he said—though if his remark could be construed as saying that the whole world is watching NATO have no intention to intervene in Libya, there was some truth to it. And he followed with these unforgettable observations: “If these systematic attacks against the Libyan people continue it may amount to a crime against humanity. And many people around the world may be tempted to say let’s do something to prevent this massacre against the Libyan civilian population.” Some of us may indeed be so tempted. But “on the other hand,” Rasmussen continued, “there are a lot of sensitivities in the region as far as foreign military intervention is concerned, or what might be considered a foreign military intervention.” Get it? We will not act to prevent a crime against humanity because by doing so we will offend—who, exactly? Not the Libyans who are clamoring for Western assistance, or the Egyptians who looked to us for unequivocal support in their fight for freedom, or the Iranians who made a similar mistake. No, we will offend only a certain doctrinaire Western notion of what the contemporary Arab world thinks about the West, a notion that the democratic upheavals in the Arab world are making manifestly obsolete. We will offend not their assumptions, but our assumptions about their assumptions. It was no wonder that Gates, when he emerged from the meeting in Brussels, told reporters that whereas NATO planning for the possibility of a no-fly zone would continue, “that’s the extent of it.” We are only planning. Why don’t these people just come right out and tell the Libyan resistance to drink poison? Perhaps they fear that they may then have to provide the poison.

In sum, the situation is ominous. Darkness is descending on the Libyan struggle for freedom, and we are helping to lower it. While the various secretaries were articulating their abdications, Qaddafi was committing a slaughter in Zawiyah and employing his monopoly of the skies to drive the rebels out of Ras Lanuf. An eastern offensive is clearly imminent. (This is not a civil war. This is a war by a dictator upon his people. There is no other half of the Libyan population fighting for Qaddafi.) All this, of course, affects the sensitivities of the Libyan freedom fighters. “We’re waiting for the Americans to follow,” a rebel spokesman bitterly told Anthony Shadid and David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times about Sarkozy’s splendid decision to recognize the Libyan provisional government. (Morally America now lags behind France!) Shadid and Kirkpatrick also reported that “as NATO member nations met in Brussels to discuss options for Libya, the rebels cursed the United States and its allies for failing to impose a no-flight zone.” Why is the White House content to foment this variety of anti-Americanism? The answer is that it is so haunted by past Arab anger at American action in the Middle East that it cannot recognize present Arab anger at American inaction in the Middle East.

And the president? He declares that Qaddafi must go and that we will stand with the Libyan people, and then he does nothing. No, that’s not right. He consults and consults, and his staff works round the clock, and economic sanctions are instituted against the rampaging dictator who has tens of billions of dollars in cash. Obama is prepared to act, just not consequentially. He does not want the responsibility for any Arab outcome. He says they must do it for themselves. But they are doing it for themselves. They merely need help. And the help they need is easy for us to provide. (Jam their fucking communications.) And their cause is freedom, which is allegedly our cause. What they seek from Obama is an extended hand. What they are getting is a clenched fist. If Muammar Qaddafi takes Benghazi, it will be Barack Obama’s responsibility. That is what it means to be the American president. The American president cannot but affect the outcome. That is his burden and his privilege. He has the power to stop such an atrocity, so if the atrocity is not stopped it will be because he chose not to use his power. Perhaps that is why Obama has been telling people, rather tastelessly, that it would be easier to be the president of China. Obama will not be rushed. He is a man of the long game. But the Libyan struggle for freedom, and the mission of rescue, is a short game. That is the temporality of such circumstances. If you do not act swiftly, you have misunderstood the situation. Delay means disaster. Does Obama have any idea of what Qaddafi’s victory will mean for the region and its awakening?    

We have flinched this way before. For many days I have had a sickening 1992–1995 feeling. Consider these sentences, from a book I lugubriously took off my shelf: “Why does the United States stand so idly by? The most common answer is, ‘We didn’t know.’ This is not true. … A second response to the question of why the United States did so little is that it could not have done much to stop the horrors. [But] the only way to ascertain the consequences of U.S. diplomatic, economic, or military measures would have been to undertake them. … If anything testifies to the U.S. capacity for influence, it is the extent to which the perpetrators kept an eye trained on Washington and other Western capitals as they decided how to proceed. … The real reason the United States did not do what it could and should have done to stop genocide was not a lack of knowledge or influence but a lack of will. Simply put, American leaders did not act because they did not want to.” The Libyan calamity is not genocide, but genocide is not the only horror that has a claim on American agency. I have taken those wise sentences from "A Problem from Hell," Samantha Power’s sad, great study of earlier American failures to act against mass-murdering tyrants. Is Obama now writing his own chapter in that story? Why do we not still remember that story? It is disgusting, as the Libyan rebels are driven further and further back, to learn that we must discover it all over again.           

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 176 comments

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

176 comments

"A Disgrace", eh? Fox News just called, Leon, they want their article back. Really, you want to race into military action, against a sovereign nation who hasn't attacked us, that we don't even buy oil from, when we don't know who to support, if we SHOULD support them, what the results of that support would be, what the costs of the entire thing would be, or how long that support would go into the future. Have you learned NOTHING from Iraq?

- AllanL5

March 11, 2011 at 11:08am

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

I agree, "Darkness falls". Darkness falls on the critical thinking and rational process of a progressive magazine like the New Republic. You SHOULD be arguing for a rational approach. You SHOULD be arguing for a cautious, minimal, incremental approach. You SHOULD be praising the Obama administration for an admirable restraint in the face of a very unclear and risky situation. Instead, you're minimizing the risks, trying to use SHAME for heaven's sake in your criticism of the president, recommending policies that Bush-II used with abandon in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. "Darkness Falls" on the New Republic, indeed.

- AllanL5

March 11, 2011 at 11:14am

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

Bullshit. Applying military power confers tremendous responsibility, especially so in the case of the United States. Even as a veteran of our countries last couple debacles, I would be all for us excercising our muscle in the region to topple Qaddafi, if anyone from the "we should be doing SOMETHING, darn it" crowd could just answer a few questions for me: Who is the leader of the rebels? Will he be in a position to claim authority over Libya once Qaddafi is ousted? What do we know about him? Given the disparate tribal interests in the country, how do we know we will not find ourselves in a post-Libya that begins to resemble Somalia, except this time we're SUPPORTING the local Mohamma Fara Aidid, having invested our own effort and treasure, if not blood, in putting him there. When the rebel leader begins to massacre those in other tribes to consolidate power, do we support him with Special Ops because we're now invested in him, do we simply walk away, or do we oust him as well? This no fly zone.... when a plan is shot down or crashes, what level of ground support are we willing to commit at that point? Are the American people willing to see soldiers die for Libyan freedom? When Qaddafi forces continue to massacre rebels and civilians using ground forces only (which they are completely cabale of doing) and our no-fly zone becomes is a 15,000-foot high example of American irrelevence, do we THEN commit ground forces? What happens when, in the act of protecting the rebels, we wipe out a camp of refugees..... are we committed to staying the course? How much civilian damage, how many casualties, are we willing to inflict upon the Libyan people in the act of taking out radar installations, airfields, reinforced airfraft holding bunkers, antiaircraft facilities, etc? The image of US planes lobbing a few missiles at radar facilities nowhere near civilians, crippling Libya's anti-aircraft ability, and gaining full air supremacy without killing Libyan civilians is almost touchingly naive. What is our resolve? Why are all those who have never served always the most eager to volunteer others to go into harms way for reasons unclear, with strategy unknown, and with goals undeveloped? Mr Wieseltier?

- Tristan

March 11, 2011 at 11:30am

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

That's well put Tristan, et al.

- NR851651

March 11, 2011 at 11:34am

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

Amen Tristan. Have we not learned anything? Do we want to get involved in yet ANOTHER war that we are unwilling to pay for? There was post recently saying that the Arab League condemns Qadaffi's actions. Then let the Arab League impose a no-fly zone. Is it for nothing that we've been selling them F-15's, F-16's, and E-3's? I'm sure that Saudi Arabia, if so inclined, could brush aside Libya's air force. Air Marshall Wieseltier, who for some reason is identified as the "literary editor of the New Republic" should answer Tristan's questions before we commit the U.S. military.

- dubyadoubte

March 11, 2011 at 11:40am

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

Frankly, it's amazing that Marty and Leon have yet to figure out that 95% of TNR readers (and, probably, subscribers like me) will not read a word they write. I did not read this article, and I will not read any article by Leon, because Leon, who was once one of my favorite writers, has turned himself into a stunningly tedious, pompous bore. (Marty I never read.)

- AlanVann

March 11, 2011 at 11:50am

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

dubyadoubte - Agree, this is a regional conflict, let the countries in the region be the first to handle it. I was thinking even more so with the Egyptains. We've dedicated a lot of time and energy (see Operation Bright Star) to helping prep Egyptian forces not only to defend Egypt proper but for precisely these kind of situations where regional instability requires action by their combined forces. And trust me, the Egyptians are fully capable of handling anything Libya has to offer. Thank you (and NR) for the accolade

- Tristan

March 11, 2011 at 11:53am

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

Libyan rebels have been driven some 35 miles from Ras Lanuf and Zawiyah (although they may still occupy parts of those cities, for all we know). They still hold most of the populated portions of Libya outside the Tripoli metropolis and some other cities like Surt. If this is a disaster where Qaddafi is retaking the country, it seems a bit premature, eh?

- wildboy

March 11, 2011 at 11:54am

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

- Beware of people who express a lust for war, especially when their only qualifications are reading a lot about it. Leon isn't serious because he lacks the experience to be taken seriously. He's the literary editor and the closest he'll get to military strategy or getting shot at is another wordy critique which places other Americans in harms way. Maybe TNR can have him review video games so he can feed his addiction to shock and awe and do no harm. But a visit to Walter Reed may inform him and break his infatuation with weaponry. The consequences for those we send is anything but intellectual.

- michaelg

March 11, 2011 at 11:55am

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

My friend Leon Wieseltier has again written the most eloquent comment about the ongoing disgrace of the President's refusal to help the Libyan rebels. Wieseltier's anonymous critics in the above comments do not. These brave souls snipe from the protection of anonymity. The least they can do if they want to present their insults on the web is to sign their names though if they did so, they too would be publicly supporting this president's inaction. The anonymous critic is a relic of totalitarianism, not a hallmark of a vibrant democracy. If Obama refuses to intervene immediately, before the Libyan opposition is crushed, we will be witnessing both a moral disgrace as well as a severe blow to American national interests in North Africa and the Middle East. I would imagine that many Arabs and Muslims may ask what kind of engagement with the Muslim world Obama has in mind if it includes inaction in the face of a dictator who is violently attacking his own population. Sincerely, Jeffrey Herf

- jcherf27

March 11, 2011 at 11:57am

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

Jeffrey Herf: I will identify myself. Doubydoubte (I really need to change that) is Peter Bureau. Navy veteran.

- dubyadoubte

March 11, 2011 at 12:08pm

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

The Inspector Clouseau of military strategy and foreign policy strikes again. "Of course nobody is suggesting that a single American soldier step foot on Libyan soil: Gates’s exaggeration of the logistics and the implications of a no-fly zone, which the Libyan resistance is begging for, is the purest demagoguery ..." Here is General Lewis Mackenzie, the Canadian commander of UN forces in Sarajevo, on the Balkan campaign of 1999. http: //www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/libya-would-never-be-just-a-no-fly-zone/article1935668/

"Unfortunately, Col. Gadhafi doesn’t need his air force to prevail, so its grounding or destruction would merely shift the fighting to the backs of his army. Libya is a big country, with 2,000 kilometres of coastline, so the major fighting would take place along the main coastal road. The opposition forces would be no match for even poorly organized army units if Col. Gadhafi decides to get serious. Watching this unfold from 20,000 feet, the countries enforcing any no-fly zone would be unable to ignore the carnage below them. Backed into a corner, their political leaders would be forced to escalate and authorize attacks against the Libyan army – thereby becoming, in effect, the opposition’s air force. By so doing, they would assume a much larger role in Libya’s future, including reconstruction of the damage they inflicted."
Pure demagoguery, I see.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 12:19pm

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

Right Herf - because what matters here is "us" and our identities, and not the arguments we make.

- NR851651

March 11, 2011 at 12:19pm

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

Mr Wieseltier's rantings are laughable -- only so because they have no influence on actual policymaking. The Libya war-hawks want a no-fly zone, but that won't stop Qadaffi from using his mountains of cash to use tanks and hired muscle to continue the fight. Here is what I can guarantee you: When the no-fly zone fails to stop Qadaffi, people like Mr Wieseltier [and Peretz and Kristol and Krauthammer and McCain] will demand that we must go further. Having created a no-fly zone, they will argue, we have sensibly involved ourselves in this civil war. The honor of the United States insists that we not allow Qadaffi to find ways around it -- as he surely would. That's when the demand to arm the rebels and/or send U.S. troops will begin. Mr Wieseltier assures us that no one is talking of sending U.S. troops to Libya. Maybe so. For now. They never start that way. In order to get the American people to do what they don't want to do [as the polls are showing] and certainly do not need to do [this is a civil war in a country that poses no threat to U.S. interests], first you must assure them that involvement will be brief and quick. The costs to the U.S. in blood and treasure will be minimal, they will assure us. And then the further we get in, the greater the demands. "Our allies are in need!" they will shout. "Think of U.S. honor!" they will shriek. "We cannot allow ourselves to be defied by the likes of Muammar Qadaffi!" And that's when the first U.S. troops land on Libyan shores. And once there, our troops will be responsible for: -- getting rid of Qadaffi's regime, -- preventing the rebels from shooting anyone and everyone they suspect was associated with Qadaffi's regime, -- negotiating power-sharing arrangements among Libya's many, many disputatious tribes, -- ensuring that the rebels don't fall out among themselves and start shooting each other, -- creating a civil society where none exists, -- arranging for free elections where none have ever taken place, -- rebuilding Libyan infrastructure, which will have been largely destroyed by the war. It's all so simple, isn't it? Let me tell you what is a disgrace -- the rantings of maniacs like Mr Wieseltier, who know nothing of the Arab world apart from the fact that they detest it and haven't written or said a single correct thing about national security policy for the better part of a decade. Perhaps it is going too far to say that TNR brings shame upon itself by continuing to publish Mr Wieseltier's foreign policy musings, but it certainly doesn't make the magazine look good. And since real names seem to matter so much to Mr Herf... Emphatically, Thomas Spencer

- DC Spence

March 11, 2011 at 12:20pm

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

Ah shucks, Alan Vann. Since leaving HLS in '70, I've subscribed to TNR for the SOLE purpose of reading Ol' Marty. This, despite his having shamelessly shilled for the Manchurian Cypher during the last election. May I respectfully suggest to you a subscription to The Nation. Just call me Mr. 5%

- morgan097

March 11, 2011 at 12:21pm

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

Jeffrey Herf, not that it makes any difference to anyone here, the "d" stands for "david". I agree with the comments above, except yours, and have no qualms saying so. People are dying all over the world, every day. Have you been insisting on US military engagement in Somalia, Libya, Congo? Why not? Our we only to go where you and LW happen to be looking at the moment? And, speaking of a "vibrant democracy," how about engaging with the actual reasons people you disagree with have for their positions? The Obama administration wants a multilateral response, through existing institutions--the UN, NATO, and the Arab League. There are good reasons for that, but also one against: multilateral responses are maddeningly hard to achieve, and often late. The thing is, though, I don't see that LW or MP or you even acknowledge that the positive reasons exist. In fact, in simply assuming fecklessness is the explanation for the Obama administration's response, you give yourself a way of denying reasons for a multilateral response without even acknowledging such reasons exist. How can we have a real debate in those conditions?

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 12:26pm

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

Peter: Vincent. Army. 101st and Special Operations. Honored to meet you, Navy.

- Tristan

March 11, 2011 at 12:31pm

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

I guess I've gotten carried away. For "Libya" in the first paragraph above, read "Liberia"; and of course it is "Are", not "our". Two reasons an effective multilateral response would be far better than an effective unilateral response: It becomes easier to achieve elsewhere, in other cases (including, e.g., Liberia); and there is a demonstration effect for other regimes. Think of Iran. If we can swing the UN diplomacy for an effective SC response in Libya, the theocrats in Iran would need to worry about a greater threat than anything the US or the US and Europe would be able to do alone. A good thing, right?

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 12:44pm

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

I sometimes get exasperated with Wieseltier’s eloquence which comes at the expense of clarity or seriousness. This is not the case in this article. For once he used a plain clear style to express the cynical attempt by this administration (an administration I voted for) to talk itself out of doing anything to help the Libyan revolt against their mad dictator. This is shameful and if Khadafy prevails over the democratic opposition the Obama administration will go down in history as a de-facto supporter of tyranny. The Libyan conflict is becoming more and more reminiscent, mutatis mutandis, of the Spanish civil war in the 30’s where the Fascist countries supported one side but the democratic countries refused to support the democratic side.

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 1:11pm

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

Mr Wieseltier is completely wrong on Libya, and on the underlying thinking that he suggests we should apply to similar circumstances. We don't need another military adventure, no matter how small we might like to imagine the next one might be. We wander into these things and never get out. Honestly, I think it would be just lovely if all the dictators of the world could be replaced overnight by democracies friendly to the liberal and secular values of the West, but I am not prepared to send troops into these places, or to bomb them and blockade them. Give me a break! Iraq was quite enough regime change for me. The project to save Afghanistan from itself is failing, we still have troops in Iraq, and TNR's brightest light wants to jump into the Libyan civil war? I am not persuaded, not in the least. Neil

- purcellneil

March 11, 2011 at 1:21pm

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

Well said above: "Right Herf - because what matters here is "us" and our identities, and not the arguments we make." Neil Purcell

- purcellneil

March 11, 2011 at 1:24pm

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

I admire LW for his passion for freedom and democracy, but I don't believe paternalism has worked in this region or elsewhere, at least it has not worked to provide both permanent stability and permanent democracy. The President says the region must "reform itself", and I agree. This does not mean that the US cannot provide support, including military support, for the rebels in Lybia (and elsewhere); rather, it means that the US role must be supportive, supportive of those in the region who share the same goal for the region to "reform itself".

