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 Obama’s Moment of Truth

WORLD MARCH 15, 2011

Obama’s Moment of Truth

BY LARRY DIAMOND

Each president of the United States enters office thinking he will be able to define the agenda and set the course of America’s relations with the rest of the world. And, almost invariably, each confronts crises that are thrust upon him—wars, revolutions, genocides, and deadly confrontations. Neither Woodrow Wilson nor FDR imagined having to plunge America into world war. Truman had to act quickly, and with little preparation, to confront the menace of Soviet expansion at war’s end. JFK, for all his readiness to “bear any burden” in the struggle for freedom, did not expect his struggle to contain Soviet imperial ambitions would come so close to the brink of nuclear annihilation. Nixon was tested by a surprise war in the Middle East. Carter’s presidency was consumed by the Shah’s unraveling and the Iranian revolution. George H.W. Bush rose to the challenge of communism’s collapse and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Clinton squandered the opportunity to stop a genocide in Rwanda and waited tragically too long before stopping one in Bosnia. George W. Bush mobilized the country to strike back after September 11, but, in the view of many, he put most of his chips in the wrong war.

In the eye of the historical storm, and in the absence of a challenge as immediate and overpowering as September 11, Pearl Harbor, or the Nazis’ march across Europe, it is risky to identify any set of world events as game-changing. Yet that is what many analysts, including myself, believe the Arab revolutions of 2011 are. And a surprising number of specialists—including hard-eyed realists like Fareed Zakaria—have seized upon the crisis in Libya as a defining moment not just for the United States in the region but for the foreign policy presidency of Barack Obama as well.

To date, one could say that Obama has had a surprisingly good run for a foreign policy neophyte. He has revived the momentum for arms control with a new START treaty with Russia, while pressing the issue of human rights within Russia. He has managed the meteoric rise of China decently, while improving relations with India. He has not cut and run from Iraq—as most Republicans were convinced he would. And he has ramped up but at least set limits to our involvement in Afghanistan. As the Arab revolutions have gathered momentum, he has increasingly positioned the United States on the side of democratic change. His statements and actions have not gone as far as democracy promotion advocates (like myself) would have preferred, but they have overridden cautionary warnings of the foreign policy establishment in the State Department, the Pentagon, think tanks, and so on. Without Obama’s artful choreography of public statements and private messages and pressures, Hosni Mubarak might still be in power today.

All of this, however, may appear in time only a prelude to the fateful choice that Obama will soon have to make—and, one fears, is already making by default in a tragically wrong way—in Libya. Why is Libya—with its six million people and its significant but still modest share of global oil exports—so important? Why must the fight against Muammar Qaddafi—a crazy and vicious dictator, but by now, in his capacity for global mischief, a largely defanged one—be our fight?

When presidents are tested by crisis, the world draws their measure, and the impressions formed can have big consequences down the road. After watching Jimmy Carter’s weak and vacillating posture on Iran, the Soviets figured he’d sit on the sidelines if they invaded and swallowed Afghanistan. They misjudged, but Afghanistan and the world are still paying the price for that misperception. In the face of mixed messages and a long, cynical game of balance-of-power, Saddam too, misjudged that he could get away with swallowing up Kuwait in 1991. When the United States did not prepare for war as naked aggression swept across Asia and Europe, the Japanese thought a quick strike could disable and knock out the slumbering American giant across the Pacific. When Slobodan Milosevic and his Bosnian Serb allies launched their war of “ethnic cleansing,” while “the West”—which is always to say, first and foremost, the United States—wrung its hands, many tens of thousands of innocent people were murdered and raped before President Bill Clinton finally found the resolve to mix air power and diplomacy to bring the genocidal violence to a halt.

If Muammar Qaddafi succeeds in crushing the Libyan revolt, as he is well on his way to doing, the U.S. foreign policy establishment will heave a sad sigh of regret and say, in essence, “That’s the nasty business of world politics.” In other words: nasty, but not our business. And so: not their blood on our hands. But, when we have encouraged them to stand up for their freedom, and when they have asked for our very limited help, it becomes our business. On February 23, President Obama said: “The United States … strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people. That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. They are not negotiable. … And they cannot be denied through violence or suppression.” Yet denying them through murderous violence and merciless suppression—with a massacre of semi-genocidal proportions likely waiting as the end game in Benghazi—is exactly what Qaddafi is in the process of doing.

Barack Obama has bluntly declared that Qaddafi must go. The Libyan resistance, based in Benghazi, has appealed urgently for the imposition of a no-fly zone. Incredibly, the Arab League has endorsed the call, as has the Gulf Cooperation Council. France has recognized the rebel provisional government based in Benghazi as Libya’s legitimate government—while Obama studies this all. Can anyone remember a time when France and the Arab League were ahead of the United States on a question of defending freedom fighters?

There is much more that can be done beyond imposing a no-fly zone. No one in their right mind is calling for putting American boots on the ground in Libya. But we can jam Qaddafi’s communications. We can, and urgently should, get humanitarian supplies and communications equipment, including satellite modems for connection to the Internet, to the rebels in Benghazi, where they can be supplied by sea. And we should find a way to get them arms as well. Benghazi is not a minor desert town. It is Libya’s second largest city, a major industrial and commercial hub, and a significant port. Through it, a revolt can be supplied. If Benghazi falls to Qaddafi, it will fall hard and bloodily, and the thud will be heard throughout the world.

Time may be running out. As the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday, “All that stands between Kadafi and rebel headquarters in Benghazi are disorganized volunteers and army defectors spread thinly along the coastal highway.” They have passion and courage, but they lack weaponry, strategy, and training. Like so many rebel movements, they need time to pull these all together. Time is what a no-fly zone and an emergency supply line can buy them.

Libya’s rebels are pleading for our help. “Where is America?” asked one of them, quoted in the L.A. Times, who was manning a checkpoint in Port Brega. “All they do is talk, talk, talk. They need to get rid of these planes killing Libyan people.” The “they” he was referring to was the Americans, beginning with their leader—one would hope, still the leader of the “free world”—President Obama.

Many prudent reasons have been offered for doing nothing. It is not our fight. They might lose anyway. We don’t know who these rebels really are. We have too many other commitments. And so on. The cautions sound reasonable, except that we have heard them all before. Think Mostar and Srebrenica. And we had a lot of commitments in World War II as well, when we could have and should have bombed the industrial infrastructure of the Holocaust. As for the possibility that the rebels might lose—a prospect that is a possibility if we aid them and a near certainty if we do not—which would be the greater ignominy: To have given Libya’s rebels the support they asked for while they failed, or to have stood by and done absolutely nothing except talk while they were mowed down in the face of meek American protests that the Qaddafi’s violence is “unacceptable”?

Oh yes. There is also the danger that China will veto a U.N. Security Council Resolution calling for a no-fly zone. Part of us should hope they do. Let the rising superpower—more cynical than the reigning one ever was—feel the first hot flash of hatred by Arabs feeling betrayed. Go ahead, make our day.

Presidents do not get elected to make easy decisions, and they certainly never become great doing so. They do not get credit just because they go along with what the diplomatic and military establishments tell them are the “wise and prudent” thing to do. This is not Hungary in 1956. There is no one standing behind Qaddafi—not the Soviet Union then, not the Arab League now, not even the entirety of his own army. That is why he must recruit mercenaries to save him. Qaddafi is the kind of neighborhood bully that Slobodan Milosevic was. And he must be met by the same kind of principled power. For America to do less than that now—less than the minimum that the Libyan rebels and the Arab neighbors are requesting—would be to shrink into global vacillation and ultimately irrelevance. If Barack Obama cannot face down a modest thug who is hated by most of his own people and by every neighboring government, who can he confront anywhere?

For the United States—and for Barack Obama—there is much more at stake in Libya than the fate of one more Arab state, or even the entire region. And the clock is ticking.

Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University, where he directs the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

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

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 156 comments

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

156 comments

Quite the parade of historical analogies, except for the most apposite one, Iraq, 1991. But then they seem to be merely for heroic flavor anyway. The basic point is that Obama's rhetoric about Qaddafi's illegitimacy put his (our?) prestige on the line, and this would be a bad time to lose that, especially in the ME. Something to that. What if, though, the judgment (in the intelligence community, DoD, etc.) is that it will take "boots on the ground" to decide the thing? In that case, it would seem to me prudent to get the Arab League to commit to ground forces, should they be needed, before we tell them, don't worry, we'll take care of it. Overly cautious? I don't see how, unless those heroic analogies are doing more work here than I thought they were.

- dpaup

March 15, 2011 at 1:15am

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

Wow! There seems to be a TNR coordinated push for going to war yet again. You say France has taken the lead? Great, so why then is France not going it alone to aid the rebels if the case for intervention is so clear cut?

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 1:17am

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

Wow! There seems to be a TNR coordinated push for going to war yet again. You say France has taken the lead? Great, so why then is France not going it alone to aid the rebels if the case for intervention is so clear cut with little or no downside? Every TNR writer is so SURE we don't need boots on the ground - just jam their communications, use a few drones to bomb Gaddafi, get armaments to the rebels - and should do it. But what if do these things and we don't achieve the the desired goal or even end up with a worse situation? Maybe those who actually have to make the tough decisions are hard at work figuring out all the details before taking action. Let's not assume otherwise just yet.

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 1:26am

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

I see TNR is banging the drums of war again. Awesome . . . because it worked out so well last time. Keep your advice.

- ATLeft

March 15, 2011 at 2:22am

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

The rebellion in Lybia presents a clear case of good vs. evil, where we have the opportunity and obligation to act on the side of the good -- for the sake of morality and in our own national interest. Diamond is absolutely correct. We should help the rebels. Iraq is not an analogy. We sent ground troops in both wars. And there were no indigenous rebels to support. This is not "banging the drums of war." The war is there. The issue is which side are we on. In Lybia, the rebels are only asking for supplies, advice and a no flight zone. I am dubious about a no flight zone, simply because it means risking American lives. But sending supplies, including military supplies, and advice are a case of meeting basic humanitarian needs. All that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good people to avert their eyes and do nothing. I understand that the slippery slope argument will be invoked. It will always be invoked, in every case where government decides to act or not to act. Here, as we used to say in law school, that cuts both ways: From my point of view, if we do not support the rebels, we are condoning the murder of civilians and torture and despotism and giving the green light to every actual and potential despotism on the globe. That's the real slippery slope we face. Obama has said many fine words about supporting the struggle for liberty around the world. Fine words butter no parsnips. We need action to support those words -- prudent, limited, appropriate action, but nonetheless action. Is it inevitable that the rebels have homegrown liberal democrats waiting to lead --their own equivalents of the founding fathers, Lincoln and FDR. Certainly not. But we do know that they are putting their lives on the line to be free from despotism, and that is a worthy cause to support, if only in our own interest.