- rayward

March 11, 2011 at 1:29pm

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

ARNON wrote: "if Khadafy prevails over the democratic opposition the Obama administration will go down in history as a de-facto supporter of tyranny." RESPONSE: What evidence do you have that the opposition to Mr Qadaffi is "democratic"? ARNON wrote: "The Libyan conflict is becoming more and more reminiscent, mutatis mutandis, of the Spanish civil war in the 30’s where the Fascist countries supported one side but the democratic countries refused to support the democratic side." RESPONSE: Please cite the "fascist" countries supporting Mr Qadaffi. Thanks.

- DC Spence

March 11, 2011 at 1:33pm

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

Jeff, old friend! Henry Kissinger here. The moon is the sun and the sun is the moon and Libya, Liberia, Lymphoma, Lubrication ... chill man. (Because, who we are matters, not what we say.)

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 1:34pm

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

Dang it DC - why'd you have to steal my thunder on Arnon's comment? Your post above also closely tracks that dangerous feckless demogogue, the Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie (Ret.), who ran for the Conservative Party of Canada a few elections back. (A real NCINO-man, you might say - Neo-Con in Name Only.) They say history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. Now, given the mix of tragedy and farce that Iraq represents, how are we to characterise the drumbeats of war by arm-chair warriors such as LW and Peretz? Lunacy? Surrealism? Mendacity? Farago? Henry the K.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 1:40pm

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

DC Spence “RESPONSE: What evidence do you have that the opposition to Mr Qadaffi is "democratic"?” From the articles I have been reading in the New York Times and elsewhere it is reasonable to conclude that the opposition to Khadafy is made up of diverse elements and is not being driven by a single person or party. “ARNON wrote: "The Libyan conflict is becoming more and more reminiscent, mutatis mutandis, of the Spanish civil war in the 30’s where the Fascist countries supported one side but the democratic countries refused to support the democratic side." RESPONSE: Please cite the "fascist" countries supporting Mr Qadaffi. Thanks.” I made the analogy using the term “mutatis mutandis” you must have missed that. The support for Khadafy thus far has been mostly verbal from countries like Turkey, Venezuela, and former leaders like Daniel Ortega. However, the strongest similarity between the Spanish civil war and the current conflict in Libya is that in both conflict it is the “peace partisans” who refused to allow their governments to aid the anti-tyrannical opposition. For example in 1935 the French head of state the socialist Leon Blum wanted to aid the Spanish Republicans but the “peace” faction in his party as well as the non Socialist peace activists accused Blum of being a “Jew war monger.” They of course also had the supports of the Action Francaise and other antisemitic parties.

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 2:00pm

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

"They say history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce." Not "they," Marx said it once, and farcical people have been repeating it ever since. If you view WW2 as a replay of WW1 as some historians do, then the idea of "repetition as farce" is more than ridiculous, it's plainly wrong. Often time it's the repeated historical even that is more tragic than the original one.

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 2:04pm

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

All the auguments against going into Libya are valid. But the administrations empty threats, both from the president and the secretary of state of there being "consequences" either in Korea, Iran, Libya, etc, are beginning to have a a hollow ring. Also the administration believes that eveything must get international support - meaning Russia, China, etc. There is a lack of real leadership on the top. We have soliders in Afganistan with no particular goal and no end in sight. The US neither speaks softly nor carries a big stick. Maybe its time for Obama to understand that "No we can't" - and reserve his fight for something that matters and give his real committment to it. All I feel now is that we are coasting as a nation, hoping for a miracle - that is not enough. We need leadership here.

- jneuberg

March 11, 2011 at 2:13pm

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

Arnon: Would that be Harpo or Groucho? There are those - Niall Ferguson, for one, if you insist that any all references to "they" or "those" be specific, the very mark of a pedant - that WWI and WWII were, in fact, a single war. In "Farce", Marx - Karl - was referring to Napoleon III - who was as farcial a figure as any in European history. He - Marx - was, I think, influenced by Victor Hugo (read his "Little Napoleon" poem - quite biting) in this characertisation. US intervention in Libya through a "no-fly" zone would meet the definition not only of farce, but of folly: engaging in policy contrary to long-term national interest in the face of credible advice and alternatives, and experience, to the contrary.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

ARNON wrote: "From the articles I have been reading in the New York Times and elsewhere it is reasonable to conclude that the opposition to Khadafy is made up of diverse elements and is not being driven by a single person or party." RESPONSE: Please explain how this demonstrates a commitment to political pluralism. In re the analogy you made between the Spanish Civil War and the current Libyan civil war, I don't see the connection. Both are civil wars. Both took place in countries with a Mediterranean coastline. Other than that...? What are you getting at? What's the point of dragging a 75-year-old civil war into this discussion. Yes, Hitler & Mussolini intervened in Spain. Both men and their regimes have been gone for quite some time. What does any of that have to do with the current situation?

- DC Spence

March 11, 2011 at 2:33pm

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

Going through the comment again - there are just too many gems in this: "Of course the United States, which is after all still the United States, could go and arrange international authorization, as it has sometimes done in the past;" Because, the United States, being after all the United States, could "go and arrange international authorization" in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Note: this is before the US got mired in Iraq and therefore effectively paralysed from intervening in another country; this is before multi-trillion-dollar tax cuts and borrowings to fund two wars; this is before the recession and the global financial crisis and $200 a barrel oil .... Before all of that, the United States could not even bring its own allies - France and Germany - along. And now, the United State could just snap its fingers and ZAPPPP Russia and China would come on board for full-scalre aerial assault on Libya? Or is it that by "international authorization", LW means another Coalition of the Willing, with Lithuania, Gambia, Botswana and the Mauritius suppoting a multinational Armada off the coast of Libya? I mean, man - this stuff is pure Fool's Gold.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 3:06pm

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

This is a wonderful opportunity for Europe to take on a political and humanitarian crisis in their neighborhood and bring it to resolution, a foreign and strategic policy task that they are both the obvious choice for and for which they too have the military and technical assets. This is where the shame of Bosnia could be, at least in a small way, redeemed.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 3:13pm

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

jneuberg: "But the administrations empty threats, both from the president and the secretary of state of there being 'consequences' either in Korea, Iran, Libya, etc, are beginning to have a a hollow ring." This right here is part of the problem. I don't blame the commenter, but the media, because they leave the impression that it's either military intervention, or nothing. The US is doing what it can short of military intervention in all those cases, but it is the sort of stuff that is not commonly reported. Will it all turn out to be ineffectual? I sure hope not, but it may be. And perhaps there is reason for skepticism. But surely the US govt needs to be able to comment on other regime's actions, legitimacy, etc., without committing itself to regime change by force of arms.

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 3:21pm

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

"This is a wonderful opportunity for Europe to take on a political and humanitarian crisis in their neighborhood " Why Europe? Or rather, why only Europe? Where is the Arab league in all this? Why can't they do something about it? Here is a wonderful opportunity for these two anti-American entities to join forces and show the world that they can do something useful, for a change, not just criticize and whine. Where are the mass rallies in the Arab streets, in Madrid and Antwerp, on behalf of the besieged Libyans?

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 3:53pm

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

A very good question.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 3:57pm

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

"Where are the mass rallies in the Arab streets, in Madrid and Antwerp, on behalf of the besieged Libyans?" I agree with irony - an excellent question. The next question is whether we get to blame the feckless Obama for it.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 4:05pm

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

I already answered your question, DC Spence, but if you don't see the connection I made, I can' t help you.

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 4:07pm

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

As for icarusr, the clown, I don't respond to self righteous clowns.

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 4:08pm

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

ARNON: Let's be clear -- you have cited no evidence that the opposition to Mr Qadaffi is "democratic" as you asserted above. This is because no such evidence exists. You know nothing of the Libyan rebels apart from the fact that they do not like Mr Qadaffi -- a characteristic shared by you, me and Osama Bin Laden. In other words, you know nothing useful about the Libyan rebels. Neither do I. And that's why I see no reason to come to their aid. The problem with your "connection" between Libyan and Spanish civil wars is that you made none. You simply asserted that democracies decided not to aid the Spanish democrats and communists and the fascists won. I could respond that the western democracies intervened in Russia after WW1 to stop the Bolsheviks, to no avail. But what would be the point? Foreign civil wars many decades ago in different parts of the planet are not analogous to anything in Libya right now. You made no useful analogy to the current Libyan situation because there is none to be made. Indeed, you cannot help me. I concur that we have exhausted this conversation, but I would be happy to take it up again if you decide to make any historically relevant comparisons, analogies or comments.

- DC Spence

March 11, 2011 at 4:40pm

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

icarus "Going through the comment again - there are just too many gems in this" The forum gestapo is on the job again. Cant' let anyone have a different opinion without his wanting to send them to a reeducation camp staffed with icaurs clones.

- nr106646

March 11, 2011 at 4:58pm

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

Arnon - you are increasingly sounding like JacksonDyer. A less literate version of Jackson - as if someone took his crotchety persona, and took away all learning, erudition and occasional compassion. You don't answer because you can't answer - not to me (and, you have to admit, as I have demonstrated, your pedantic note on Marx and WWII was really silly beyond bounds - there is nothing clownish about knowing your history and responding effectively to pedants) nor, indeed, to the two excellent points DC has made. We really don't know who is fighting the civil war in Libya; we are hoping, bordering on conjecture, that the provisional government, made up of the elements of the Gadhafi regime who have had enough of his antics and his sons, will be less criminal and less adventurous than the current regime. But this is all we have to go on. From there, to criticisng Obama for not sending in the Air Force or the Marines to protect and defend "democratic forces" is, really, a stretch only the delusional can make. Incidentally, for all his antics and support for terrorism, Gadhafi did provide the evidence to destroy Pakistan's global trade in illicit nuclear arms. What if the new regime decides they liked the nukes in the first place? And, I too am waiting for your answer to the Spanish Civil War question. Are China and Russia, who voted for the sanctions against Libya, protecting Gadhafi? If not, what other "fascist" regimes can you name who are actively supporting Gadhafi without being caught out? The Saudis - who have vowed to undermine the Gadhafi regime by pumping more oil? Syria - who can't even defend itself from being bombed by Israel? Yemen, perpahs? The dastardly Fascist government of Mighty Qatar, who is harbouring Al-Jazeera? Niger? Chad? Well? I didn't think so.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 5:02pm

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

NR: given that all but one comment here has been critical of LW, your fixation on my comment borders on the pathological. I will not engage in a flame war with you. Of course, as befits an ignoramus like you, the Gestapo did not send anyone to re-education camps; that was mostly a Communist euphemism - a point that exactly 3 second on Wikipedia would have made clear to you. So aside from being wildly inapt - as if on an electronic board I can force anyone to do anything, or I have said anything to give rise to that impression - you are you using a moronically mixed metaphor. I realise you are too stupid and ill-educated to get it, but the Nazis did not really think that a Jew, a Catholic, a Slav, or a homosexual - or a trade unionist or a Communist for that matter - could be "re-educated" into Aryan-hood. If you were one of the above, you were either a slave, or dead - and quite likely, both, one after the other - without the intermediate step of "re-education". Now, there were variations of "re-education" in Communist countries, given the fact that unlike the racially driven Nazis, Communists mostly ran on ideology - much of the methodology was inspired by the French Revolution, which was in turn inspired by Rousseau ... "re-education" is, at its core, redolent of Rousseau's Social Contract ("The General Will will for him [a dissenter] to be Free"). Now, run along and don't pllute this space with your ignorance.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 5:20pm

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

The question that everyone must answer if they want a No-Fly-Zone plus communications blocking intervention, whether carried out by the U.S. or NATO or under UN auspices or whatever, is what happens if those measures are taken and their effect on events on the ground in Libya is not the desired one? What happens if those measures do not have the consequences we want to see? I see no attempt by LW to seriously ask what the White House and the State Dept and the Pentagon have been asking -- which is their duty to ask, in fact. If the NFZ or radio jamming does not prevent, for example, Ghaddafi loyalist forces from crushing the rebels or forcing them to retreat, what do we do then? What do you want the president to order then?

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 5:20pm

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

Policies are changing as we speak. "Obama says U.S. would intervene in Libya to aid 'defenseless civilians'" "In a news conference at the White House, President Obama says 'we are slowly tightening the noose on Kadafi' but makes it clear he is wary of sending the military into Libya. Obama also says he does not plan to tap the nation's strategic oil reserves to ease gasoline prices." http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=obama+and+libya+

- Newly84

March 11, 2011 at 5:20pm

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

icarusr “Arnon - you are increasingly sounding like JacksonDyer. A less literate version of Jackson - as if someone took his crotchety persona, and took away all learning, erudition and occasional compassion.” I realize that you have to compare someone or something to someone else to make a point. So I am not surprised by your bizarre musings. This is all you can say when confronted with the nonsense you stupid posted earlier about history "repeating itself." “You don't answer because you can't answer - not to me (and, you have to admit, as I have demonstrated, your pedantic note on Marx and WWII was really silly beyond bounds - there is nothing clownish about knowing your history and responding effectively to pedants) nor, indeed, to the two excellent points DC has made.” So anyone who mentions any thing you didn't know is a "pedant." As I said, above I don’t take clowns like you seriously. How can anyone credit this kind of nonsense? “We really don't know who is fighting the civil war in Libya; we are hoping, bordering on conjecture, that the provisional government, made up of the elements of the Gadhafi regime who have had enough of his antics and his sons, will be less criminal and less adventurous than the current regime.” We do know that one side is the murderous Khadafy regime which has been bombing civilians. Of course Icarus is ready to defend neutrality to the last civilian casualty in Libya.

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 5:40pm

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

“given that all but one comment here has been critical of LW, your fixation on my comment borders on the pathological. I will not engage in a flame war with you.” Icarusr is doing here what he has done on many other threads. He is one of two posters who attack people instead of dealing with their arguments. Like a Gestapo goon he tries to destroy his opponents completely. This is his pathology.

- nr106646

March 11, 2011 at 5:47pm

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

I've this article twice, and still see no answers to the obvious questions: a. Will the no fly zone work (meaning get rid of Ghadafi)? b. If it doesn't, will we be drawn into a more extensive commitment? c. Why shouldn't (or won't) France, Britain, or other powers impose a no fly zone? According to Leon, international authorization is easy to obtain.

- PeteM

March 11, 2011 at 5:48pm

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

"We do know that one side is the murderous Khadafy regime which has been bombing civilians." Ah yes. When I said we don't know who is fighting, in context, it was quite clear I was referring to the "democratic forces" you had mentioned , that then transfomed, in a later post, into "disparate forces" that may or may not be democratic. And you still have not answered the question that I raised: on the one side is Gadhafi; on the other, elements of his own government and army who now leading the fight. We don't like Gadhafi, but how are we to know that the next gang is 1) democratic; and b) any better? "Of course Icarus is ready to defend neutrality to the last civilian casualty in Libya." That is a scurrilous and baseless accusation, and you know it. I have been quite supportive of taking action against the regime; but not unilateral and not military because we don't know what and whom we are fighting for, and I should not wish to put more twenty-year olds in the line of fire on the basis of a conjecture and LW's lacrimose musings. You arm-chair war-mongers are the worst: it is not enough that you want to send other people's sons and daughters to the slaughter for an undefined cause, you accuse anyone who might possibly have misgivings about the wisdom of precipitous action as having genocidal tendencies. Have you no shame? No sense of decency? This is what I mean by pedantic I know who is on one side; the point is, if we are to go in in support of the other side, do we know who the other side is. "So anyone who mentions any thing you didn't know is a "pedant."" No, a pendant is "a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning". It was immaterial who said "farce/tragedy" - the phrase has passed into popular language. Your demonstration of learning - correcting my "they" to "Marx" was clearly inappropriate to the subject. What is more, I did not remember who it was, but as soon as you mentioned it, I remembered not only the author but the context. So you mentioned something that had slipped my mind; in context, your mention of it was pedantic. But thanks for reminding me - now I will never forget :).

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 6:15pm

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

PeteM: thanks - precisely. Not just this article, but the entire oeuvre of TNR on Libya. Makes for grim reading.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 6:16pm

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

neuberg: "The US neither speaks softly nor carries a big stick" is certainly the core problem that led to Leon W's eloquent outburst. Did Obama think Qaddafi would leave just because Obama said he should? OTOH, I await the outcome of Saturday's Arab League meeting to see if they have the gumption to DO something - is not the whole issue to delete Qaddafi and sons? I want to see Egyptian tanks and fighter jets on the road to Tripoli. or at least stopping the Qaddhafis at Ras Lanauf. I tend to agree with arnon on his points, but wanting the EU, Arab League, and African Union to lead. Just wish Obama had thought before he spoke.

- K2K

March 11, 2011 at 6:27pm

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

I really don't think despicable, foolish warmongering should have a place in this otherwise great publication. What's also clear is that Mr. Wieseltier is fundamentally uninterested in listening to anybody who takes issue with this wordy, poor excuse for an argument. I hope he doesn't continue down this road to Peretz-ville.

- alphprol

March 11, 2011 at 6:29pm

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

PeteM and ironyroad ask good questions. K2K: Again, sanctions, ICC referrals, etc., are not nothing. And to get those measures through the SC, the US does need to speak loudly. It can't be that the only time the US can speak against a regime is when it is willing to commit (immediately, unilaterally) to military force. Otherwise, I agree--UN authorization for direct Arab League action would be optimal. Maybe they could do better than the OAS has done in its neighborhood.

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 6:42pm

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

"No, a pendant is "a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning" So icarus decides what is excessive or inappropriate learning? My response was neither. "'Of course Icarus is ready to defend neutrality to the last civilian casualty in Libya.'" That is a scurrilous and baseless accusation, and you know it." Given your passionate defense of not intervening my response was neither "scurrilous" nor "baseless."

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 7:01pm

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

What behavior can we expect from a Muammar Gadhafi who survives this uprising? Having crushed an uprising – and successfully defied an American president – which way will Gadhafi turn next? Gadhafi ordered the blowing up of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland. He is a mass murderer of Americans. This is not the Ivory Coast. If Gadhafi survives he will have untold billions of dollars of oil wealth with which to cause mayhem. And yes, the humanitarian aspects are important, when young men rise up to fight tyranny these squishy liberals say…not my problem..I don’t care. There is certainly an element of racism against Arabs amongst these Liberals, as though young Arabs fighting for freedom from tyranny are not worth a second look. I am ashamed of Obama and his fecklessness. Clinton took out Milovesic based on purely humanitarian grounds. The genocide of the Kosovars and Bosnian Muslims was stopped. The Liberals here have learned the wrong lesson from Iraq. Their solution is to do nothing when literally lifting a mere finger (arsenal wise) would free Libya all because….well, my only conclusion is pure and unadulterated bigotry…or sheer cowardice. And when Gadhafi wins and he finances radical jihadists who care Americans these squishy liberals will say it is all Bush’s fault because….because of Iraq….yeah. I am a Democrat but a centrist. The reason Democrats lose is because they are f-ing wimps, so not only will Gadhafi win because of this, Obama will lose in 2012. I simply can’t vote for a feckless dithering President and the loss of Libya will haunt him. But yeah, take comfort in the fact that Obama will get 45% of the people because wimps only ever feel validated when they lose so they can play victim. I voted for Obama but I am starting to hate him. He encouraged the rebellion by stating Mubarak had to go and doing everything behind the scenes to see this occurred. When he went of course Libyans would have hope that he would support them that Gadhafi had to go. If he is going to be utterly indifferent he should have said from day one that he is not going to interfere no matter what so the Libyans who revolt are on their own. This is what the Chinese say, from an authoritarian mercantalist country I expect nothing. Base everything on narrow self interest, fine. But don’t remotely pretend it is the moral thing to do and don’t claim that my support of the rebels in Libya is in any way related to anything other than simple human decency and regard for others. Let Gadhafi prevail and you can be damn sure he will do everything he can to bring about the fall of Tunisia and Egypt. It would be in his self interest to make sure there are dictators there who will not bother him. The Arab spring will be remembered as the lost opportunity because feckless, cowardly Democrats could not seize history and support a POPULAR rebellion against a madman. The only thing I have ever called for is a no fly zone over Eastern Libya, up to Ras Lanuf, and the parking of our battleships nearby to prevent shelling from the ocean. In addition we could help arm and fund the rebels using that 30 billion we seized. Do you think they would object to that money being used that way? Honestly? 30 Billion would certainly buy a hell of a lot of hardware. As to risks, we have more than enough SAM’s on ships that could shoot down any approaching Libyan plane to eastern Libya, so we would not risk pilots. This would allow the rebels to consolidate their positions. We could also block all oil exports out of Libya via the sea from Gadhafi controlled ports. Without resupply his days would be numbered. Doing nothing, which is what we are doing, would be insane.

- blackton

March 11, 2011 at 7:02pm

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

oh and everyone saying we should limit ourselves to aid, yeah, and I suppose you would have been in favor of airconditioning the train cars on the way to Auschwitz. To give food and blankets to people who are about to be slaughtered when we can prevent it is obscene. Republicans have no brains and Democrats have no spine. I fucking give up.

- blackton

March 11, 2011 at 7:07pm

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

blackton, Clinton took out Milosevic in 1999, several years after the Bosnian slaughter. Before he took him out (in fact, the Serbian people did that themselves) he did use American power, but that was to enable a treaty called the Dayton Accords, to which Milosevic was a major party. Far from "taking out" our friend Slobodan, it actually buttressed his position in the former Yugoslavia. Just so we're not wandering off into counterhistory land here.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 7:17pm

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

so blackton, after calling Obama a feckless, effing wimp, all you have to say as to what he would have to do to change your mind is a half-assed no-fly zone and a blockade. Think about that. You think it would be sufficient. Are you sure about that? Or is it wishful thinking, just because you want some sort of military engagement, but want to think it wouldn't cost much? It sounds to me like you want some military force, not much--just enough for a catharsis, just to make you feel better about things.

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 7:18pm

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

Who's kidnapped Blackie? 1. You can seize money, but you can't use it to buy arms and arm a rebellion, no matter how heinous the regime. The assets are frozen, not appropriated. 2. Milosevic. Well, that one came after three years of slaughter in the Balkans, 200,000 dead and 400,000 displaced, and even then, the US had to prodded to act by its allies. It took 70 days of continuous bombing; the targets went from radars to civilian installations; the West had to undertake to rebuild the country. Read Lewis Mackenzie on the subject, and be prepared to justify, as an American, civilian deaths (there were at least 1000 in Serbia) in order to "save" Libyans from themselves. 3. The fleet is already there; even Canada has a frigate in the gathering armada. All you are asking for is actually totally irrelevant to the fighting on the ground. A no-fly zone will not force the kind of strategic decision that you want out of Tripoli. Twelve years of bombing Iraq did not unseat Saddam. It is not enough to arm the rebels; you need to train them, and help with strategy ... you will end up with boots on the ground. Are you prepared to join up, volunteer for the Liberation of Libya? Didn't think so. 4. So it is now all Obama's fault because he helped push Mubarak out. I thought it was Obama's fault because he did not push Mubarak out. A recall a lot of hand-wringing about Obama's inaction there. So which is it? 5. "don’t claim that my support of the rebels ..." - which rebels, and who are these rebels? The provisional government is established by a former Justice Minister of Gadhafi's - the same wh was in office until two months ago. Do you know anything about the guy to be able to give him your support on the basis of human decency? This is not to minimise the suffering of ordinary Libyans, or the crimes of the madman of Tripoli, but let's get a grip. 6. There is every evidence that there is a lot of activity behind the scenes. Obama managed to get a unanimous SC to vote harsh sanctions - China joined in, in respect of the ICC and an internal matter. You of all people know how significant that was. The Arab League is meeting to see if or when they can do something. France is stirring, waking up. Berlusconi has to think that a war is better than being tried for paying for an underage prostitute. In short, while we would like ACTIOIN NOW and WAR TODAY and NO-FLY ZONE immediate and so on, the simple fact of the matter is that to get anything done in that region, you need your allies, and that takes time. 7. Gadhafi is gone; the question is when, and how. Your concern about an oil-producing supporter of radical Islamist terrorism is best directed at Saudi Arabia.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 7:27pm

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

And blackton, when that Auschwitz allusion becomes something more than a cheap dig--when, that is, what Q. is doing is actually genocidal--then it would be the obligation of every state, including the US, to intervene immediately and, if necessary, unilaterally, with all available means. But do you really think what's happening there is a genocide?

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 7:27pm

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

Arnon: " Given your passionate defense of not intervening my response was neither "scurrilous" nor "baseless."" Either you are stupid, or you pretend to be. (You make the decision as to which.) You said I would "defend neutrality" to the last Libyan civilian; and now you are talking about my "defense of not intervening". I objected to the former; and the two are different - especially to a pedant like you. I do not believe that it is the time for the United States to intervene unilaterally, through military means, in a civil war, the contours of which we do not know, in a desert country of nearly 2 million square kilometers and two thousand kilometers of coastline. The United States, moreover, has neither the manpower nor the financial means of carrying a war of such magnitude on its own shoulder - Iraq and Bush's tax cuts have seen to that, as much as blackie wishes to ignore reality. Does that mean I "defend neutrality" to the last Libyan civilian? Quite clearly not. I do believe, as I have said so repeatedly, that the best way forward is through the mobilisation of a multilateral efforts, on several different levels, to ensure that both the pain and the responsibility is shared and spread. And to ensure that the United States does not end up holding the bag when the dust settles and civilian deaths resulting from humanitarian intervention are counted. As I said, you decide which you are ...

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 7:45pm

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

icarusr Arnon: " Given your passionate defense of not intervening my response was neither "scurrilous" nor "baseless."" Either you are stupid, or you pretend to be. (You make the decision as to which.)” Since you tend to think that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, response is not very surprising. “I do not believe that it is the time for the United States to intervene unilaterally, through military means, in a civil war, the contours of which we do not know, in a desert country of nearly 2 million square kilometers and two thousand kilometers of coastline.” This is not our only option. NATO and other countries would also be a part of the action. It also doesn’t have to involve boots on the ground. For now a no fly zone and challenging the Libyan air force would be sufficient. I doubt Khadafy would wish to challenge American or NATO airpower. I am ignoring the rest of personal attacks.

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 8:14pm

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

arnon, if that's your proposal, then you have an obligation to at least try to answer the following question: what if the No-Fly-Zone or similar measures (e.g. electronic black-out) do not have the required effect, and Ghaddafi's forces on the ground continue to push back and even defeat the rebels? What do you propose in that eventuality? Because if you propose step one -- and I'm not saying you're wrong to do that -- then if step one doesn't bring about the appropriate results, then the door to step two slides open.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 8:25pm

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

"Are you prepared to join up, volunteer for the Liberation of Libya? Didn't think so." Absolutely I would be. Hell, I have been in war zones more than once, and I freaking live year round nearby where the Zetas transport Coke and pot up from central America. In fact, there is a Zeta kingpin that has a place not too far from mine. Frankly though I am too old to enlist. I was involved in the teachers strike in Oaxaca a few years back and was here when the military shot up the city of Oaxaca shutting it down. I didn't leave. I also tried to get a job in Iraq to teach 6-7 years ago but my wife said she would leave me if I did, sometimes it ain't up to me. Look, I am not stating that this is a picnic, but a question of likely outcomes and long term potential costs. A Gadhafi outside of all western restraint is capable of anything, if we don't have the stomach to stop him now, we never will, lord knows what mayhem billions of oil money will buy. In addition, are we prepared to fund and help set up refugee camps in Egypt for a generation and then some? Is Egypt prepared to take them in? If neither, then expect the deaths of eastern Libyans go to into the hundreds of thousands in death camps and in the massacre that will be sure to happen as Benghazi falls. China I get, they don't give a rats ass about anyone but themselves and would never put out for anyone but themselves. I don't expect anything from them. If Obama wants the US to be like China then lets be like China and pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, every damn base in the world. If he wants to be like Rand Paul, then say it. He has been feckless and dithering. What the hell is the point of saying all options are on the table if you have zero intention of using them? There simply is no more time. Will we get a no fly zone when Gadhafi takes Tobruk? And how long can we hold onto that money we seized, what if Gadhafi never goes, but his sons take over after him? Shall we hold the money until mid century? Eventually we will cave, there is too much oil there and the Chinese will deal in a heartbeat. Gadhafi is old, but his sons will be rehabilitated in a few years and maybe later on Lionel Ritchie can perform another concert for a few million. A live victorious Gadhafi is a far greater threat than the alternative. Wishful thinking that he will be gone won't make him go. "6. There is every evidence that there is a lot of activity behind the scenes" Yep, rearranging the deck chairs means the Titanic will go down in style...or something. ""don’t claim that my support of the rebels ..." - which rebels, and who are these rebels?" They are sure as hell better than Gadhafi. How can anyone possibly deny this? It is like saying about the cop who arrested Jeffrey Dahmer...who is this cop...maybe he drinks or cheats on his wife... Sanctions won't work. Libya has tens of billions in their own banks and after the purge that is sure to happen will have to be spread around a hell of a lot less people, and the oil pipeline will open again. And we don't have to take on all of Libya, just the coastline around Ras Lanuf. Any plane or helicopter that ventures there, shoot it down. Any major convoys going there, bomb them. It would be a turkey shoot. If Gadhafi can not move west he will lose as we can then provide military equipment to the rebels who can then move west. Gadhafi is greatly outnumbered if the numbers can be properly used against him. Gadhafi has a small airforce and small army, against basically unarmed civilians it is more than enough, but lets not puff him up as being a modern day Caesar.

- blackton

March 11, 2011 at 8:27pm

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

And by the way blackie, Noga's question earlier is a very good one. Where are the marches and rallies and protests and full-page ads and facebook petitions from Arab individuals and communities in Europe, condemning the murder of Libyan citizens and calling for action to stop the guy? You'd think they of all people would have some skin in the game.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 8:35pm

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

blackton, my husband, who has seen more battles that you would care to know, agrees with your position. We have much disagreement about this subject (though he has not yet threatened to leave me). My feeling is that it is a small event and that it would be better to let the Libyans sort it out. There is also the Arab League with their pretensions to be a global player. Well, let them for once risk their necks to save other Arabs. I'm sure they have much more leverage with Ghaddafi than Obama right now. Why aren't they doing anything?

- noga1

March 11, 2011 at 8:41pm

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

what if the No-Fly-Zone or similar measures (e.g. electronic black-out) do not have the required effect, and Ghaddafi's forces on the ground continue to push back and even defeat the rebels? Yeah, and what if Normandy failed? Damn, you can say not to do anything out of fear it will fail. Place a cordon sanitaire around Western Libya, any air planes or military convoys will be destroyed. They got nowhere to hide, it is a ton of open desert. Yes, we are taking sides but so what, we absolutely can prevent Gadhafi from advancing as the rebels get up to snuff militarily. To say otherwise is silly. I simply don't understand the idea we can do absolutely nothing besides watching the Libyans get slaughtered...oh, right, we can offer a resolution at the UN. Look, I know I am nobody but Obama is losing my vote and support. I will sit out 2012. A feckless and dithering President is not some one I can vote for. And for those who say we should sit the slaughter out, the Republicans will bury him over this, pictures of dead Libyans and a crowing Gadhafi will be a daily staple, and because of the amount of Dems running for re-election in the Senate the Republicans can control the Senate, House, and White House. Goodbye Supreme Court for another generation, good bye Obamacare as they simply defund it and ignore the regulations. Doesn't anyone here watch CNN, they have turned against Obama, Fox is against him. Americans won't soon forget, and Republicans will daily remind them, of the voices of young Libyans begging for ANYTHING to help them with Obama simply turning his back on them...oh right, that UN resolution again. Democrats have lost more elections due to being viewed weak than anything else, so you can feel self righteous (although compared to the slaughter of untold Libyans I could not feel that way) as you go down to defeat, Democrats are only happy when they feel they are victims. As I said, I fucking give up. I have been coming to TNR less and less because I am tired of feckless, spineless Democrats and insane Republicans. I am seriously considering giving up my satellite dish and spend a lot more time snorkling a the beach, we are all f-ing doomed so I might as well enjoy myself.

- blackton

March 11, 2011 at 8:47pm

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

Blackton: "oh right, that UN resolution." Here's the thing: Until things like UN resolutions start working, it will be up to the US to police the world. We can't do that. Not even you want us to do that. Where's your outrage over Liberia, Somalia, Congo, etc.? Should I start imputing motives to you like you do to us, as in brown you can see, black not so much? Or do you really want to go whole hog, have the US use military force to correct every shitty situation in the world?

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 9:01pm

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

Ironyroad "arnon, if that's your proposal, then you have an obligation to at least try to answer the following question: what if the No-Fly-Zone or similar measures (e.g. electronic black-out) do not have the required effect, and Ghaddafi's forces on the ground continue to push back and even defeat the rebels?" There are risks of failure in every military action. But, if the cause is just and the action necessary for its success then we are morally bound to proceed. I don’t think Khadafy would risk a military confrontation with NATO, he knows that he can’t win.

- arnon

March 11, 2011 at 9:10pm

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

"Where are the marches and rallies and protests and full-page ads and facebook petitions from Arab individuals and communities in Europe, condemning the murder of Libyan citizens and calling for action to stop the guy?" Uh huh, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone in the US giving much of a rats ass to what happens in Southern Mexico and Central America. And what the hell good would it do anyhow? If Americans protested and ran rallies and ads against Milosevic (going under the theory that all white people are...I dunno..the same) what good would it have done? Nothing, of course. We are the only power that can stop him and we can do it with very little effort. If we don't, then chop the military in half, pull out of all the other bases, lets stop the pretense that we give a shit about anyone but ourselves. Down here in Mexico no one remotely cares about Libya, they know they can do nothing so why bother getting worked up? Obama is inverting Kennedy, Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay no price, bear no burden, meet no hardship, support no friend, oppose no foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. Because, you know, um...Bush screwed up in Iraq...and um...taxes. If Democrats want to be like Mexico in FP, then run on the platform of being like Mexico in FP. Just come out and say so and if you lose, then so be it, and if you win you can be damn sure that few people will dare stick their neck out in the middle east again. And when the radical jihadists get a hand on nukes and blow up NYC, because, like it or not these aholes will still blame us for their misery well then...it must have been Bush's fault... Whatever happened to "never waste a crisis?" This is a likely once in a lifetime opportunity. Instead we have Obama who would have told Gorbachev, hey, put that wall back up...we don't know what the East Germans are going to be like.

- blackton

March 11, 2011 at 9:12pm

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

it will be up to the US to police the world. We can't do that. Not even you want us to do that. Where's your outrage over Liberia, Somalia, Congo, etc.? Gadhafi blew a US jetliner out of the sky. Lord knows what he will do next. No we can't get involved everywhere, but we are involved heavily in the Muslim world as we speak. It is insane to continue in Afghanistan against a bunch of goat herders and let a man who will control billions in oil wealth, who already killed many Americans, win because we won't even lift a finger (and finger it is) The Chinese got tired of walking around chanting anti US slogans and when Mao died the leadership took a look at China and saw how truly miserable it was and they modernized. We have something even more precious in the Middle East, the people themselves are rising up, where is the evidence that they are Islamic Jihadists? None. Libya is a fantastically wealthy country, if the rebels win then they above all have a chance to be a modern Muslim country. Or we can have the cancer of the Gadhafi family for the next 50 years. Screw Obama if he blows this, no way in hell will I vote for him in next year. Republicans will, at least, only screw over America, not the whole damn world. (and missing a chance for a Muslim modernization would be a catastrophe)

- blackton

March 11, 2011 at 9:21pm

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

blackton, you really need to take a step back, get a hold of yourself. I mean, it's not time for that sort of judgment yet. Suppose all diplomatic efforts come to nothing, and no one else steps up--if the Obama Admin did nothing at that point to prevent Q from crushing opposition, your criticisms would be warranted. I do think we need to be a backstop here, since we've already committed ourselves, and the SC has committed itself. But we're not there yet. All I'm saying is that it would be far, far better if the actions taken are truly multilateral; and somewhat better if the US military was not needed at all. If you find that unsatisfying, maybe you should ask yourself why.