- PeteBeck

March 15, 2011 at 6:11am

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

The rebellion in Lybia presents a clear case of good vs. evil, where we have the opportunity and obligation to act on the side of the good -- for the sake of morality and in our own national interest. Diamond is absolutely correct. We should help the rebels. Iraq is not an analogy. We sent ground troops in both wars. And there were no indigenous rebels to support. This is not "banging the drums of war." The war is there. The issue is which side are we on. In Lybia, the rebels are only asking for supplies, advice and a no flight zone. I am dubious about a no flight zone, simply because it means risking American lives. But sending supplies, including military supplies, and advice are a case of meeting basic humanitarian needs. All that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good people to avert their eyes and do nothing. I understand that the slippery slope argument will be invoked. It will always be invoked, in every case where government decides to act or not to act. Here, as we used to say in law school, that cuts both ways: From my point of view, if we do not support the rebels, we are condoning the murder of civilians and torture and despotism and giving the green light to every actual and potential despotism on the globe. That's the real slippery slope we face. Obama has said many fine words about supporting the struggle for liberty around the world. Fine words butter no parsnips. We need action to support those words -- prudent, limited, appropriate action, but nonetheless action. Is it inevitable that the rebels have homegrown liberal democrats waiting to lead --their own equivalents of the founding fathers, Lincoln and FDR. Certainly not. But we do know that they are putting their lives on the line to be free from despotism, and that is a worthy cause to support, if only in our own interest.

- PeteBeck

March 15, 2011 at 6:12am

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

Once again, as in Iraq in 2003, we see the DC punditocracy lining up to fight to last drop of somebody'e else's blood. I know someone has no real argument in favor of U.S. intervention when he or she starts dragging out genocidal examples from history. What Qadaffi is doing isn't genocide, it is repression. Here's a different sort of analogy: Why didn't Larry Diamond and the rest of the interventionists advocate intervention in the Congolese Civil War that has cost so many lives nobody knows the true number? It's far bloodier than anything that will happen in Libya, the number of lives dwarfs anything that will happen in Libya. It was also a civil war in Africa. And, like Libya, it pitted a brutal dictator against a disparate and disputatious tribal group that we know little about. Seems like if you can make a case for sending troops to Libya you can make a case for sending troops to Congo. Never heard that case being made, particularly by America's neocon community, of which Mr Diamond is a part. Funny that.

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 6:58am

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

What's happening in Libya is not a clear case of good v. evil. It might be. It's just as likely to be a case of evil v. evil. We don't know. And that's a big part of the argument against intervening in another country's civil war. We don't know enough about these rebels. One commentator here calls them "democrats" with absolutely no evidence. It's just silly. Nobody knows what percentage of these rebels are violent jihadists, but it could be very high. When someone tells me they don't know anything about the rebels, but they must be better than the dictator, I think: Get some real answers to real questions and then come back and make your case again.

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 7:01am

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

Any discussion of being involved AT ANY LEVEL in Lybia is absolutely nuts. Has the U.S. not learned the many lessons we have been taught since Korea? This is not our problem and we have to cease our habit of feeling that we have to use the over-sized military we have built up over the last 30 years. I am sorry that bad things happen to good people but the U.S. military cannot be the solution to every humanitarian crisis that comes along. There is a time for us to say "No more, somebody else needs to step up or it really is not that important." That time is now. Let the so-called emerging superpowers take the lead finally. China, Brazil, India, Russia, all have made claims to that effect recently. If they consider themselves on equal footing as us let them take a place in the international arena and deal with this. Otherwise we should let this situation play itself out. There are dozens of military strong men in the world that we have not only learned to ignore, we are actually embracing. This might be just one more.

- e065702

March 15, 2011 at 7:28am

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

PeterBeck wrote: "The rebellion in Lybia presents a clear case of good vs. evil, where we have the opportunity and obligation to act on the side of the good -- for the sake of morality and in our own national interest. Diamond is absolutely correct. We should help the rebels." I don't think the issue is whether to help or not help the rebels,. The question is how best do we help them? With that being said, I refuse to believe that this is a clear case of good vs. evil. We didn't help the Sudanese in Dafur, I that wasn't a clear case of good vs. evil for you? Iraq is not an analogy. We sent ground troops in both wars. And there were no indigenous rebels to support. This is not "banging the drums of war." The war is there. Distinction without a difference. The way is certainly there, but we are not at war with Libya. There are lots of wars all over the globe. Do you advocate American involvement in all these instances? How about we invade Russia to save the Chechens? "The issue is which side are we on. In Lybia, the rebels are only asking for supplies, advice and a no flight zone. I am dubious about a no flight zone, simply because it means risking American lives. But sending supplies, including military supplies, and advice are a case of meeting basic humanitarian needs." Oh buddy, your naivete is so cute. My daughter is hungry and only asking for a few dollars to buy candy. However, experience tells me she will need more than candy. What should I do? Simply cave in to her demand or give her what I really think she needs that I can afford to give her? What if it'll take more than five minutes to prepare her a meal? Would that be immoral to deny candy to a hungry child because I would rather take the time to cook her a decent meal? Does my decision suggest I am against feeding my own child?

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 8:03am

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

"We need validation that it is appropriate, and won't cause more damage" Obama quoted on the sand berm dispute by Raffi Khattchadourian, "The Gulf [of Mexico] War: Were there any heroes in the BP oil disaster?", March 14, 2011 The New Yorker. A very long and worthwhile read, but, I have to admit, when I read that quote last night, I was struck by how well that quote revealed Obama's stance on just about every issue of consequence. This president decided the American President is no longer the leader of the free world. Obama should say nothing on anything. Good way to dampen any expectations. Qaddhafi's modus operandi: "...It was in 1993 that a group of high-ranking military officers from the Qaddafa and Warfalla tribes hatched a plot to kill the colonel on a scheduled trip to the Warfalla stronghold of Bani Walid. Their plan was discovered and foiled at the last minute, but that turned out to be just the beginning of the trouble. Eager to isolate the perpetrators from the larger tribe, Colonel Qaddafi pressured the Warfalla themselves to execute their own plotters. But in an added gesture of defiance the Warfalla steadfastly refused, ultimately forcing Colonel Qaddafi to order the executions himself after a hasty trial in early 1997. Nor did the colonel’s vengeance stop there, according to Professor Joffe, who has compiled the definitive history of the event. When the father of a coup plotter inquired about his son’s expected release in 2002, Qaddafi security forces beat the father so severely he died that day. Then Qaddafi forces tried to disinter the father’s body, in an extra gesture of humiliation, so they could throw it into the sea. When four members of the family resisted, they were also arrested. One died in custody, one was released after being tortured and two disappeared. All of their houses were burned to the ground. ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/africa/15tribes.html?pagewanted=all

- K2K

March 15, 2011 at 9:05am

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

@ DC Spence.... "What's happening in Libya is not a clear case of good v. evil. It might be. It's just as likely to be a case of evil v. evil. We don't know. And that's a big part of the argument against intervening in another country's civil war. We don't know enough about these rebels. One commentator here calls them "democrats" with absolutely no evidence. It's just silly. Nobody knows what percentage of these rebels are violent jihadists, but it could be very high. When someone tells me they don't know anything about the rebels, but they must be better than the dictator, I think: Get some real answers to real questions and then come back and make your case again." DC, you nailed it. Rather than make my own comments (again, for the third day on this) I'll just repost yours so people can read it again. Well spoken, friend.

- Tristan

March 15, 2011 at 9:13am

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

Silly me, I thought Barack Obama was confronting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen! Someone please tell Larry Diamond.

- wildboy

March 15, 2011 at 10:36am

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

"Genocide" speaking of Kadafi putting down the rebellion? Genocide is the elimination of another people not the vanquishing of a rebellion in Libya by the ruler of Libya. Look it up! Then the always mentioned Bosnia genocide. There was once a genocide in Bosnia, in WW II by Bosnia Muslims and Catholic Croats of Serbian Orthodox and Jews in Bosnian and Croat concentration camps. Northing of the sort was done by Serbs to Bosnians. It was a civil war the US had no business mixing in, in the same way the US is not the policeman of the world in regard to Libya or for that matter in Bahrain. In fact today "our friends" the Saudi's have invaded Bahrain where protest for "democracy" will be squelched. What are we going to do about this one Mr. Ruler of the world, Obama? How many wars do you want the US to be involved in? Which seniors and the sick will you cut to pay for those additional wars we need like another you know what?

- Poupic

March 15, 2011 at 10:56am

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

I don't know if we should intervene in Libya. There are good arguments for and against. I do know that the idea of a quick fix via "no fly zone" is a military nonsense. Clinton avoided catastrophe in Kosovo, or from the view of the residents a worse catastrophe, by gratuitously taking ground troops off the table. Of course there should be boots on the ground if we're really going to declare war on Libya, which is what we're talking about here. I'm prepared to disregard the UN as irrelevant, but what about a commitment from the French and the Arab league for ground troops, plus air in the case of the French, and a formal declaration of war by the US Congress first?

- Robert Powell

March 15, 2011 at 11:19am

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

Mis-wrote above. Should be "Clinton narrowly and by luck avoided catastrophe...." Sorry.

- Robert Powell

March 15, 2011 at 11:22am

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

I like France very much. I've been there several times and have nothing but affection and admiration for the many great contributions they have made to all that I love about western civilization. But if anyone thinks the French are going to stick by our side -- in the blood and sand -- when things get nasty in Libya -- those people should get their heads examined. Not just the French, all of them. If things go sour in Libya -- when things inevitably do not go according to plan -- it's going to be Uncle Sam doing all the heavy lifting. When somebody bombs the wrong spot and a bunch of innocent civilians are killed, you think the Arab League is going to back us up? If you think that you should be a ward of the state. One other things: What the plan to pay for this joyous little adventure? I'd like to hear the "liberal hawk" plan to pay for it. I already know what the neocon plan to pay for it is: borrow the money and then blame the Democrats when the budget deficit goes up. The neocons may not have anything approaching a plan for real action in Libya, but they do have the funding part -- borrowing and blaming -- they do have that nailed down. Really, how could anything go wrong?

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 11:29am

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

What is it with TNR and Libya? Are they such bleeding heart progressives that the plight of poor downtrodden rebels in Libya makes them advocate military action? Since when does TNR advocate military action, for ANYTHING? This is a very interesting cognitive dissonant moment, but I REALLY don't think they've thought this through very well, and I WISH they'd dial the "We're CERTAIN Obama is being a wuss about this, the cowardly wuss" rhetoric back a whole lot. It's getting very old.

- AllanL5

March 15, 2011 at 11:58am

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

Don Rumsfeld could tell us how easy it would be.

- agreensfel

March 15, 2011 at 12:22pm

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

"If Muammar Qaddafi succeeds in crushing the Libyan revolt, as he is well on his way to doing, the U.S. foreign policy establishment will heave a sad sigh of regret and say, in essence, “That’s the nasty business of world politics.” " Will they? Is the US foreign policy establishment that cynical? What is the evidence for this? Has Mr Diamond interviewed the members of the establishment to this effect? It is amusing and sad in equal measures that so many people can say so much with such certainty about matters that are, by their own reckoning, opaque. This is not analysis; it is passing wind in the wind, and we are sitting in the path.

- icarusr

March 15, 2011 at 12:55pm

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

DC Spence, so your solution is to do absolutely nothing as hundreds of thousands of people in Eastern Libya get slaughtered all because you don't want to waste the jet fuel. What can go wrong? How about a humanitarian catastrophe, Egypt reverting back to a military dictatorship, a few million angry and bitter Libyans living in refugee camps... a number who can be converted to kill Americans, Gadhafi feeling himself to be invinciple deciding blowing up an airliner is not enough why not buy a nuke from North Korea and sell it. These are a few things that can go wrong.