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 9:27pm

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

"and missing a chance for a Muslim modernization would be a catastrophe" Agreed. We're arguing about means. So, yes, bringing up Liberia, etc., isn't quite on point. I guess my problem is I'm looking too much to the next cases, and am holding out hope that multilateral institutions can be toughened up enough to actually work. By that I mean: The law is clarified, enforcement mechanisms greased, many nations, not just the US, commit force where needed, and the majority of nations, not just the US, accept responsibility. But, as I said, given the stakes, the US is still the backstop.

- dpaup

March 11, 2011 at 9:40pm

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

I was dismayed in the how future leading up to the action in Iraq was being framed. My primary unhappiness was not that we were being sold a bill of goods but that it was going to be a relatively simple operation and that good things would naturally follow. I didn't believe that then but I also truly believed that Hussein absolutely had to go. I still think it was the right and necessary thing to do. Despite the fact that there have been problems. Hussein played all of the cracks and was even able to leverage the competing US party system to effectively create wedges by which to gain default support from those who were the dispositional and philosophical opponents of Bush and the Pubs. To get a significant portion of the US public to be his de facto allies was quite a trick and something I never thought that I would see. Sovereignty, culture, etc. Surprise, surprise, surprise, as Goober would often say. Would our involvement in Libya be hazardous? Yes. Would the hypothetical future of post kinetics be complicated? Yes. Will there be a contingent of unhappy voters in the US no matter how the events pan out? Yes. Will there be disgruntled people armed with a story of hegemony and paternalistic imperialism in the event that we successfully hit the bullseye on the back of Q's head? Yes. The bitching will take on all manner of wonderful tale telling and Truth imperatives. One can count on it with a high degree of reliability. Does that mean we are justified in doing nothing? No. Lordy I despise the multiculty bullshit that is bandied about and advantaged in such an intellectually dishonest manner. It perverts intention into an indefensible self defeating paradox. Ick, this is where you and I are at loggerheads. You buy into it hook line and sinker as evidenced by your seemingly eager efforts at finding the most virulent racism in relatively innocuous phrasing and discourse. You always assume the absolute worst about peoples motivations and convictions. Ick you have convinced me that this threat is real when a person as intelligent as you buys into it. A paralysis inducing demonology of sublime and powerful proportions.

- jacko

March 11, 2011 at 9:54pm

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

"We do know that one side is the murderous Khadafy regime which has been bombing civilians." Via Andrew Sullivan: "Andrew Exum digs up a study finding that on "a per capita basis ... twice as many foreign fighters came to Iraq from Libya -- and specifically eastern Libya -- than from any other country in the Arabic-speaking world": This might explain why those rebels from Libya's eastern provinces are not too excited about U.S. military intervention. It might also give some pause to those in the United States so eager to arm Libya's rebels."

- MOLLYSIMON

March 11, 2011 at 10:00pm

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

"Or we can have the cancer of the Gadhafi family for the next 50 years." There is more heat than light in your posts. It's impossible not to sympathise with the people being pounded by the Libyan army; nor to feel a large measure of trepidation about the outcome if indeed Gadhafi prevails. But ... I don't remember the context, but Obama was once asked why he did not react immediately to some thing or another, and he replied, "because I want to know what I am talking about" or some such thing. What you see as fecklessness and inactivity, based on the evidence that we have before us, I see as deliberateness and caution, which are the hallmarks of sound policy. If it is the case that the Arab League might be stirring, then they should be allowed to take the lead. Let them prove themselves. Let the Arab/Muslim world demonstrate that they care as much about the poor Libyan being pounded to smithereens by Libyan guns, as the Afghans being killed by US bombs. That, surely, is the least we can expect. And if they do not move? We know the French, when they put their minds to it, they can and do act. Italy has an air force that has proven itself in Iraq and Serbia. Germany's economy is strong enough to sustain European Action. If things get worse, there will be 1.5 million refugees at their door, so the Europeans have a direct interest - far more direct - than does the United States. I would be surprised if Clinton or Obama are "feckless" and "inactive" to the point of not doing anything at all in Europe; rather to the opposite, based on the UNSC performance, my bet is that the telephones are working. I remind you again that Iraq was under a no-fly injunction and regular bombardments for twelve years - the Kurds were spared, but not the Shi'ites, or the other Iraqis. It was only through boots on the ground that the country was "liberated". In Serbia, to help the Serbs topple Milosevic, it took two months of round the clock bombardment with more than a thousand civilian deaths - and that came after months of wrangling to get NATO moving. You write in despair; but these are early days. Instead of Administration beating on the drums of war - a play we have been acted out with disastrous consequences - we need to ensure that whatever action is taken has the full backing of both the American people and the region. "Republicans will, at least, only screw over America, not the whole damn world." That is, I think, a bit of an exaggeration. Obama has been called many things and has been blamed for many things; but to have screwed the whole world because of deliberate response to a fast moving situation in a volatile region? Please.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 10:00pm

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

Jacko: I am not sure why you think anything I have said about Libya arises out of any Multi-Culti nonsense, or that I have "bought into" anything. My position on Libya has nothing to do with multiculturalism, or Obama, for that matter. I have been, for a long time, an advocate of humanitarian intervention - but, in an academic paper I wrote on the first Iraq war (one of the earliest academic treatments of that war), I also warned of the dangers of going down that road, both in law and as a matter of policy. The point I made then was not that we ought not to do it, but that we ought to be careful and we ought to know the consequences of our going down that path. I supported the second Iraq war - on humanitarian grounds. But by the time of Abu Ghraib, it became clear that waging war on humanitarian grounds has some major problems embedded in it. It is blunt, it is messy, it is unpredictable. I am chastened, not out of any multi-culti concern, but for real practical reasons. As for my views on Peretz - there are 265 comments on that thread - don't want to reopen the argument. Let's agree to disagree on that. I don't see any such problem in any of the posts here - not even remotely. My problem is that we have, for the most part, a lot of abstract complaints and impractical suggestions, but precious few proposals that provide a comprehensive analysis of limitations or possibilities of US intervention in Libya. It is not unreasonable to ask that the proponents spend at least as much time on offering concrete solutions that have practical results, as they spend on accusing Obama of being feckless and inactive.

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 10:19pm

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

I am persuaded that I have taken unfair liberties at your expense. Please accept my apology for inattention to the specifics of my generality claims. Sometimes I use this place as a performance art thing. My using you as a prop is unfair. Sorry Ick.

- jacko

March 11, 2011 at 10:45pm

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

Blackie, I would like to point out that your parallels and analogies are swerving all over the highway. D-Day is NOT a good analogy as in Normandy we had been at war for three years (other countries for longer) and it was a huge military operation that had been planned for 18 months at least. Get a grip, please. Also, there were many many demonstrations and protests both here and particularly in Europe about Latin America and particularly El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980s. But how are they relevant here? I'm just echoing Noga's question about what appears (at least) to be the odd absence of people from North African in Europe (there are many) getting on the street to protest Ghaddafi and demand action from NATO, the U.S., the UN, whatever. Surely they have to want this movement to succeed too, at least as much as many of us? Or maybe they don't? I believe there is a moral issue here -- go to the rescue, because we can -- and a pragmatic issue of national interest -- we could mess things up mightily by attacking a country (be it its insane dictatorship) in North Africa and not knowing how our involvement might have consequences we can't foresee but for which we have some analogical evidence in recent history.

- ironyroad

March 11, 2011 at 10:54pm

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

jacko: no worries mate - happens ;) ... I do dish it out myself; I can take being used as a prop once in a while ...

- icarusr

March 11, 2011 at 11:58pm

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

Relax, blackie. Khadafy is finished. It's just a matter of time. Given his history and what's happening now, no sane American president would allow him to regain control of Libya. It just won't happen. I think Obama should be allowed to do it his own way, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the path advocated by Leon and the armchair generals. There are many ways to skin a cat, the saying goes. Until Khadafy survives, please hold your fire. Maybe our president is working the Arabs who can only get worked up against Americans and Jews, of course. (noga's question is dead on here). Maybe he is also working the Europeans who just mouth off moral outrage but are always missing in action. Or maybe he is working the UN. He could also be working all three. I don't know what he is doing, but I'm encouraged that he is not following the advice of Mr Wieseltier whose record on these issues are woeful. I know you have a good liberal mind, blackie, and I feel your pain on Libya. But it's got to be done right or else it could be worse than the potential nightmare of a survived Khadafy.

- scrubby

March 12, 2011 at 12:56am

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

03/11/2011 - 8:47pm EDT | blackton: "...Place a cordon sanitaire around Western Libya [specifically west of Brega], any air planes or military convoys will be destroyed. They got nowhere to hide, it is a ton of open desert. Yes, we are taking sides but so what, we absolutely can prevent Gadhafi from advancing as the rebels get up to snuff militarily. ..." because if someone does NOT do that, then the consultations and dithering will be over exactly how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Libyans have to be massacred or disappeared by Qaddhafi in order to qualify as a genuine humanitarian disaster. I doubt blackton is coming back today for my agreement with much of what he wrote, but it sure seems like there is some "body count number" with documentation that will hold up in court in five years required to trigger any kind of intervention from anyone. Since 1945, the rest of the world got used to America leading, and not really sure what to do with the first American president to refuse to lead in public. All it would take is a few warning missiles to stop the Qaddhafis - they see the opening and do not care if they have to murder millions. They can always find Turks and Chinese to run what is left of Libya. March 12, 2011 Wall Street Journal: "The Obama Doctrine: Libya is what a world without U.S. leadership looks like. ...Whatever else one might say about President Obama's Libya policy, it has succeeded brilliantly in achieving its oft-stated goal of not leading the world. No one can any longer doubt the U.S. determination not to act before the Italians do, or until the Saudis approve, or without a U.N. resolution. This White House is forthright for followership. That message also couldn't be clearer to Moammar Gadhafi and his sons, who are busy bombing and killing their way to victory against the Libyan opposition. As the U.S. defers to the world, the world can't decide what to do, and the vacuum is filled by a dictator and his hard men who have concluded that no one will stop them. ... If Gadhafi survives after Mr. Obama has told him to go, the blow to U.S. prestige and world order would be enormous. Dictators will learn that the way to keep America from acting is to keep its diplomats and citizens around, while mowing down your opponents as the world debates contingencies. By the time the Babelers make a decision, it will be too late. This is a dangerous message to send at any time, but especially with a Middle East in the throes of revolution. There is still time for Mr. Obama to salvage his Libya policy, though the costs of doing so are rising every day. Libya today is what a world without U.S. leadership looks like." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703597804576194690095426116.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

- K2K

March 12, 2011 at 8:38am

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

- The counter-factual (What if Normandy failed?) ignores the means employed prior to and after that invasion. The June 6th landings only occurred after years of strategic bombing, targets that would not qualify as having military value seventy years later. And hey, the Manhattan Project would have been a fine make-good if Germany persisted for another year. Remember, after August of '45 the US decided a land invasion wasn't necessary. So if the solution to the Middle East is total war, raise your hand.

- michaelg

March 12, 2011 at 9:26am

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

Arnon: The Libyan conflict is becoming more and more reminiscent, mutatis mutandis, of the Spanish civil war in the 30’s where the Fascist countries supported one side but the democratic countries refused to support the democratic side. ======================================== Arnon, with all due respect, all worked out well in the end. The Allies won WWII, Franco Spain did not exactly go over to the other side (Hitler reputedly said that Franco caused him more trouble than Churchill), and Spain ultimately became a democracy. The Spanish Civil War was not just Fascism vs. democrats, but Fascism vs democrats, Stalinist, anarchists, etc. Who is to say, by the way, that if the democratic side had won and the Stalinist element prevailed that Spain would not have joined the Axis side anyway, following the Stalin-Hitler Pact. In any event, for the moment, one might view the Libyan conflict as a tribal war, one we might best keep a certain difference from. Of course, if anyone -- TNR contributors and readers, whomever -- would like to grab their squirrel gun and join the rebel side in Libya, feel free. But first, read Homage to Catalonia. Dan

- dbuck1

March 12, 2011 at 10:01am

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

K2K, it is amusing to find a WSJ editorial on FP quoted here, but I have to admit, take away the slanted rhetoric, and it's fair. There has to be regional consensus for action. If there is leading to be done, it is not to be done by the US engaging unilaterally, but by helping to build up that consensus, privately. Is the Obama administration doing that? The problem, it seems, is the DoD. Not just Gates, but, judging by scattered reports, the whole damned bureaucracy. It looks like the Pentagon is working to undermine Obama and State Dept policy, much like the State dept did all it could to undermine and stonewall Kennedy on USSR policy--a classic case of presidential power limited by bureaucratic inertia.

- dpaup

March 12, 2011 at 10:30am

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

K2K - this line tells me that that either the editorial writers of the WSJ have no clue, or they are being disingenuous: "Dictators will learn that the way to keep America from acting is to keep its diplomats and citizens around,". While some Vietnam units might have destroyed a village to save it, it is unthinkable for a US president to order the bombing of a country holding US citizens hostage, in order to save the hostages. At least, not as a first option. If s/he were to do that, especially if it were a Democrat, the WSJ would be the first to question the President's sanity, competence, etc. All dictators have know, for a long time, that they can temporarily delay US action by threatening US citizens in their country. It is not a viable long-term strategy, of course, for a dictator but it is a normal impulse dealing with a democracy - Saddam did that, in 1990, if you recall. To criticise Obama on account of his "inaction" is just silly.

- icarusr

March 12, 2011 at 10:35am

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

Wiesltier just came out of the shadows. He is more pro-Arabs that the League of nations that refuses to intervene in Libya. That Obama up to now was undecided and muddle is not questionable. His pro-Arab bias is never in doubt. What is best for Arabs is what confuses Obama. The US is already involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and now Wiesltier wants the US involved in Libya too. Maybe to pay for all those wars health, social security will have to go to pay for wars. By the way, Did he support the US invading Sudan to stop the continuing genocide in Darfur? If not why not? Here is your answer.

- Poupic

March 12, 2011 at 11:02am

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

Icarus “K2K - this line tells me that that either the editorial writers of the WSJ have no clue, or they are being disingenuous: "Dictators will learn that the way to keep America from acting is to keep its diplomats and citizens around,".” What makes you think you know more about what is going on in Libya than the WSJ editorial staff?

- Newly84

March 12, 2011 at 11:25am

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

If a no-fly zone is completely funded with tax increases on the top 5% I have no problem with it.

- bobsr

March 12, 2011 at 12:05pm

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

- Marty and Leon have cast President Obama in a most narrow construct where they arrive at sweeping conclusions based on a tiny percentage of the decisions he makes daily. If you would review their criticism you will find that they are obsessed with issues that have simmered for decades while they cite his actions or lack of action as the only opportunity to repair the most complex and intertwined policies. The personal, End Of Time ring to their anxiety more than hints that Anybody But Obama is our only hope. It makes for great fiction for those who wish to dwell upon doom but one wonders if they've ever paused to consider how the past two years might have been different with McCain-Palin. Do they really find comfort in alternatives we've been offered by John and Sarah? It's a big job guys and you miss about 95% if what the president does.

- michaelg

March 12, 2011 at 12:41pm

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

Newly: the specific line about "dictators" is not dependent on knowledge of specific matters in Libya. The argument is, rather, "if we do not do X in Libya, then Y will follow elsewhere." That is what I take issue with. First, Y will follow, no matter what we do in Libya, because we will always seek first to protect our citizens and diplomats. That is the nature of democratic regimes, and so our citizens and diplomats are always at risk of being held hostage, and our foreign policy is always at risk of being taken hostage by the hostages. In this respect, I refer you to the actions of Israel: they have on more than one occasion sought to protect their soldiers or even repatriate their bodies, by releasing prisoners. In the Arab world, this is derided as weakness; to my mind, it is one of the most amazingly admirable traits of Israel, demonstrating its deep commitment to its citizens and value for even the bodies of its sons. This is who we are, and there are consequences - but the alternative is worse. Second, we have already done "X" elsewhere - in Iran - to grim consequences. More to the point, should Obama have moved precipitously and thereby caused, indirectly, harm to the 600 Americans stranded in Tripoli, how long would it have taken the WSJ or Fox to accuse Obama of incompetence or worse? I have no doubt that the WSJ editorial staff have access to better intelligence, and are in fact more intelligent, than I. All the more reason to question not just their judgement but their good faith in putting forward a proposition as risible as that one in criticising Obama. Finally, I would note the following. If you are right in the implied point that I should not criticise the WSJ because, somehow, they have better information than I on Libya (I will grant you that), surely the same point can be made about the WSJ's criticism of Obama - are they sure that they have better information than Obama about the situation on the ground? Surely, to ask the question is to answer it. So, frankly - and with due respect - I don't get your comment.

- icarusr

March 12, 2011 at 12:45pm

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

A no-fly zone would probably not be sufficient. Most of the damage is being done ground to ground. I don't think we want US planes circling around, watching a slaughter unfold below. There would have to be ground troops, tanks, etc., but not ours. That is why we need a greater commitment from the Arab League than they have offered. They need to provide what is necessary on the ground, with NATO air cover. Now, if that was your judgment, how would you go about achieving that end? Would you publicly call for it, leak stories about recalcitrant Arabs, and so on? Or maybe work first publicly to establish consensus that Qaddafi must go, and privately, quietly, work on Arab states to get them more directly involved in making it happen? I would think the latter. It seems to me that any commitment on our part at this time would only ease the pressure on Arab states to commit themselves.

- dpaup

March 12, 2011 at 1:47pm

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

An example of people against helpinig the Libyan people: “Don’t do a thing! Don’t do a thing!” "I wonder if that was one of the chants at Saturday’s demonstration in London against military intervention in Libya. I don’t know if establishing a no-fly zone in Libya at this point would help the cause of the brave Libyans fighting to free themselves from the brutal rule of Colonel Gaddafi, or if in fact it’s too late for that. But I do know that when it appears the rebels are being systematically crushed by Gaddafi’s better-equipped and better-organized forces, there is something particularly depressing and pathetic about a “leftwing” demonstration that focuses not on solidarity with the freedom fighters but rather on trying to prevent anyone outside Libya from helping them." http://hurryupharry.org/2011/03/12/dont-do-a-thing-dont-do-a-thing/ One comment reads: "Graham" "I see Galloway is in the Guardian this morning objecting to intervention on the grounds that troops from countries with ‘colonial blood’ still on their hands should not be involved. But surely by that logic a man with much more of a direct connection with dicatators than any soldier has with colonialism should not be listend too?"

- Newly84

March 12, 2011 at 1:53pm

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

Is the civil war in Libya--it is a civil war now--is it not--similar to the civil war in Yugoslavia? Or is it similar to the civil war in Spain? Is Qaddafi, Franco? Are the people posting comments here going to sign up fora a new Abraham Lincoln Brigade? In another comment stream I got in trouble (or at least criticized a lot) for trying to be ironic. People are suffering and dying in Libya. There is nothing ironic about it. It is tragic. In all honesty, I don't know what we (the United States) can do about it. I worry that attempts to help (as we have been helping in Iraq and Afghanistan) may make a bad situation worse. Stayed in one message box.

- skahn

March 12, 2011 at 4:21pm

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

The Associated Press CAIRO — The Arab League called Saturday for the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, a surprisingly rapid and aggressive move for a bloc known more for lengthy deliberations than action. More if you read the rest of the news report. Will this help? Will it do any good?

- skahn

March 12, 2011 at 4:34pm

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

Please observe and remember for future reference the uncivil arnon and 106646 at work, forever descrying attacks on posters while attacking posters, forever insisting that they are not permitted their views while calling into question the legitimacy of expressing views contrary to theirs.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2011 at 5:10pm

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

Oh sure an example of my incivility: {03/11/2011 - 8:14pm EDT | arnon icarusr Arnon: " Given your passionate defense of not intervening my response was neither "scurrilous" nor "baseless."" Either you are stupid, or you pretend to be. (You make the decision as to which.)” Since you tend to think that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, response is not very surprising.}

- arnon

March 12, 2011 at 5:51pm

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

Here comes the other half of the roidubouloi and icarusr Gestapo team. Trying to set it up so that you can justify your bullying again? You do that and see what happens.

- nr106646

March 12, 2011 at 6:17pm

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

I have not been the best practictioner, but I will try to do better and set a good example. 2. Live in the present. Don't obsess about what happened in the past (or what other people said about me). 3. Ask people to do what I want them to do; don't complain or question or label them tas a method to convert or change them. 4. Keep comments concise. It makes it easier and less stressful for people ignoring me. Your are welcome.

- skahn

March 12, 2011 at 6:17pm

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

arnon & nr Get a grip. You are NOT being attacked by icarusr to the exclusion of his responding to your arguments. While he has addressed you both directly in a less than salutary manner, he continues to make his points and respond to yours. You are not on the receiving end of ad-hominem attacks. On the other hand, your insistence on focusing on the personal insults only gives the impression that you have no responses to his actual points. If you want to demonstrate the superiority of your position in a debate, the best approach is the high road. Ignore the insults and stay on topic. You may find that you are unable to sway your debate partner, but others will see and respect your form.

- Nari224

March 12, 2011 at 6:44pm

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

Nari224 “arnon & nr Get a grip. You are NOT being attacked by icarusr to the exclusion of his responding to your arguments.” I don’t know about “nr” he is not a poster I make a point of reading any more than I read roidubouloi. (It’s just like him to associate posters he disagrees with.) As for icarusr his post was insulting though while I noted it in passing I didn’t take it personally. I have been making a point of avoiding angry posters and Roid and NR are some of the angriest here. As for Icarus he has two styles neither of which I appreciate he is either contemptuous of those he disagrees with or he acts like a superior buffoon. Not much there to take seriously.

- arnon

March 12, 2011 at 7:56pm

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

Arnon: you will notice that there are quite a few posters with whom I disagree - jacko and blackie, right here - of whom I am not a a bit contemptuous. But, when you accuse someone of indifference to the suffering and death of others - thousand, potentially tens of thousands - "to the last civilian casualty in Libya" - through either failing to understand the arguments, or deliberately distorting them, then expect at least a measure of pushback, and perhaps even contempt. What I object to in your posts is not your disagreeing with me - a lot of people do. It is your style - as Roid pointed out, the constant whining, complaining and evading.

- icarusr

March 12, 2011 at 8:41pm

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

First insult directed at one poster by another on this thread: 03/11/2011 - 4:08pm EDT | arnon As for icarusr, the clown, I don't respond to self righteous clowns. Second insult directed at another poster (and as usual for the first comment by nr106464): 03/11/2011 - 4:58pm EDT | nr106646 icarus "Going through the comment again - there are just too many gems in this" The forum gestapo is on the job again. Cant' let anyone have a different opinion without his wanting to send them to a reeducation camp staffed with icaurs clones. _____________________ As we see, those who complain the most about insults directed at other posters are in fact the very first to resort to same and consistent abusers. Not the first time. This is the pattern for both arnon and 106646. We also see that 106646 has no substantive comment to make about anything. His oeuvre consists entirely of insults.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2011 at 11:52pm

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

It has long been clear to me that while arnon and 106646 accuse other posters of resorting to abuse due to the inability to respond to argument, it is these two are in fact doing just what they accuse others of doing. This is a standard propaganda technique employed by some of the worst propagandists of our age, to accuse others of the bad behavior in which the accuser is in fact engaged. Many people are confused by this propaganda technique -- which is why it is used -- because when the charge is made, they don't remember and don't take the trouble to check to see who it is who is guilty of the misconduct. They recall that there was some such bad behavior and assume that the accusation is therefore correct. And yet it turns out that it is the accuser who is also the miscreant. Meanwhile, the miscreant has covered his tracks by directing attention at others and used his own misconduct, falsely attributed elsewhere, as license for further attacks.

- roidubouloi

March 12, 2011 at 11:59pm

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

noted by 03/12/2011 - 4:34pm EDT | skahn: "The Associated Press CAIRO — The Arab League called Saturday for the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, a surprisingly rapid and aggressive move for a bloc known more for lengthy deliberations than action. " skahn then asked: "Will this help? Will it do any good?" My thoughts, since I have been following the Arab League on Libya far more than any other aspect. 1) the vote was unanimous, and I look forward to insight as to how Syria and Algeria were brought on board, as the two members reported to be the most opposed. 2) Still not sure how this gets the UNSC to vote for a still undefined NFZ in time to keep Qaddhafi from bombing Brega and Benghazi, but being so totally slammed by the Arab League must have Qaddhafi really hurting from the rejection (am serious - he is a narcissist). 3) I think it very admirable that the Gulf States, and I assume Egypt, Tunisia, and Lebanon (avenging the 1978 disappearance of Musa al-Sadr) took this moment in history to behave responsibly, and more decisively than the EU, as it should be. The Arab League as a united voice becomes a stronger part of the multi-polar world. 4) Egypt and Tunisia have so much to lose economically with a Libya in turmoil. Both are highly dependent on tourism, and would prefer to not become sites of major, longterm refugee camps. I sincerely hope that Egypt joins in any multi-lateral NFZ or other air patrol, and that the Egyptian Air Force makes the world proud. I also think, having had the benefit of an NCIS re-run marathon whilst doing kitchen chores today, in between reading a history of the Monghols, that Obama should have phrased his statement on Qaddhafi differently. Qaddhafi did not lose his legitimacy in the past few weeks He NEVER had legitimacy other than that of the strong man with enough loyal guns. That is so tribally medieval... Of course, I thought Obama also used the wrong words when he was stumbling through Egypt and Mubarak. One of the core trait of a true democracy is the peaceful transfer of power. Obama continues to lose every opportunity to, at minimum, give a global lesson on the many characteristics that distinguish a free democracy from other forms of governance. I figure Obama is suffering from Churchill's curse. He should never have returned that bronze bust...it seems Obama's power of rhetoric has faded. Guess it would be too much to expect Obama (or someone, anyone) to question why the nation-state most vulnerable to earthquakes in the world, IRAN, wants nuclear power, even for electricity.

- K2K

March 13, 2011 at 12:03am

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

K2K, you have some very good points to make, and I am also -- I have to say -- surprised at the Arab League decision and curious as to how quickly they can make it effective in the international arena. This is the political cover that's needed. I believe, however, rightwing urban legends to the contrary, that Obama merely had the Churchill bust removed from the Oval Office. It's still in the White House.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 1:50am

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

"Guess it would be too much to expect Obama (or someone, anyone) to question why the nation-state most vulnerable to earthquakes in the world, IRAN, wants nuclear power, even for electricity." It would actually, be too much to expect Obama to start lecturing sovereign states on choice of energy source - so long as the choice is legal. There are a lot of reasons why nuclear power makes no sense for Iran (and all of these have been set out by Ahmad Shirzad, an Iranian nuclear physicist and for reformist MP, in his blog - if you read Persian, I can refer you to the blog), and danger of earthquakes is reason number, oh, 248. Any way, not anyone's business outside Iran, as long as the program is peaceful. It is not, of course, and it would make much more sense for Obama to concentrate on that.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 4:19am

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

Roid: yeah, I had forgotten those.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 4:20am

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

"I figure Obama is suffering from Churchill's curse." He is depressive? Becoming senile? Obama has a lisp? A tendency to lash out unthinkingly in support of absurd causes? Has premature impotence? I have read a considerable amount on Churchill, and I must confess I cannot find any parallels between the two - gifts or curses. Care to illuminate? Incidentally, for all those who are upset about the removal of the bust - Churchill, for all his greatness at times of crisis and for all his contribution to protecting Western civilisation, was an unrepentant racist - "blackamoor" was how he referred to Africans. It is entirely understandable that Obama would remove the bust.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 4:27am

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

Terry Glavin, my favourite anti-fascist, weighs in: http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2011/03/americans-singes-mangeurs-de-fromage.html "How soon we have forgotten all the fun the Yanks had at the expense of the French, the maitre d'Axis Des Weasels. And this time around nobody is asking for anything even remotely like an Iraq-scale invasion, or an Afghanistan-like reconstruction and counterinsurgency effort. Nobody is asking for a rerun of the Punic Wars, or even American "boots on the ground," or shock, or awe, or blood, or treasure. Still the Handsome President cringes, even as the French say allons-y."

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 7:00am

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

And tangentially relevant: http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2011/03/12/business-as-usual-blame-it-all-on-the-jews/ "The deranged Libyan dictator, Muammar Ghaddafi. and his son Saif were and are two of the most notorious and persistent Israel bashers in Arabdom.They have spared no efforts in their excoriation of Zionists. It would really be hard to find a more unlikely candidate for the post of Zionist villain. Ghaddafi has called for a Jihad on Zionists on many occasions (eg. see here ). Facts, however, do not stand in the way of what is now euphemistically termed “legitimate criticism of Israel” In less enlightened times, this sort of thing was simply called Jew baiting, and was a handy and useful prelude to pogroms and similar events. The motif of such “legitimate criticism” was always simple: All disasters could be blamed on the Jews, whether these were national defeats (“the Jews stabbed us in the back”) , earthquakes or the Black Plague. This quaint form of “legitimate criticism” has now been revived, in the form of persistent and baseless rumors in the Middle East and elsewhere, that Israel has been backing the repressive measures of Muammar Ghaddafi against his own people, either by shipments of arms, by sending soldiers or by mysterious help in recruiting African mercenaries. According to these fantasies, Ghaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam, visited Israel and asked for help! The rumors are spread by major media outlets including Al Jazeera."

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 7:06am

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

I wondered how long before the Obama hatred would come bubbling to the surface again. I'm surprised he's not being made responsible for the earthquake in Japan. Once again, those who propose a NFZ have the duty to explain what will happen if one is imposed and doesn't generate the desired results. Glavin's boiling sarcasm is, unless I missed something, entirely free of thought about potential consequences if the U.S. is responsible for a supposed intervention that Ghaddafi may choose to ignore because it doesn't actually affect his maneuvers on the ground. And who will be blamed, of course, if that happens? Yeah, right first time.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 8:26am

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

So now Glavin hates Obama, too, ironyroad? Where do you get that from? Another "subtext" that only you can sense? Since when have you been displeased by anybody's "boiling sarcasm" ?

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 8:45am

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

Irony: I'm of the overall impression that Obama is getting passes on a lot of stuff. He was able to avoid any pictures or characterizations of him dispassionately circling in Air Force One over the quake/tsunami areas. Thank goodness for small favors. The last thing we need is a shot of him sipping his latte looking at pictures of the ravages.

- jacko

March 13, 2011 at 9:28am

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

Not only is there no thought about the particulars of military intervention in Libya, there is no thought in general about the springing into existence of a doctrine that it is both the right and the responsibility of the United States unilaterally to intervene in civil wars. All civil wars? Civil wars where one side is anti-Semitic? Where both sides are anti-Semitic? Where we have direct interests? Where we don't? Proximate to us? Distant? Where there are civilian casualties? What fraction of the civilian casualties we ourselves caused in Iraq is sufficient? I completely fail to understand how it became that responsibility of American children to risk their lives to save everyone in the world. There is international law on this subject and, although it would amaze all the armchair generals here, over the centuries that it took for the current system to evolve, a lot of smart people gave a lot of thought about how to maintain the boundaries between permissible and impermissible use of force. At present, the UN Charter, to which most every nation on earth has subscribed, allows for the use of force in immediate or collective self-defense and when authorized by the Security Council. That's it. There has emerged in the face of genocide a doctrine of "humanitarian" intervention when civilians are being made the primary targets or are being deprived of the means of existence by warfare. Thus far, the actions of Libya appear to be directed principally at armed rebels. We are not the cops of the world. Security is a collective responsibility as reflected in international law. When Wieseltier wrote his first piece, I said, for that reason, that any intervention had to be multilateral and include the participation of major Moslem states. We may be reaching that point for a no-fly zone, although it is questionable whether that would have much more than a symbolic impact on the fighting. If we do reach a point where collective will is such that intervention is within the bounds of international law, it will I am sure be in no small part due to Obama's diplomacy. Let's face it, Obama's critics do not just detest him. They have no use for the whole system of international law, the UN, the International Court. Their unhinged criticism of Obama is but part of their ongoing political war to abandon that system in favor of the unbridled use of force by the powerful. They assume that that means that the US alone will be free to work its will. But that is not what will happen if we de-legitimize the current system. Unfortunately, one can hardly expect these critics to be candid about the fact that they are moved far less by the situation of Libyans than they are by most everything else that they hate -- law itself, Obama, anti-Semites, whatever. Glavin is in full-throated roar in this vein and we see who approves.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2011 at 10:25am

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

now that the "rebels" have withdrawn from Brega, I guess we shall just have to see what Egypt does if hundreds of thousands of Libyans flee Benghazi for the Egyptian border. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan%E2%80%93Egyptian_War Too bad Egypt did not finish the job in 1977. Maybe it helps that the rumour in the Arab media is that Israel is helping Qaddhafi, a point I have seen in a variety of news reports this past week, in addition to the curious back-and-forth rumour that both sides are in the grip of Al Qaeda. as to usual skewers, my main criticism about Obama is how ineffective he is using his 'bully pulpit' since the Tahrir Square protests. He should preface each statement with "the American president is no longer the leader of the free world, so please stop thinking that". It is the truth, and there is nothing wrong with getting the rest of the world used to the new reality, in which civil wars with (Cote D'Ivoire) or without (Belgium) guns proliferate, U.S. exports of tear gas and wheat soar, and the strongest multi-lateral military intervention tackles Somali pirates. since I believe world population is double what the earth can sustain, I really do not care how many millions die, or how they die. and yes, I volunteer.

- K2K

March 13, 2011 at 11:21am

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

roid, I couldn't agree more on the need to develop the international law and institutions needed to deal with this sort of thing, so that it isn't the US or nothing. That said, your take on where the law stands needs some updating. It is no longer just the UN Charter. First there was the genocide convention, which obligates all states capable of acting to act to prevent a genocide. But now, more to the point, there is the "responsibility to protect" (R2P), which obligates individual states to act (again, according to their capabilities) to protect civilian populations in situations like that in Libya. An expansive interpretation would allow states to take out Q. as the only means of protecting Libyans from him. The R2P is what the Arab League is working through. Russia's resistance to R2P explains their current position in the SC. But R2P authorizes force outside the SC, and with wide enough acceptance to make Russia's position irrelevant. And irony, your question is why I think it so important to get the Arab League, especially Egypt and Tunisia, out front. A no-fly zone will not be sufficient. We do not want US planes circling around helplessly as the rebels continue to be beaten back. We also do not want Western troops on the ground there. So, before we commit to a no-fly zone, we need an Arab League commitment to employing ground forces, if needed. It suspect that is what the Obama administration (despite pentagon resistance) is trying to do.