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 1:10pm

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

Blackton, where was all this moral hand wringing for similar intervention in sub-Saharan Africa? This may sound heartless, but we've been living with humanitarian catastrophes from Dafur, Rwanda, Somalia, Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and even now the Ivory Coast, so I think we can live with a few more. To suggest that someone would rather save on jet fuel and let thousands get slaughtered is oversimplification of an otherwise complex situation. That is not to say we should do nothing, but even if we do nothing so what? Did folks just wake up last week and discovered Qaddafi was a bad guy? I want nothing more than to see Qaddafi gone, but it won't be the end of the world if he survives. After all, what we have here is a rebellion against the legitimate government of Libya. Does Qaddafi has the right to put down such a rebellion? Tell me it ain't so. I hope the rebels win, and whatever help we can give them we should. But such help should not be dictated purely by manufactured humanitarian concerns, to whet war-mongering appetites.

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 1:36pm

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

Blackton, You have no evidence that hundreds of thousands will be killed in eastern Libya. The more emotional the interventionists get, the weaker their case looks. You go from mass murder to the toppling of other governments [why Egypt would fall because of Libya is unexplained, of course], to exploding airplanes and then, in the finest tradition of George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice, use the specter of nuclear weapons to justify attacking an Arab country that is no threat to the United States. The best way to condemn multitudes of Libyans to refugee camps is for foreign armies to invade the country and start shooting up the place. The U.S. invasion of Iraq has created more homeless Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did. I can't imagine a more feeble case than the one you've just made. How you get from where we are now to any of those nightmarish scenarios is, again, left entirely unexplained. And my concern isn't wasted jet fuel, it is wasted blood [ours and theirs] and wasted treasure. So far, the pro-war P.R. campaign relies entirely on hyperbole, hope and emotion -- rather like our last Middle East adventure. Is there anyone out there capable of making a calm, rational argument for why U.S. intervention in Libya serves vital national interests that outweigh the obvious and considerable risks of yet another substantial overseas military commitment?

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 1:38pm

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

No blackton, there are other things that cand and indeed inevitably will go wrong and they will be laid at the feet of the U.S. when they happen. Hundreds and thousands of people were slaughtered in Southern Sudan and I didn't see much of a push for war. Millions of people were slaughtered in the Congo, and ditto. The people who should be most concerned about events in Libya are surely Libyan and other Arab communities in Europe. I don't see reports of the marches, the protests, the calls for action. Why? Between the Egyptians and the Saudis, they have respectable-enough air assets to do a NFZ if we provide the technological back up, and indeed to supply the rebels. Ok, forget the Arabs, if you like. But if the French are so gung-ho about recognizing and helping the rebels, why aren't they sailing ships across the Med to Benghazi? It's not that far. They have a navy, for god's sake. OK, they'll move under our leadership. But you think they'll stay the course if and when it gets nasty? When suddenly the U.S. is once again "killing Muslims"? This incessant "why doesn't Obama rescue the world?" rhetoric ignores the fact that we are working to resolve this in a way that doesn't cause a disaster for us and others.

- ironyroad

March 15, 2011 at 1:49pm

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

"How about a humanitarian catastrophe, Egypt reverting back to a military dictatorship, a few million angry and bitter Libyans living in refugee camps... a number who can be converted to kill Americans, Gadhafi feeling himself to be invinciple deciding blowing up an airliner is not enough why not buy a nuke from North Korea and sell it." You're going overboard with these unconnected doomsday scenarios. Ok, my turn... And who is to say these very same humanitarian catastrophes will not occur if we intervene? How do we know whomever comes to power won't carry out their own massacre, with Egypt reverting back to a military dictatorship (bwa ha ha ha - and I thought Obama would be known as the President who lost Egypt to the Moslem Brotherhood)), and pushing a few million Libyan refugees into neighboring states? Qaddafi's REPLACEMENT feeling herself/himself invincible deciding to blow up an airliner is not enough why not buy a nuke from North Korea and sell it.

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 1:53pm

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

"This incessant "why doesn't Obama rescue the world?" rhetoric ignores the fact that we are working to resolve this in a way that doesn't cause a disaster for us and others." Beautifully stated! It exposes the false choice between "shock and awe" and "do nothing".

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 1:57pm

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

Blackton, where was all this moral hand wringing for similar intervention in sub-Saharan Africa? Logistics and geography. In Darfur it was a case of small farming communities being killed for their land from Janjaweed raiders on horseback because they wanted the land for herding of their livestock. There was nothing we could have done. The area was awash in guns already but mobile raiders killing remote farmers made intervention next to impossible. I keep stating that for us to intervene it should be ideology and in our own self interest (ie. we can materially affect conditions on the ground, and the benefits of doing so is in our own long term interest) Libya meets both. From Tunisia to Egypt being Democracies would go a long way towards bringing peace and stability to the region. A Gadhafi and his family all having war crimes indictment over their heads is a terrifying prospect as it will make them paranoid and prone to engage in lord knows what mayhem. Or do you propose we forgive and forget, throw him a big concert with Mariah Carey and Lionel Ritchie in Central park? The solution that you people advocate is the worst of both worlds, intervene enough to make a madman pissed off, but not enough to stop the coming slaughter. As to pretending that Benghazi will not be a bloody disaster, that is obscene. Yes, Gadhafi will himself forgive the rebels...sure.

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 2:01pm

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

K2K - perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but doesn't the record show that the sand berms in the gulf were mostly useless and in some cases caused ecological destruction themselves? And the evidence is extremely weak that the berms that did collect oil and waste were a better use of resources than alternative (and cheaper!) capture options - which would have allowed the difference to be spent on much needed wetland and habitat rehabilitation. Curious how the same "Do Something!" mentality is on show here. And here's a newsflash for you - the rest of the "free world" doesn't suffer from the our ethnocentric myopia where we think *our* leader is also theirs.