- dpaup

March 13, 2011 at 12:06pm

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

http://www.smh.com.au/world/arab-league-backs-libyan-nofly-zone-as-rebels-hit-20110313-1bsvj.html "The 22-member league also agreed to contact the rebels' provisional national council, a move welcomed by the US and Britain. Arab foreign ministers urged the United Nations Security Council ''to assume its responsibilities in the face of the deteriorating situation in Libya and take the necessary measures to impose an air exclusion zone for Libyan warplanes''. The decision was adopted by nine of the 11 foreign ministers attending the meeting at the league's Cairo headquarters, from which Libya was excluded. Algeria and Syria voted against the move." _______________ According to Debkafile: http://www.debka.co.il/article/20760/ החלה סוריה לשלוח בסוף השבוע אוניות טעונות נשק, תחמושת, וחלקי חילוף, לכוחותיו של קדאפי. המקורות הצבאיים והמודיעיניים של תיקדבקה מוסרים בלעדית, כי גנרל לובי הגיע ביום ד' 9.3 למפקדת הצי הסורי בטרטוס והקים שם משרד קשר באמצעותו דמשק וטריפולי מתאמות ביניהן את סוגי וכמויות הנשק, התחמושת, וחלקי החילוף, שהלובים מבקשים מהסורים. Over the weekend, Syria began to send weapon-loaded ships to Kaddafi's forces. On Wedensday, March 9, a Libyan general arrived at the Syrian headquarters located at Tartos and set up a communications center through which Syria and Libya coordinate between them the quantities of weapons Libyans request from Syria. זו הפעם הראשונה, במרד הערבי של 2011, שמדינה ערבית מתערבת במהלכים הצבאיים של שלטון ערבי אחר הנלחם בכוחות שהתמרדו נגדו. הפעולה הסורית היא גם הפרה בוטה של החלטת מועצת הביטחון מס' 1970, אשר הטילה אמברגו נשק על לוב This is the first time in the Arab revolt of 2011 that an Arab state interferes on behalf of the military manouvres of another Arab regime against its insurgents. The Syrian operation is a blatant violation of UNSC Resolution 1970, that imposed an arms embargo on Libya. ___________ Debka is not the most reliable of sources. But what if this is true? What does it mean?

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 12:19pm

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

"So, before we commit to a no-fly zone, we need an Arab League commitment to employing ground forces, if needed. It suspect that is what the Obama administration (despite pentagon resistance) is trying to do." I've been thinking that this crisis ought to be the exclusive problem of the Arab League, or a joint effort between the Arabs and the Europeans. Why should American soldiers be risking their lives while the Arabs stay on the sidelines, watching only to criticize and demonize American forces if something goes wrong? Contrary to the French who said: "allons-y", all the Arab League could say was Allez-vous. Some support.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 12:32pm

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

dpaup, R2P is a concrete expression of the emerging doctrine of humanitarian intervention in the case of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. I think you would have a long way to go to rely on this doctrine for unilateral intervention by the United States, both because what appears to be happening in Libya is rebellion and civil war, not the war crimes referred to, and because, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, it is not contemplated that the machinery of the UN or at least multilateral organizations will be avoided by a single state. From the conclusion of the 2005 summit document: 138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability. 139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2011 at 12:46pm

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

I confess I have not been following the legal literature as closely as I used to, but there is a signal difference, it seems to me, between the specific case of genocide, and humanitarian intervention generally (for war crimes or crimes against humanity). Protection against genocide is a matter of jus cogens, and in fact Albright, when apologizing for the non-intervention in Rwanda, confirmed it as such: to have charaterised the genocide as genocide, the United States would have been legally obligated to intervene; so they did not use the g word for another five years to refer to the reality on the ground, and only then, to apologise. I am not aware of a single European government referring to what was happening in Bosnia as genocide - even though it was coming pretty close - much for the same reason. Humanitarian intervention is, at best, emerging law. Its contours are unclear, as yet. It is clear that the law does not mandate intervention every time there is a humanitarian crisis, or alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity; in certain extreme cases, the law appears to sanction (because states have done so) intervention that is not otherwise covered by the law (UNSC or self-defence), but the circumstances have to be extreme, in my view, otherwise each country would be sending troops to every other country at the slightest pretext of one crime or another. Let us all agree about the morality - or the immorality - of the situation in Libya. Let us agree that "something needs to be done'. Let us even agree that that something involve some sort of military action. All of this as a given, it a tall order, in my view, to criticise Obama for failing to unilaterally engage US military might in a highly fluid situation in a country 5000 miles away. If indeed it is discovered that, as Jacko suggests, Obama was indifferently sipping his latte in the midst of all the ravage, by all means question his ethics, morality or courage. Until then, all the criticism has an air of unreality about it, because they are not placed in the concrete context of existing realities, the questionable history of past interventions and, yes, that pesky thing called law.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 1:10pm

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

roi, I agree, and thanks for the text. I did not make myself very clear. My thinking was that R2P would be sufficient for the Arab League to engage, especially with NATO support, even if Russia vetoed a SC resolution. (There already is an SC resolution with ICC referral, isn't there? It seems to me if there is documentation of attacks on civilians, R2P is already in play.) I definitely do not want unilateral US intervention. But I don't know what I would think if none of this other (far preferable) stuff didn't work. As for what is going on within the Arab League, it was my understanding that even if states (i.e., Algeria and Syria) are against a policy, once the League commits itself, they are all committed to it.

- dpaup

March 13, 2011 at 1:10pm

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

Noga:I (citing Debka) "Over the weekend, Syria began to send weapon-loaded ships to Kaddafi's forces." I don't know the cite and don't know how credible they are. BUT, if this were established, Syria will have violated the UNSC, and it will then be subject to sanctions, including travel bans and quite possibly some sort of cordon sanitaire (a formal blockade would be an act of war, but inspections to enforce UNSC sanctions are not). The Syrian regime cannot be that foolish ... although, I confess, I did not Saddam was that foolish either ... (a criminal monster yes, but not foolish ... goes to show how much I know about these things).

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 1:13pm

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

Dpaup: The Serbian option is, in my view, cleaner. NATO intervened without even taking the matter to the UNSC - but the move had widespread support. If the Arab League proposes to intervene, I would support committing NATO air cover only, without necessarily taking the matter to a UNSC vote. Then again, it would be a lot cleaner to get UNSC support for Arab League intervention (see above note about Syria - you can actually blockade Syrian ports, for example, without leading to war).

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 1:17pm

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

Noga: "or a joint effort between the Arabs and the Europeans. Why should American soldiers be risking their lives while the Arabs stay on the sidelines, watching only to criticize and demonize American forces if something goes wrong ?" (emphasis added) Exactly.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 1:18pm

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

icarusr, as I understand it, R2P is specifically designed for situations calling for humanitarian intervention that fall short of genocide, just to avoid the situation in which everything depends on a technical legal definition. It certainly is emerging law. That is why it is so important to get it right in re Libya. What applies here applies to Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. too. As for what the law ought to be, it seems to me regional security organizations in their own spheres have a sort of second tier authority (the first tier being the SC). Wasn't that principle established in Bosnia? In any case, I don't see how the US would be obligated or authorized to act unless it was as a part of NATO, and it is fairly obvious that the Arab League has precedence over NATO in regard to Libya.

- dpaup

March 13, 2011 at 1:23pm

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

I say boots on the ground and take the cretin(s) out. Now I appreciate Noga's sentiment. No doubt there will be all manner of blame assignment no matter what we do or don't do. I don't see the Pubs getting all bent out of shape about things one way or another thought they would be justified in screaming and howling about the presidential impotence before this catch 22 if domestic political concerns were part of the calculus.

- jacko

March 13, 2011 at 1:31pm

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

I've been getting behind. Icarusr: "The Serbian option is, in my view, cleaner. NATO intervened without even taking the matter to the UNSC - but the move had widespread support. If the Arab League proposes to intervene, I would support committing NATO air cover only, without necessarily taking the matter to a UNSC vote." Yes, what I was trying to say. I would only add that, I am not sure what I would think if none of this works, and conditions in Libya deteriorate. Rothkophf at FP makes thinks we are committed to seeing Q out of power, whether or not the multilateral efforts work. I'm not a blogger, so I don't have to make that judgment yet.

- dpaup

March 13, 2011 at 1:32pm

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

jacko, I was trying to figure out where i'd heard you before, and now i've got it. You're Jack Kerouac, right?

- dpaup

March 13, 2011 at 1:35pm

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

Jacko: "I say boots on the ground and take the cretin(s) out." Er ... well, at least give Obama credit for reflecting a bit - and sipping his latte - before sending American soldiers - the "boots" you talk about - into a situation, from which many would likely return in body bags or maimed, and before committing the United States to an action that, at a minimum, has the potential committing the US to world-wide war for the next two generations, as Russia pumps oil and China advances in economic terms.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 1:40pm

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

"No doubt there will be all manner of blame assignment no matter what we do or don't do." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12708727 "But as noble as the notion of helping the Libyan opposition may feel and sound, the American impulse to help, to impose with allies a "no-fly zone", changes the narrative of protest and change in Libya and sets up a dynamic that could easily backfire on America's interests and reputation. It could also rob success from those seeking to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. [-] A no-fly zone is popular because it scratches an emotional nerve of those wanting to help stop a dictator terrorising people from the skies, but it's a very high-cost, low-return tactic - that may have even more enormous political risks attached. Western 'crusade' The bigger issue of concern about the rush to impose a possible no-fly zone is that it will "change the frame" in the Middle East. Col Muammar Gaddafi speaks to supporters in Tripoli, 2 March Col Gaddafi has cast himself as Libya's defender against the West The story will no longer be the educated, the social network-connected, the aspiring youth rising up to say they are done with the corrupt, rotting terms of the social contract between government and the governed in these countries, the story becomes: what is the West doing now? [-] The cameras would leave the protesters and move to visuals of aircraft carriers and foreign, mostly white, mostly Christian soldiers on yet another "crusade" for Western values in the Middle East. That would be the narrative that would take flight in the Arab media and in the Arab mind."

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 1:54pm

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

Well, dpaup, as I think I mentioned again above, when Wieseltier published the first one of these, my comment was that intervention had to be multilateral and include at least one major Moslem power. That's what I still think. And I do not think the situation in Libya would at present sanction unilateral intervention on humanitarian grounds under that emerging doctrine -- still unclear as icarus says -- or under its concrete expression in R2P. R2P as in the resolution contemplates the use of international machinery. We are not the cops of the world, and there is also a big difference between being legally sanctioned to intervene and legally or morally obliged to do so. It is not the duty of American children to be sacrificed for everyone else in the world. It is not our duty to sacrifice our children in this way.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2011 at 2:07pm

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

roi, nor do I see an obligation for the US to act. I was wondering about sanction for Libya's neighbors or near neighbors to act--with a sort of obligation, if by nothing more than moral suasion, fostered by the broader international community. I would like to see an expansion of situations invoking R2P, but with that regional effect. Isn't that already happening to some degree, especially in Africa? No one expects us to send troops to the Congo, but we help convince the Organization of African States to do so, structure the UN authorization to make their interventions more effective, etc. As for Wieseltier, I have to admit I haven't read the article, 'cause I can't get past the slant. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, he comes from a very, very dark place, and I see no reason to go there anymore.

- dpaup

March 13, 2011 at 2:31pm

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

Oh. I'm just howling into the wind. I'm sure yooz gize won't mind my expressing revulsion at murderous bastards that use the current international law system to dodge accountability for their murderous ways.

- jacko

March 13, 2011 at 2:36pm

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

we don’t need American servicemen on the ground. It is an open desert there. And we sure as hell have not used American servicemen on the ground during our drone attacks in Pakistan where half the time we are bombing innocent families. No one has been raising a stink about that. So a tank column marching across open desert we can’t bomb, a potential Taliban hideout in Pakistan though we can bomb the hell out of. As I have said way above, the inconsistencies are maddening. We can bomb Pakistan…PAKISTAN (an ostensible ally), but not come to the aid of the rebel government in Benghazi…one that now has explicit approval of the Arab league. by the way, one other solution is to have a no conflict zone around Ras Lanuf. No fly zone for either side, and no convoys from either side going in any offensive operation, state it is in order for peaceful negotiations to be brought about. This would give the Benghazi side time to organize into an effective government with a cohesive military structure. If they prove to be a viable pluralistic Democratic mini state then we can recognize them and arm them. From then on it would just be a matter of time. This would also create the possibility that Gadhafi and his sons will retire off to Saudi Arabia with a few billion in loot. Let them go. Yes, I understand the counter question: “Also, what happens if the rebels violate the “no conflict zone”?” Then they will die, if they march off to a Gadhafi stronghold they will be destroyed by Gadhafi. There certainly wouldn’t be any large scale convoys. I am not talking about shooting pick up trucks, but tank and artillery convoys. That requires a very high level of coordination from the top. They aren’t stupid. I am not calling for a no fly zone over all of Libya, just along the line of demarcation, so theoretically once they even got past that no conflict zone (presuming they would want to risk pissing us off) then they would be crushed by Gadhafi and his own airforce since we would be well aware of what was happening we would not even need to intervene. Essentially this will lead to a stalemate. A stalemate benefits the rebels. You will see a daily run of Libyans into Tunisia, they could then be transported to the east and Gadhafi will be a mini dictator of a society of shadows. Southern Sudan is now free. Darfur was also a hell of a lot more complicated situation then you let on. Due to increasing desertification the Jamjaweed wanted to drive farmers off of what they wanted to be their grazing lands. I am not justifying the actions, but far and away most of the killing was done by small groups of Arabs on horseback shooting up a small village. There is nothing we can do about that. This is a whole other situation. We know full well how war can be fought there. We did it already during WW2. Airpower was critical. Rommels lines were stretched thin and his convoys came under withering fire. Gadhafi also ordered the bombing of an American airliner. Tell me what Arab herder ever did so in the Darfur region? There is self interest involved in this as well. We can and do pick and choose our fights based on part ideology and part naked self interest. This fulfills both. Darfur, or the Congo, or the Ivory Coast, they don’t.

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 3:08pm

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

Noga, I don't think one needs super-text-reading skills to get the tone in "To be fair, it is not as though Obama is without company. Among those who would appear to concur with him are Moammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Hugo Chavez" Because Obama is discharging his duty as president to think long and hard about committing U.S. forces to a situation in which that act could have all kinds of dangerous consequences for this country and its interests, that makes him of a piece with Gaddafi, A'jad, and Chavez? Such a remark degrades any credibility Glavin may have had. But on the more important issue, all I am asking for is for people who are enthusiastic about a no-fly-zone to consider the implications of one that doesn't work. An NFZ is not going to give pilots rules of engagement that permit bombing of Libyan ground forces, and even taking out helicopters might be difficult. There are three ominous dangers, as I see them: 1. The no-fly-zone is imposed, but with weak rules of engagement, and Ghaddafi simply ignores it and challenges us to shoot Libyan planes down. We don't. 2. The NFZ is imposed, but has no effect on the war on the ground, which Ghaddafi may be on the point of winning. This then leads to 3. A choice to either concede defeat (ignominiously), withdraw the NFZ order, and thus reveal to the world that any tinpot dicatator can face down a superpower-sponsored measure of that kind, or ratchet up the scale of the intervention (bombing, special forces, naval blockade, whatever) in a situation which is now even more fraught. Things are moving rather fast, so I don't even know if this comment is now moot. However, I think the issue is worth keeping front and center in the face of mounting pressure to "do" something no matter what.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 3:15pm

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

dpaup, I think it would be excellent if the UN were quickly to evolve a system of regional responsibility for maintenance of the peace (not just the already sanctioned collective self-defense) AND R2P. Perhaps the crisis in Libya will be a vehicle for that evolution.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2011 at 3:15pm

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

welcome back blackton: excellent point to demarcate a stop-violence zone although I would have preferred that to be west of Brega. noga: I have no proof, but Syria would be crazy to be delivering weapons to Qaddafi because Qaddafi is Hezbollah's #1 enemy, already indicted in Lebanon for the 1978 'disappearance' of Musa al-Sadr. OTOH, I had read that Algeria was helping Qaddafi by helping the Touregs help supply more sub-Saharan mercenaries. Perhaps Algeria and Sudan and Syria abstained from the vote??? From a fairly good WaPo analysis over what the Arab League vote means to US policy (although I figure what the Gulf States want from the US, they will get, so maybe that is why Gates was in Bahrain.) I have also read that only the US and Russia have the full range of assets required to enforce a no fly zone, but, my position from the beginning has been that Egypt should take the lead since Egypt has the most to lose from either a prolonged civil war, or a retaliatory massacre in Benghazi, and/or a newly empowered crew of Qaddhafis - Saif made a statement that they will not hire Arab migrant workers after this is over, but rely on Bangladeshis, which was part of his public rebuke of the Arab League). the analysis, citing Amr Moussa, the man of the hour (when I excerpt from a source, it means I find that excerpt most relevant, not that I necessarily agree with every word, but this analysis is fairly good - so icarusr can stop wasting his time searching for a different quote from a citation with which to level a personal attack): "...In announcing the Arab League’s decision, Moussa described the no fly-zone as a “preventive measure” whose chief goal is to “protect Libyan citizens.” The vote was taken by the foreign ministers of 21 Arab nations. Representatives of Gaddafi’s government, which the league suspended as a member this month, were not invited. Addressing a packed news conference, Moussa said the Arab League would begin working at once with the Libyan provisional government. He referred to a section of the statement, issued after the vote, that condemned “the fatal violations and serious crimes at the hands of Libyan authorities” in declaring Gaddafi’s regime illegitimate. But Moussa, who is seeking to replace Mubarak in future elections, avoided describing the no-fly zone in military terms. He called the vote an endorsement of a “humanitarian action.” ..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/arab-leagues-backing-of-no-fly-zone-over-libya-ramps-up-pressure-on-west/2011/03/12/ABY04LS_singlePage.html I return to the Mongols, so much more relevant in the 21st century than the quest for the development of international law...and then I am going to read Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin". So much easier to get good sleep by reading about total war and mass civilian massacres...