- Nari224

March 15, 2011 at 2:06pm

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

"This incessant "why doesn't Obama rescue the world?" rhetoric ignores the fact that we are working to resolve this in a way that doesn't cause a disaster for us and others." And what, pray tell is going to prevent the razing of Benghazi, a strongly worded letter? I have advocated a DMZ with a no fly zone in Eastern Libya only. NO need to bomb western Libya. The DMZ can be drawn between Brega and Ras Lanuf in the middle of the desert. No armored convoys in either direction. Gadhafi stays in Libya and will have a chance to view his long term survival. Negotiations can ensue, if he leaves he and his family will not be subject to any prosecution. If he stays he will be stuck in Western Libya only. This will also give the Benghazi government time to organize and prove that they are worthy of international recognition. If this means a defacto partition of Libya I can live with it. Or we can let Gadhafi raze Benghazi, seal the border, kill the rebels and rape and terrify the rest, and we can congratulate ourselves on not getting involved. My "intervention" would consist of a no fly zone in Eastern Libya, at most a few Libyan fighters would get shot down. As to the DMZ, drones, spy satellites, etc. will give us advance warning, drop a few daisy cutters in front of an armored convoy and they won't go any further. If they do it will be their own suicide. I am not talking about killing every camel or pickup truck that crosses that line, Benghazi won't fall to that. There will also be no refugees in Egypt. If Gadhafi can retain his support in Western Libya, then so be it. If he does try anything then we will be far better positioned to act. Half a country is better than death, and long term as people slip into Tunisia and make their way east, he will rule a kingdom of empty buildings and ghost towns.

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 2:20pm

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

03/15/2011 - 12:10pm EDT | blackton 'what could go wrong' scenarios have a high probability of happening if Qaddhafi bombs Benghazi into rubble. Libyans are now fleeing to the Egyptian border, where the previous 200,000+ refugees were foreign migrant workers. Nari224: read the article in The New Yorker. Many of the myths about the Deepwater oil disaster are carefully analyzed. I was struck by the quote as being Obama's legalistic default position on just about everything.

- K2K

March 15, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

"Logistics and geography. In Darfur it was a case of small farming communities being killed for their land from Janjaweed raiders on horseback because they wanted the land for herding of their livestock. THERE WAS NOTHING WE COULD HAVE DONE (CAPS MINE). The area was awash in guns already but mobile raiders killing remote farmers made intervention next to impossible." Blackton, you punted in Dafur. What we have here is selective humanitarianism. Principles and values only matter when convenient, right? We Africans hear these kinds of explanations and what we really hear is Black life is not worth the same, period. When you needed slaves you found a way to those same small farming communities to get us, but saving our ass from marauding genocidal Arab militias became a matter of logistics. But you've made my point, which is, we can all live with some form of humanitarian catastrophe. You lived with Dafur, I'll live with Libya (if it came to that, but I don't think it will). How about that? "I keep stating that for us to intervene it should be ideology and in our own self interest (ie. we can materially affect conditions on the ground, and the benefits of doing so is in our own long term interest) Libya meets both. From Tunisia to Egypt being Democracies would go a long way towards bringing peace and stability to the region." And I am asking you you to explain how you can be so sure that you will turn out to be right if we do those things you are advocating? We all love democracies, but how did the Palestinian election turn out for us? How is Hamas good for our long term interests?How is Hamas making the region safe? "The solution that you people advocate is the worst of both worlds, intervene enough to make a madman pissed off, but not enough to stop the coming slaughter." Pray tell what is that solution we're advocating that won't stop the coming slaughter? And your solution does stop the slaughter? "As to pretending that Benghazi will not be a bloody disaster, that is obscene. Yes, Gadhafi will himself forgive the rebels...sure." The pretense is all on your side. Where was your indignation when Laurent Gbagbo's soldiers shot unarmed women in the streets of Abidjan just about a week ago? And, you seem to have done quite well with doing nothing on Dafur, but I guess that wasn't obscene enough for you. Hey if you can live with Dafur, I can live with Benghazi (even though I don't think it will come to that).

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 2:25pm

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

Democracy might bring stability to the region. It might not. A free election for Palestinians only led to bloody civil war, ferocious repression by both the winning and losing sides, and, of course, more refugees. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. How do we get from the U.S. intervening in Libya to a democracy in Libya? Are the rebels in Libya democrats? Do we have any reason to imagine they are? Do we have any evidence they are committed to political pluralism? Or are we just hoping they are -- projecting fond desires on to the brains of human beings none of us has ever met and about whom we know virtually nothing? Because it sure seems a lot like that. Who is going to ensure free and fair elections occur in a tribal nation with no civil society and no history of political pluralism? If Qadaffi is defeated, who is going to prevent another civil war when the former rebels fall out over tribal loyalties and dividing the spoils oil revenue? Who is going to rebuild the nation's shattered infrastructure? Who is going to war with the army of jihadists that will flow into Libya just as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq? I think we know the answers to those questions -- the U.S. military and taxpayer will be responsible. I'd like to know the plan for dealing with these problems. We had a plan for smashing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we didn't have a plan for any of the problems I cited above. I'd like to know what the plan is for Libya. I mean, we're not just barging in and hoping for the best again, are we? As for the rebels, I'm sure Qadaffi and his followers will show them the same mercy they would have received themselves -- none. But that says little about how many people will die. Civil wars are notoriously savage and it is generally not a good idea to start one unless you plan to win or have a good backup plan for retiring in another country. There is going to be a blood-letting no matter who wins in Libya -- that's the nature of civil wars. I still haven't seen anything approaching a rational case for why intervention serves the vital national interests of the United States. At his most troublesome, when he had a powerful Soviet patron, Qadaffi was a very minor player on the world stage. I don't see why he would suddenly become an unmanageable threat to the U.S. if he survives this civil war. He's likely to emerge, if he emerges at all, considerably diminished in almost every important way. I don't want to intervene enough to anger Qadaffi. I see no reason to intervene at all until vital American interests are at stake -- which they are not. Qadaffi was paranoid long before this civil war -- paranoia being a distinguishing characteristic of tyrants around the world and throughout history. There isn't any reason to suspect Qadaffi is a madman who cannot control himself. He's lasted over 40 years by knowing how far he can go and when he needs to rein it in -- as he did after the September 11 attacks. Libya is a small, weak, poor country with a relatively minor hold on the world oil markets. It is no threat to the United States and every serious person knows this. Qadaffi is a threat only to his own people -- a fact I'm sure the rebels understood when they took up arms against him.