- K2K

March 13, 2011 at 3:21pm

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

"Oh. I'm just howling into the wind. " You are not alone. You may derive some comfort from this frustrated journalist. As for me, I don't know what to think. People whose judgment I usually trust say intervention now! But I haven't got that feeling of urgency yet. But then, maybe it is better to try and stop it before that stage arrives. As it surely will. There I thought and almost believed Fareed Zakaria when he kept insisting (with a certain schadenfreude that I could never quite figure out why) that America is no longer the #1 leader of the world. And yet nothing seems to move in the right or any, direction without American leadership. Nothing gets done. All eyes are on Obama, the "European" president who is universally admired exactly for his insistence on American non-singularity (Would that be the correct antonym to exceptionalism?). So what's to be done? I'm so comfuzzled. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/13/nick-cohen-european-union-arab-rebellion "Nothing can shake Europe's racism of low expectations, which holds that for an undefined reason – Arab culture, Islam, something in the water – hundreds of millions of people do not want the same rights as us. As I write, the airwaves are full of cocksure voices bellowing that the dismal experience of Iraq ought to have taught us to mind our own business. None says that it also ought to have taught us that Europeans were unable to combine opposition to George W Bush and Tony Blair with any feeling of solidarity towards those Iraqis who wanted a better life after enduring a dictatorship more brutal than Gaddafi's and the assaults of Ba'athists, Iranian-backed militias and al-Qaida. Public opinion behaved as if Iraqis deserved nothing better. As a result, Europe has shown none of the generosity to the Arab world it showed to the states of the former Soviet empire. The EU offered eastern European countries trade privileges if they acted like constitutional democracies. Outside of Europe, trade and aid has had no strings attached. EU governments offered no carrots and wielded no sticks in Algeria, Libya, Jordan, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia. The ending of torture and the promotion of democracy was not a task the EU was prepared to encourage. Revolutionaries are overturning old assumptions with their customary élan. Elite opinion is realising that newly liberated Arab nations will have little reason to regard Europe with anything but contempt. A group of French diplomats put the need for a moral foreign policy better than I ever could when they wrote to Le Monde during the Alliot-Marie scandal and cried that the result of "realism" was that: "Europe is impotent, Africa is falling through our hands, the Mediterranean pays us no attention, China has tamed us, and Washington ignores us!" If Europe is not to be an irrelevance, it must learn what it ought to have known all along: freedom is not only for the rich and the white."

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 3:23pm

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

Irony: If Q is able to prevail this time around he will without ever even having been engaged by the US stake claim to a victory over the powers that be (to include the US most especially). That's the deal that comes with being leader of the free world. We will share a part of however things turn out in Libya whether we lift a finger or not. Whether we like it or not.

- jacko

March 13, 2011 at 3:25pm

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

"noga: I have no proof, but Syria would be crazy to be delivering weapons to Qaddafi because Qaddafi is Hezbollah's #1 enemy " K2K: You've got the power relation wrong. It is Nassralah who is in thrall to the Syrian. Not the other way around.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 3:27pm

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

jacko: bullseye. Obama is the reluctant leader of the "free world". I do tend to agree with the concept that the US is one pole in a multi-polar world, which is why I think Obama should start clarifying his statements. The US no longer has the economic wealth to fill that role. Transitions in history in the era of 24/7 news is a real handicap for all. noga: "K2K: You've got the power relation wrong. It is Nassralah who is in thrall to the Syrian. Not the other way around." Actually, I do understand the power relationship, but I still doubt that Assad and the Alawites would directly supply weapons to Qaddhafi. Musa al-Sadr was born in Iran, and revered throughout the Shi'a arc. No Shi'a would help Qaddhafi, who more recently ordered the assassination of Saudi's King Abdullah, so he certainly is not welcome there. As far as I know, only the Castros, Chavez, and Mugabe still publicly support Qaddafi. Not sure what would happen if the father dies this week, and one of the sons steps forward.

- K2K

March 13, 2011 at 3:56pm

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

I was perfectly happy to see if the rebels could pull it off on their own, obviously they can’t. It was Obama who interfered a lot already, he seized assets, brought up an Aircraft carrier and assault ships, said Gadhafi had to go, etc. If had no intention of ever intervening he should have said simply this is an internal affair of the Libyan people and left it at that. I would have disagreed because of the inconsistencies of being in a war in two (and a half, ie drone bombing in Pakistan) Muslim countries to try to bring about the process the Libyan people themselves are ostensibly rising up to create on their own but at least after all was said and done we still could have done business with Gadhafi, as we did with the Chinese after Tiananmen. But now Obama has created the worst of both worlds, intervening enough to push Gadhafi out of all restraint but not enough to oust him. Lockerbie is likely going to be nothing to what mischief he and his spawn will likely bring about for the next 50 years. They might not be able to go to St. Barts anymore, but I am sure they will be welcome in Macao and Beijing. Gadhafi will likely imagine himself invincible and chosen by God. He will claim he defeated the entire west and he will reward China, Syria, Russia with untold billions in contracts buying himself respectability there all the while funding whatever radical groups he can. Oh, and when Gadhafi does finally die of old age, expect to see western countries bring Libya in from the cold lavishing praise on whichever son emerges in power after he states he “regrets” some of the “incidents” of today, not that I think it will matter in modifying his behavior. We are already spending an enormous amount of money, an aircraft carrier battle group is parked right off the coast, and for what? And the humanitarian nightmare of feeding and supporting what might be a million Libyans who flee to Egypt will cost us billions for who knows how many years. Or do you propose that Egypt shoot any refugees? Of course we will pick up a big chunk of that tab. We have already bought these airplanes, we have the drones. A modified no fly zone over Eastern Libya will not be that expensive, especially when a nice chunk of it can be done with our allies (the French and British are already on board) The cost benefit analysis of getting rid of Gadhafi I think far outweigh the temporary cost (and yes, billions of oil contracts given by a grateful post Gadhafi regime DOES factor into it, you can’t bitch about costs and then discount rewards)

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 3:59pm

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

Also, many comments so I don't remember if this was said but this is tantamount to political suicide for Obama. He will spend a lot of his time fending off accusations that he lost Libya, allowed an epic humanitarian disaster, was timid in the face of even French willingness to intervene. How many times do Democrats have to lose elections because they are perceived as having no balls? This is just political reality. Politically, this should be a no brainer. A no conflict zone would enjoy overwhelming support everywhere...why wouldn't it? Oh wait, Obama blew up a heavily laden military convoy headed towards the east...becomes a problem politically how? Do it once and Gadhafi won't do it again. We are talking about a huge desert. And if Gadhafi puts pick up trucks in the midst of a military convoy he will be the one who will be held responsible for whatever civilian deaths occur. As I said before, I can't support a feckless man who would let this opportunity slip by because of irrational fear that things will not go according to a perfect script so he will do just enough to ensure we have the worst of both worlds, do enough to drive Gadhafi and his regime outside of all restraint and not enough to get rid of him. Honestly, I will wash my hands of him. And if Gadhafi wins and Obama loses, then I suppose people like Irony can feel self satisfied that he lost standing for the principle of...something or other...not watching freedom fighters get slaughtered, no it can't be that principle...oh, right the principle of pretending that walking around protesting with signs outside of the Libyan embassy is the only true way to affect change. I am sorry but if Democrats want to run on us being the equivalent of Mexico internationally, then say so and we can get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, mothball most of our bases and cut defense in half or more. But to drop bombs on potential Taliban houses in rural Pakistan is somehow vital to our national interest but a Gadhafi with untold billions in oil wealth with which to cause mayhem...that is an acceptable risk.

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 4:18pm

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

and Irony, last month everyone made fun of Fox and Beck for saying that all the protesters in Egypt were jihadists and that we had to stick with Mubarak. Now you are saying the rebels in Libya are a bunch of mini Bin Ladens. You know, I don't know how it will play out if they win, I can make no guarantee. The US revolution was a great success, the French revolution a disaster...so your conclusion is no revolution. And please, for those who are opposed in intervention because it offends your sense of never getting involved, don't ever criticize Israel and its settlement policy anymore. Gadhafi can slaughter hundreds of thousands of people and that is perfectly fine, but Israel build a house on a hilltop...that is worse than genocide. (to be clear I am not justifying the settlement policy, just calling into question the rationality of so many absolute non interventionists who never shut up about Israel)

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 4:26pm

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

Two things, blackton: 1. I never said that the rebels in Libya are "a bunch or mini Bin Ladens," or made any statement even remotely like that. If you think I did, then you misread me or confused a post of mine with someone else's. All I have done is ask people who support an NFZ or similar to say up front what they propose if we imposed such measures and they didn't work. Why that question obviously infuriates people, I don't know. It seems basic to me. 2. I'll criticize Israel's settlement policy when and if I feel such a criticism to be justified. I don't often get involved in that discussion -- except during the Biden thing -- but equally I don't know any reason why I shouldn't be entitled to a view on it, as every other Tom, Dick, and Harriet around here appears to be.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 4:48pm

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

irony, you questioned who the rebels are, but did you question who the protesters were during the protests in Egypt? Did you agree with Beck or did you favor the protesters? "All I have done is ask people who support an NFZ or similar to say up front what they propose if we imposed such measures and they didn't work." A no conflict zone would work. How the hell could it not? Draw a line in the sand away from any city or town, monitor it for any large scale troop movements and if you see any blow them up (or tanks and artillery pieces). It is not brain surgery. Gadhafi will not retake Benghazi with a few pick up trucks with machine guns. Obama should have called for a no conflict zone separating the East and West so peaceful negotiations can ensue. I had no idea a truce in the midst of a civil war would be so bad. This doesn’t even mean committing himself to Gadhafi leaving. If the tribes in Western Libya want him so then perhaps a peaceful settlement could have been brought about with Eastern Libya being akin to Kurdistan in Iraq. Now if you are saying a no conflict zone can not work, then lay out in what ways. I am freaking no one and if I can come up with a no conflict zone don't freaking tell me the generals in the Pentagon are not aware of such a scenario. long term a truce would bring about the ruin of Gadhafi, especially if everyone recognizes the Benghazi government as being the legitimate one. Maybe he might, in the end, want to order a full scale invasion of the East in the face of certain annihilation, but ordering it then would likely bring about his own death at the hands of the units ordered to go out to die. Attrition of his money, his supplies, his very citizenry would make his position untenable. Again, I could be wrong but is really your main objection that Libya (an artificial construct of colonial powers) must remain unified absolutely under every condition? Do you oppose what happened in Southern Sudan then? (and this is with official partition, and not a defacto one) If your objection is that we are setting up a kill zone in the middle of a desert because...you know we can never kill anyone ever then I got no answer for you. A no fly zone over Eastern Libya and a demarcation line means peace in Libya. I have no objections if you are advocating an absolutist isolationistic view point. You can vote for candidates that advocate it. Look, this is the way it is for Mexico. They have an economy larger than our own that we had during WW2, and a population nearly as large. They can certainly afford to have a much larger military than they do, but Mexico has no desire to. I have no objections to Mexico’s attitude. They did not say Gadhafi had to go, did not seize his assets, did not park an aircraft carrier off his coast. If you want America to be like Mexico (in this regard) then state so and we can agree to disagree. I don’t want America to be this way. We tried it once and it was a disaster and in an era of global warming and lord knows what else the world needs American leadership, to stand for and defend pluralistic Liberal Democracies whether nascent or fully developed. But this is just my opinion. Disagree as you wish, but you won’t change my mind.

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 5:15pm

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

"And please, for those who are opposed in intervention because it offends your sense of never getting involved, don't ever criticize Israel and its settlement policy anymore." Er, blackie, old chap, methinks you are looking it. This is drawing equivalences as to means, ends, questions, issues, and so on that, frankly, have nothing - not little, but nothing - in common. For one thing, no one here has said, even in jest, that Gadhafi is legally entitled to slaughter many people as he wants without any expectation of criticism, even, from the outside world. In fact, I don't even see anyone here arguing for no intervention - anyone even hinting that they have a "sense of never getting involved" that, somehow is offended. If I may wildly mix my metaphors, you have constructed a straw man out of shadows and fog, and then through your Israel analogy (and earlier, by referring to Auschwitz), launched a nuclear weapon to strike it down. The point of this article, and every other one of Peretz's and LW's articles, has been to lambaste Obama for his alleged "fecklessness". This is because they consider that he has been alternatively not condemning enough, not condemning fast enough, condemning without deploying the military, consulting with allies, not listening to allies, and not deploying the military unilaterally. It is all rather inchoate, but there you have it. Now, you have stepped in and proposed "a wee little NFZ" as an action, *the* action, that would magically end the carnage. As I see it, the point that has gathered Noga, Roid, Irony, Dpaup and me in one corner is NOT fear of intervention, but the failure by the proponents of the "WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING" to 1) clarify the objectives of intervention, and 2) the effectiveness of the means proposed to attaining those objectives. The objective is removal of Gadhafi. What are the means? Ever military analyst who has been in the theatre of war or who has experience with such things has stated that a NFZ imposed unilaterally by the United States will not necessarily attain that objective, and might, in the meantime, have other negative consequences. And so, at a minimum, as Irony states, it is incumbent on those who propose an NFZ, to at least answer the question posed by the analysts. Jacko, at any rate, is honest: let's invade. It is then incumbent upon him to demonstrate not the morality of invasion or ending Gadhafi - we are all in agreement on that - but the costs, in legal, moral, material and strategic terms, of another Western army pouring into anArab Muslim country to save its people. And, given that Obama is accused o fecklessness because of his deliberation and consultations (all of which take, er, time), the proponents of "action now, ACTION NOW" have to demonstrate how it is that they propose that United States proceed to war, alone, in Libya. Where will the soldiers come from? Where will they land? How long will it take to prepare the ground for landing? What are the consequences? ... Iraq was bombed for two months before each of the invasions, and each of the invasions took four to five months to plan. Serbia was bombed for two months before Milosevic was removed - and a million Kosovars landed on our doorsteps. And so on. Are you absolutely certain that Obama is sipping his latte and that there is no planning going on? As for criticising Israel ... well, I once saw a dealer being beaten up by his suppliers in a nasty part of town. I did not get involved personally, though I did look around to make sure that cop cars were around (otherwise, I would have called 911 from home - this is before mobile phones ...). At the same time, I would have no hesitation in talking to my brother if I see him speak out of turn to me or my parents. Failure to put our sons and daughters in harm's way without due deliberation, in a country far away, and given our history of involvement in other such adventures is a far cry from occasionally gently reminding our closest allies of shared values.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 5:28pm

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

I take it that, under the Blackton doctrine, if we are opposed to West Bank settlements, we are obliged to invade Israel or radically reduce our armed forces as being of no use.

- roidubouloi

March 13, 2011 at 5:36pm

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

ick, I assure you I am not "looking" it. Again, you are ignoring my central contention of a demarcation line between East and West Libya. I really don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself. Draw a line in the sand separating the two sides in the middle of the desert, if any large scale tank and artillery column crosses it bomb it, do it for both sides (though no way in hell Benghazi will). Call for a no fly zone over Eastern Libya. Tell me how and why this can not work. But instead you are ignoring what I am writing and arguing what exactly? Against something I am not proposing? Well, fine, lets not invade. And lets not bomb Tripoli, no problem there. Use drones and SAMs. If they shoot down our drones, target on their SAM sites and take them out, we have a lot more drones than they have SAM sites. Again, and try to pay attention. A demarcation line (ie a truce line) with a no fly zone over Eastern Libya. If you are dead set opposed to doing anything in Libya then freaking say so already. And please, don't tell me that no one in the Pentagon has not gamed out this idea already. We already did it during WW2 with Rommel and Montgomery.

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 5:48pm

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

"irony, you questioned who the rebels are" I did not, blackie. I have gone back through every post I made on this thread and there's no comment remotely like that to be found.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 5:50pm

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

blackton: "How many times do Democrats have to lose elections because they are perceived as having no balls?" I would predict this is the last Democratic Presidency for at least twenty more years unless the GOP nominates Rick Santorum to run against Obama. at which point I would bet on a shooting civil war all over the United States. Everything could change on Monday, after Hillary meets with the Benghazi governing council. But I do agree with blackton's assessment - better that Obama had said nothing rather than box Qaddhafi into a corner "must step down". Who would care if a missile strike hit his bunker? or a tank convoy heading to Ras Lanauf? No one. one correction: the USS Enterprise carrier group remains in the Red Sea, not moved off the coast of Libya. However, two destroyers and two amphibious assault ships (both also equipped for humanitarian missions) were moved in position, Qaddhafi waited for two days, and called Obama's bluff. I await the leak of the memo that states how many Libyan civilians had to be murdered by Qaddhafi's arms before there was enough evidence that he had crossed the line.

- K2K

March 13, 2011 at 5:52pm

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

Anyway, a no conflict zone will not push him to any wall, he will and still can maintain power in Western Libya as he assesses his own chances for long term survival. If he did try anything nuts then how much easier would it be to fully take him out instead of starting at worse than scratch, a beaten down, traumatized population who will resent the hell out of us for not doing anything when we had the chance. And all of you are ignoring how this will play out next year during the elections. The Republicans will have countless CNN audiotapes of Libyans pleading for a no fly zone, pleading for anything to be done with Obama doing nothing. I voted for Reagan because I thought Democrats then had no balls or spine. Why do Democrats insist on returning to type? So feel selfrighteous in losing the White House and Senate next year and watch Obamacare wither as Republicans pick it apart at the seams, not funding this, exempting that, at which point they can then declare it a failure and repeal it altogther...all so Gadhafi can stay in power. You people are freaking nuts. Roid. I defy you, absolutey defy you to point out any area where I say we should invade...oh right, you can't. My point is to point out the essential hypocrisy of people screaming because a house is built on a West Bank hilltop calling Israel an apartheid state and Israelis Zionazis, blithely ignoring or justifying inaction in Libya. (oh wait, you will post a statement on TNR saying you don't approve but hey...what can ya do, right?) Hell I would love to pull foreign aid funding from Israel to motivate them to pull out of the West Bank settlements and work towards the Barak settlement plan in 2000. (which in America is the equivalent of a full scale invasion) but I will not do as Roid just did which is to conflate a housing settlement with the raising of Benghazi. (see, I am just as capable of distorting your meaning and intention as you are, I am just honest in that that is what I am doing)

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 6:00pm

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

dpaup: "jacko, I was trying to figure out where i'd heard you before, and now i've got it. You're Jack Kerouac, right?" Dig it.