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 2:29pm

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

blackton: I would add that Obama raised expectations when he ordered two USN destroyers and two US Marine amphibious 'carriers' off the coast of Libya two weeks ago. Better he had done NOTHING. I think the moment for your concept has now passed, although I do think if Qaddhafi prevails, he will indeed preside over a country mostly populated by foreigners. Son Saif mentioned a preference for Bangladeshis and Chinese instead of any Arabs...

- K2K

March 15, 2011 at 2:30pm

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

If we are responsible for splitting Libya in half we will be responsible for protecting and governing the half not run by Qadaffi. That's plain common sense. Looks like another South Vietnam to me. Thanks, but no thanks.

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 2:33pm

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

Anyway, it looks like this might all be too late already. Gadhafi and his forces are in the last line of defense before Benghazi in Ajdabiya. What can I say, I hope you all get your popcorn ready and enjoy watching Benghazi and its 700,000 people get crushed. I think this will be a major blunder by Obama, a potential election game changer. I sure as hell can't vote for him if he lets this happen. We are using drone attacks in Pakistan to take out suspected Taliban goat farmers in rural villages, because...I used to think it was to build a civil society in Afghanistan, now it is because he just is. But now, for once we have the potential for a Democratic civil society in an oil rich state on the Med. falling into our laps and we will do just enough to annoy Gadhafi and drive him into the hands of the Chinese, Russians, Belorussians, who will be more than happy to buy and sell from him. Brilliant Statecraft Obama.

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 2:35pm

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

K2K wrote: "I would add that Obama raised expectations when he ordered two USN destroyers and two US Marine amphibious 'carriers' off the coast of Libya two weeks ago. Better he had done NOTHING." REPLY: I don't know how much moving a few ships raised expectations that the United States would intervene to pick a winner in the Libyan civil war. Maybe it just raised YOUR expectations. But if moving those ships raised the expectations of anyone in Libya that the U.S. would intervene in their civil war then, yes, it would have been better if Obama did nothing. Absolutely nothing has happened in Libya that requires U.S. involvement.

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 2:36pm

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

BLACKTON wrote: "What can I say, I hope you all get your popcorn ready and enjoy watching Benghazi and its 700,000 people get crushed." REPLY: Why in the world would I or anyone else here enjoy watching such a thing? I don't enjoy hearing about death squads in Guatemala, but I must confess I haven't done a single thing to stop them. Have you? If not, I suppose you enjoy watching Guatemalan death squads murder people. That's your logic so I know you won't object to me using it. BLACKTON wrote: "I think this will be a major blunder by Obama, a potential election game changer. I sure as hell can't vote for him if he lets this happen." REPLY: That's fine. I think the notion that anything the Libyans do to each other will have an impact on the U.S 2012 presidential elections to be laughable. I suspect that a few weeks ago at least half of America was unaware Libya still existed or that Colonel Qadaffi was still alive. They will have forgotten Libya again long before the last rebel or last Qadaffi loyalist is put up against a wall and shot.

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 2:42pm

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

"If we are responsible for splitting Libya in half we will be responsible for protecting and governing the half not run by Qadaffi. That's plain common sense. Looks like another South Vietnam to me. Thanks, but no thanks." No, how about try South Korea. Or do you wish that they had lived under the Great Leader and Dear Leader? DCSpence, the anti-Kennedy: We will pay no price, bear no burden in defense of Liberty. After this what do you think are the chances that any person living in a 3rd world dictator will stick his neck out? From now on moderation by Mubarak types must never occur, if you take power kill anyone and know that feckless Democrats will look the other way... And the most pathetic thing is these are the same people who weep when low income residents in America get their heating subsidies cut...my GOD they might have to wear a sweater...but Libyans, they can f-ing die, NOT OUR PROBLEM. I am not saying do everything, but we can pick and choose our fights wisely for maximum effect. Absolutely this meets that criteria. Gadhafi has already killed many Americans. Oh wait, that was 20 years ago, and they must have all been a bunch of little Eichmanns anyhow. Feckless, spineless Democrats and insane Republicans. Where the Hell is a Harry Truman when we need him now. And I don't give a rats ass who I offend. I think this is a gross moral abdication. Spence states better the whole Eastern half of Libya perish then...I don't even know... it is tremendously oil rich and could easily afford weaponry...I guess he thinks better an insane dictator rule there because he doesn't want to waste one drop of jet fuel. Yes, a million Libyans are not worth the risk of a single drone. Or something. Oh, right, slippery slope, yes, desert Libya with a population of a few million has so much in common with jungle Vietnam with its 10's of millions being armed and financed by the Chinese and Russians...how could I not see that?