- jacko

March 13, 2011 at 6:02pm

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

K2K, I am truly stunned at Obama's dithering. It might not be too late, especially now that the Arab league has called for an NFZ. I can live with a long term stalemate, and far more importantly so can the people of Benghazi. Doesn't Obama have TV, have they not been watching CNN (to say nothing of Fox which is a given already) which has been relentless in their criticism of Obama. Bill Clinton, Kerry, Gov. Richardson, etc. all have called for a NFZ. Even if a demarcation line and NFZ does not drive Gadhafi from power it will take the issue off the table for Republicans because they sure as hell won't call for an invasion. But to lose Libya is political suicide, he will lose most national security minded Democrats. And no one can accuse me of not being an Obama supporter before. Here is one scary thought for you people. Obama loses Libya, Lieberman announces and independent run, runs as a liberal in domestic policy and a hawk on Foreign policy and wins enough votes (especially in Florida) to cost Obama the election. By the way I would love if Israel were to bomb Libya and then deny it was them and blame Obama. (that is if Obama does not do something very, very soon)

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 6:24pm

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

anyway, I gotta run. I dropped my satellite box (I was moving my entertainment center and did not realize the cords were so entwined) so no TV but I really should read a book.

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 6:26pm

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

sorry blackton is missing this story about what the 'rebels' may do tomorrow http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/953164--the-star-in-libya-libyan-general-not-just-another-rebel-leader?bn=1 "...Younis was, until just 20 days ago, Gadhafi’s right-hand man, the interior minister of the regime he now intends to destroy. The two shared a four-decade history dating to the original 1969 revolution. When Younis threw in his lot with the uprising, urging the army to follow suit, the Gadhafi regime claimed he had been “kidnapped.” But a few days later the BBC tracked him down at a secret location outside Benghazi, where Younis predicted the dictator he knows so well would “either commit suicide or resist until he falls.” Asked then whether he considered Gadhafi insane, Younis said, “Only God knows. He takes very dangerous decisions in a state of anger. It is impossible to think he is completely sane.” But here alongside Brega, Younis was in no mood to discuss Gadhafi. In an interview with the Star he referred to the regime only as an abstract opponent. And he explained away what to most of us seemed a tide-turning week as a minor tactical setback. “We have our special forces in the lead now, with the volunteer fighters under increasing command,” Younis said in fluent English. “The reason they hit us so hard was specific: The other side needs fuel. They are running low in Tripoli, and now they have a fleet of 40 fuel trucks behind their lines, waiting to fill up at the depot in Gamra,” he said. ..." BTW, Gamra is not a city. It refers to the Great Man-Made River project, GMRA. Based on the map I just found, I wish General Younis best wishes for the trap he has set by drawing Qaddhafi's forces to the edge of Ajdabiya, which may be where this fuel depot is actually located.

- K2K

March 13, 2011 at 6:42pm

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

irony, you never once questioned the ideology of the rebels? If not, then I am sorry for thinking you did, but to be honest your objections would have made more sense to me if you did. If you have faith that the rebels do want a peaceful and pluralistic liberal society how much less sense does an objection to support them becomes in my mind. Ok, now I got to run.

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 6:42pm

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

Blackie, your comment makes no sense to me. How is the ideological composition of the rebels (which I think we have very little sense of other than that they are sick to death of living under Ghaddafi's rule and want to rid themselves of him) relevant to the entirely strategic and tactical question that I am posing. When I ask, what if we impose a no-fly-zone and it doesn't work? I am not dismissing the rebel cause -- I'm not even being neutral for god's sake -- but rather insisting that people don't fudge this one behind their passion for supporting the guys fighting. U.S. involvement could (a) have lots of effects we can't predict and (b) end up being deeper and messier than we'd like. The reason I'm asking is that my impression is that folks don't quite want to think this through -- they just assume a NFZ plus some kind of communication jamming will do the trick. It might, but it might not. And the president has to responsibility to think hard about that as it'll be him giving the order and him who will have the red target on his back if things don't go to plan.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 7:13pm

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

K2K:"which is why I think Obama should start clarifying his statements" I would like it if he would be more clear as well. I'm not looking for magic words but I do believe there are ways to help vouchsafe the idea of freedom and democracy. He should frame the events in moral terms for clarity sake as we approach the globalization of our collective conversations. It's a whole new gig out there in the big world and the US positions on cooperative contingencies is a subject which must needs be spoken to. The political ambiguity screen and pick your projector is an election strategy. Not a leadership strategy. Now you may be talking about specifics on policy regarding the contenders but I think if he were to tend to what I'm talking about all of those things would take care of themselves.

- jacko

March 13, 2011 at 7:35pm

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

ironyroad How many times do I have to write a demarcation line, or how about if we call it a DMZ out there in the middle of the desert. How the hell can Gadhafi get enough troops and supplies to lay seige to Benghazi? He can't. Libya is a huge country with few people. They have few roads, so if he were to strike out over the desert we would still see them (and it would take them a long time). You keep saying what if it doesn't work, but that makes NO sense whatsoever. How the hell can it not work? Drones, spy satellites, SAMs will render the East of Libya untouchable. Maybe an occasional jet might run the gauntlet, drop ordinance and then get shot down by us. That is it. A DMZ and a no fly zone over Eastern Libya. Tell me how the high holy hell that can not work. Do Libyan tanks have cloaking ability? Yes, if a tank column crosses the line we will have to blow it up. We will only need to do it once. The next column he sends expect the soldiers to abandon it short of the line and defect, at which point we can blow them up without any casualties. It will be a stalemate, I get that. But are you really arguing against that? Yes, what if Gadhafi digs a 3,000 mile tunnel under the desert and miraculously pops up in Benghazi, or what if Gadhafi gets teleporter technology. A DMZ in the middle of the Libyan desert will mean Benghazi will not be attacked. A few pickup trucks getting through is not going to cause Benghazi to fall. You keep arguing an argument against which I am not making. Just f-ing say you want us to do nothing already then. To state taking out a armored convoy on the road to Benghazi is unacceptable then means everything is unacceptable. Again, line in the sand, neither side can cross it. Negotiations to then ensue. Now you are arguing against freaking peace. Unbelievable.

- blackton

March 13, 2011 at 7:45pm

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

I think K2K made some reference earlier on that there are back and forth rumours between the two sides each blaming the other of being Al Qaeda. Maybe that's the source of blackton's confusion.

- noga1

March 13, 2011 at 7:53pm

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

Now I don't know -- I've been talking all along about a no-fly-zone plus. I didn't realize you were talking about actual offensive operations against tanks or artillery. My bad, I should have read more closely. OK so what you're asking for is something like the Kosovo operation, or perhaps East Timor? If there was a robust Security Council resolution to be had, then it might work. The problem is that that's unlikely and as the days drag on the rebels morale -- which may be quite strong at the moment -- may begin to disintegrate. If you're talking, however, about a unilateral American/NATO intervention including that kind of firepower, that's another world of possibility. It seems, though, that getting into a shooting war with Ghaddafi forces is exactly what most people -- even the pro-NFZ/intervention camp -- want to avoid at all costs.

- ironyroad

March 13, 2011 at 8:02pm

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

Noga: "You are not alone. You may derive some comfort from this frustrated journalist. As for me, I don't know what to think. People whose judgment I usually trust say intervention now! But I haven't got that feeling of urgency yet. But then, maybe it is better to try and stop it before that stage arrives. As it surely will." I appreciate your personal note and your general concerns. For me it is problematic. I voted for Obama and not being all that different than most folks find myself wanting to protect my investment. Thus I end up projecting on to Obama all sorts of values and attentions which may or may not be warranted. Given his, as Weiselteir put it, occultations I'm left with a faith the likes of which I shouldn't be required to carry. Given what I know, which isn't much as weighed against the information a president is privy to, I would as a general principle be inclined to pull the plug on Q and would make no secret of it. I would never ask any soldier or sailor to do what I would not be willing to do myself. Consequently they would all have the green light for a shot. I'd do what I could to get them one too. I really wouldn't worry all that much about ME sensibilities. That whole mess is going to be a protracted animosity under the best of circumstances. The Islam/West thing shouldn't suffer all that much at the hands of having dispatched a common enemy. I know.... some will say its not that simple. It is possible to outsmart oneself. I recall the rationale after the 91 action in Iraq which contended that Hussein et al provided a balancing measure to the Shi'ite aspirations. Allowing him to stay in power would serve this purpose. Those auspices didn't work out all that well. I thought it was obscene. Still do. Somehow I think it more possible that an aggressive defense of the Southern Iraqi Shi'ite would have spoken much more accommodatively than any realpolitik considerations. Hey. I say take a shot at trusting human nature on the most basic terms even if God definitions are miles apart. We've gotta start somewhere.

- jacko

March 13, 2011 at 8:57pm

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

Blackie: you will note that, again, the question is not intervention or no intervention, but by whom, how, when, and under what authority. Given that most people here appear to be in favour of multilateral intervention, and that much of LW's attack arises out of utter disdain for consultations with allies, it seems to me that your disillusionment with Obama is that he is not imposing a DMZ on Gadhafi unilaterally. That is to say, you are arguing that at the first sign of civil war and Gadhafi's attacks on his own people, in effect, the United States ought unilaterally to have declared war on what is still the government of Libya. I mean, if that is what you are proposing, there is at least some precedent for it. Granada; Panama; Nicaragua ... US medical students here; vital national interests there; humanitarian concerns everywhere ... There is some moral consistency in that - whether it is a state of affairs that the rest of the world will welcome, I am not so sure. Whether it is a state of affairs that the mothers and fathers of US armed forces, and the US taxpayer, would want, is less clear. Whether it is at all healthy to establish a rule that the US will be the gendarme of the world according to its principles, and interests, is even less certain ... please bear in mind that today it is a moral reason; there is no reason to think that tomorrow's war under a President Palin or Santorum will actually advance "freedom and democracy". I have no proof of this, but I know something of how democratic governments function. I submit that what you are seeing in DC is neither indecision nor inaction; there is deliberation and planning; there are consultations; and just as a remarkable and unprecedented UNSC passed unanimously last week, and then the Arab League resolution this weekend, I suggest to you action there will be, it will be concerted, and it will be effective. There is not a single government in the Arab world that will be safe from acts of terrorism if Gadhafi stays - they all know that. They just had to see their way to making a tough decision, and now they have done so - and I really don't think the US was a bystander in all that.

- icarusr

March 13, 2011 at 9:27pm

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

Iraq war was unjustified. We went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. Having been unsuccessful, we should have left years ago. Libya is a disaster awaiting any intervention.Let the French or the Italians step in. There is no geopolitical basis for us to once again become occupiers, not liberators, at high human and other costs. From a humane viewpoint let us make sure the the Sudan secession works out, so that we don't have another Rwanda or Biafra.

- NJR8284

March 13, 2011 at 10:06pm

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

ic, well said, well said. I would just add that, on the unilateralist side of this debate, there is a strong conviction that calls for multilateralism in foreign affairs, especially in matters of life and death, are nothing but covers for irresponsibility--as in, the US will say "it has to be multilateral," and then, if nothing happens, "well, we tried, but couldn't get [take your pick] to go along." They are sure that is the game here, hence their premature accusations of fecklessness. But then that is why I keep asking: What if the multilateral approach doesn't work here? LW wouldn't be vindicated, not to my way of thinking, because I think Obama, Powers, Rhodes, Rice, and now Clinton really are trying to make it work. But of course, by LW's and blackie's way of thinking, I'm pie-in-the-sky anyway. More broadly, if multilateralism would become the way of the world, it needs to build on a record of success. So what if it doesn't succeed, where the end (Q's removal) is so clearly stated? I think we're committed. Obama's not explicitly raising the multilateral flag over Libya--explaining the policy in universal terms--because he doesn't want to see it shot to pieces; but he is also holding back, and holding NATO back, because Arab states won't act if they think the West will ride to the rescue. But we're already committed to Q's removal, and are only trying for the best means to do it. There won't be a fig leaf "we tried, but they wouldn't go along with us." It will rather be the other way: Q will be gone, one way or another, and Obama and Rhodes will do their best to spin however it happens as exemplary multilateral action.

- dpaup

March 13, 2011 at 11:02pm

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

"There is some moral consistency in that - whether it is a state of affairs that the rest of the world will welcome, I am not so sure." That boat left harbor a long time ago. We are blowing up rural houses in Pakistan with drones as we speak. We don't seem to be too concerned about what the world thinks already. And try telling that to the families of the Afghanistan children we attacked with a helicopter gunship. the world has already processed it and forgot about it. These areas are far, far more difficult to deal with yet we perform offensive operations all the time. There aren't going to be any children driving tank columns. We are running out of time. I hoped for a DMZ west of Brega. Feckless Obama will wait until Tobruk falls and then declare that Gadhafi can no longer fly his luxury airplanes to resorts in St. Barts. That will show him. Gadhafi wins, Obama loses in 2012...fine. Maybe, just maybe we can get a Truman style Democrat with a spine for once. In a post 9/11 world no Democrat will lose because he was TOO aggressive militarily but to do nothing, even after the French, the British, Bill Clinton, the Arab league, etc. all called for a no fly zone will freaking hang him next year. So go ahead, feel some kind of bizarre self satisfaction as Democrats lose next year, after all the principle of doing nothing is so important.

- blackton

March 14, 2011 at 11:03am

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/africa/15libya.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all [another feckless leader?] "...Mr. Erdogan told Al Arabiya television that he had pressed Colonel Qaddafi to appoint a president with broad support as a way of meeting demands for peaceful change. ..." [from the same report] "...Residents of Zawarah, a Berber town of about 40,000 near the Tunisian border, said pro-Qaddafi forces surrounded them three days ago, blocking anyone from entering or exiting. Schools, banks and many stores were closed as residents awaited an attack. But, residents said, the tricolored rebel flag still flew over the town square on Monday. “We know what happened in Zawiyah, and we think that the same thing is going to happen here soon,” one resident said, speaking anonymously to protect himself and his family from retribution. “They say that if you take down the flag, we will let you live,” he added. ..." [what happened in Zawiya? the civilian population apparently disappeared during Qaddafi's onslaught. perhaps the sandstorm approaching Brega will swallow Qaddhafi's tanks and men today]

- K2K

March 14, 2011 at 12:13pm

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

While we're on the topic of moral consistency, how about the Europeans actually doing something themselves for a change? It's not as if they don't have any military assets. How about the Arab League members who are calling for a no-fly-zone actually stepping up and making available some aircraft for one, e.g. from Egypt, next door? Or from Saudi Arabia?

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 12:28pm

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

irony, yes, lets all stand around and watch Libya burn down while we argue which fire truck should spray the water. Just say you don't f-ing care about the Libyans and Gadhafi winning. Why can't you be upfront about it. I am basically accusing you and Obama of this, you will not be running for anything, he will. He will not get my vote, and 2012 might be a lot like 2010. Is that what you want? Is this all about feeding your inner nihilist? Death and ruin in Libya now, death and ruin in the US after 2012.

- blackton

March 14, 2011 at 1:01pm

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

Multilateral is not meant merely as cover for the US to do what it wants ergo we should do so with or without the cooperation of other key nations. That is, it is not unilateralism with a fig leaf. It is the idea that we have no unique vocation to send our own to death for the world and should so so only where we have a compelling and legal interest of our own or are sharing with others the responsibility of maintaining order and security. If there is no international consensus, then the Libyans will have to succeed or fail on their own. It is not our responsibility to pay in blood for their freedom.

- roidubouloi

March 14, 2011 at 1:18pm

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

roid, I agree with the principle, and yes, it would be disheartening to see some bs ad hoc "coalition of the willing" cooked up to handle Libya. But there are many different grades here, right? I think the responsibility should lie with the Arab League. But what about NATO, should the Arab League continue to hold back? I think it would be a mistake, because of what happens when a NFZ proves insufficient; but would Arab League endorsement sanction it? I could see that as an Obama administration argument; whether that's a mere fig leaf, I don't know. On second thought, I don't think the legality matters--I don't see how to justify a NFZ without a commitment from the Arab League to engage on the ground, as needed. Do we really want the Arab League to have capacity to pressure NATO, especially the US, to act when it won't act on its own? I guess not. I mean, what's the point of the law if it doesn't actually reduce reliance on US military intervention? Obviously I'm having a hard time accepting the conclusion. It's like Augustine's prayer: Lord please grant me chastity; only, not yet.

- dpaup

March 14, 2011 at 2:10pm

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

Roid and Dpaup: Thought you might be interested in the following from The National Post.

At this stage, it seems the only thing that can stop Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's rampage is the sort of quick, unilateral military intervention that fell out of fashion after the Iraq War. But, having made a fetish of international law, multilateralism and the Security Council's moral authority in 2003, many world leaders -including, apparently, Mr. Obama -are afraid to act in 2011, lest a bloody or prolonged operation invite the familiar chorus of accusations involving oil, imperialism and Islamophobia. In other words: What the humanitarian, anti-war left sowed in Iraq, it is now reaping in Libya.
Who'd thunk it, we're all fetishists ...

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 4:38pm

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

blackton: "Just say you don't f-ing care about the Libyans and Gadhafi winning. Why can't you be upfront about it?" I can't be upfront about it because that is not my position or my instinctive feeling. But I don't want to to open up a pandora's box of potential horrors in which we find ourselves in a North African civil war with each step of involvement being taken because we didn't think about what would happen if the previous step didn't pan out.

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 4:49pm

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

"Is that what you want? Is this all about feeding your inner nihilist? Death and ruin in Libya now, death and ruin in the US after 2012." :) "You are either with us, or against us." Seen the movie; 4200 Americans and countless Iraqis paid the ticket price. Between nihilism and gung-ho buckaroo-ism there are lots of option. Accusations such as this do not persuade; they only sound like a replay, faded and skipping, of old vinyls.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 5:10pm

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

[quote of the year] "..."Everyone here is puzzled as to how many casualties the international community judges to be enough for them to help. Maybe we should start committing suicide to reach the required number," the rebel spokesman, Essam Gheriani, said in Benghazi. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8381758/Libya-David-Cameron-warns-time-is-running-out-to-stop-Gaddafi.html

- K2K

March 14, 2011 at 5:53pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close