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 2:48pm

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebel-council-seeks-to-transform-libya/2011/03/14/ABdDPtV_story.html just in case anyone wants to know more about the council that France and the Arab League have officially recognized: "...Yet the rebels have effectively run eastern Libya for the past three weeks, devoid of the chaos seen in Tunisia and elsewhere. They have established local councils that run hospitals, collect trash and operate banks, while providing services such as drinking water and electricity. Police patrol streets and direct traffic. “In every city in eastern Libya, there is security,” said Salwa el-Daghili, a constitutional law professor who is a member of the rebel national council. “Unlike Egypt and Tunisia, there are no political institutions in Libya. So this is a great achievement by the citizens of the revolution.” Local councils in regions and cities across Libya nominated representatives to the 31-member national council. The names of only 11 members have been made public, for the rest live in areas either controlled by Gaddafi or under attack by his forces. Mustafa Abdul Jalil, who quit as Libya’s justice minister last month to protest the regime’s suppression of protesters, heads the national council. Since March 9, when Libyan state television reported Gaddafi’s bounty on his head, Jalil has kept a low profile. ..."

- K2K

March 15, 2011 at 2:57pm

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

"Hundreds and thousands of people were slaughtered in Southern Sudan and I didn't see much of a push for war. Millions of people were slaughtered in the Congo, and ditto." Again, radically different situations. There is a question of logistics. How the hell can we have protected small farming villages in the bush against roaming bands of outlaws? I never said do something just to do something, you also have to have a reasonable expectation of succeeding. As to Guatemala, right now there are no death squads so I have no idea what you are talking about. I live nearby and go down there. What I do do is help at an aid station that prevents young women migrating from Central America to the States have a place to stay so they are not kidnapped, raped, and sold into slavery...so yeah I do my part. I live right by the Train of Death. So yes, I absolutely object to women here being kidnapped, raped, and sold into slavery, which is what does happen, so no I could not sit by and watch such things happen and chose to live in a part of Mexico that can prevent it from happening. so yes, gringos with cameras do wonders here. What do you do exactly? Oh right, advocate doing nothing everywhere because...it something or other.

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 2:58pm

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

K2K: "read the article in The New Yorker." You realise that this is a fallacious appeal to authority right? Either someone has an argument to make (or can respond to a point) or they don't. Appeals to a third party that is not in a debate is not an arguments. Unfortunately it's behind a subscription wall, but it does cut out with this sentence: "but a strategy based on dispersing the oil offshore appears to have helped prevent a great deal of crude from hitting land." Now again I may be misunderstanding you, but that isn't exactly endorsing the berms that Obama decided against after weighing the options.

- Nari224

March 15, 2011 at 3:08pm

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

Blackton: Almost 54,000 U.S. troops died to defend South Korea. Is that how many you propose to sacrifice in Libya? A few other points: South Korea was and is a sovereign country that was attacked by another country. What's happening in Libya is undoubtedly a civil war. Additionally, North Korea was part of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, a coalition of thugs determined to defeat the United States and control the destiny of the planet. Libya is, as I stated earlier, a small, poor, weak country with no powerful patron. It is no threat to the U.S. Harry Truman would have known all this and steered well clear of intervention in a Libyan civil war. You raise the issue of Qadaffi's past murder of American citizens. If that is a reason to attack Libya today then it was a reason to attack Libya two months ago. I don't recall you or anyone else demanding an attack on Libya two months ago to avenge the Lockerbie victims. Funny that. You continue to invoke the cause of liberty in Libya without providing any evidence that the rebels are pluralists. Nor do you provide even a glimmer of a plan to import a western political culture into a country that has no civil society whatsoever. The lessons of developing a free and pluralistic society in Afghanistan and Iraq have obviously made no impression on you. That's not good. Providing heating oil for poor citizens of the United States is, I judge, the duty of a civilized society. What's more, it is, all things being equal, remarkably inexpensive. And no one has to die to do it. It saves lives and costs not a one. It is one of the simplest and cheapest ways to improve the commonweal. And we can be relatively certain that if we give heating oil to poor Americans, they won't turn around and use that heating oil against us in five years when they've decided they don't need us anymore. Your fixation on "jet fuel" is bewildering. I confess, as a loyal and loving citizen of the United States it is the interests of my own country that matter the most to me and it is the lives of my fellow Americans that I care about the most. I oppose anything that jeopardizes either of those things without sufficient cause and provocation. You apparently regard this as a serious moral failing. I do not.

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 3:10pm

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

K2K, I literally am ashamed of Obama. Where is the Harry Truman type Democrat? We have spineless Democrats (or worse, nihilists) and insane Republicans. And the scariest thing is I expect such squishy type of "oh, no we can never use violence against anyone ever for any reason" type of reasoning at the Green party. This demolition of Liberal Internationalism is the saddest aspect of the Bush Presidency. We have lost our soul to a hollow man who just a few weeks ago made a big speech as to how we must be the adults that a young child can look up to, and then turn a blind eye as countless children in a major Med. City get blown to pieces when the cost of intervention is not much more than lifting a finger.

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 3:11pm

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

I am shocked, shocked that a liberal magazine should endorse a liberal foreign policy.

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 3:19pm

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

DC Spence "Once again, as in Iraq in 2003, we see the DC punditocracy lining up to fight to last drop of somebody'e else's blood." Once again, as in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere, peacenicks are ready to sit on their principles to the last drop of blood of people being targeted by a vicious murderer.

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 3:23pm

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

"If that is a reason to attack Libya today then it was a reason to attack Libya two months ago." No, it was 22 years ago, that was enough of a reason to. Why we did not indict him then I have no idea. He holds no official title in Libya, so why was he afforded one? And you keep missing my point, pick and choose your time and place. We didn't invade Normandy in 1942. Now if you want to state what we should have done before should have been more, you will get no argument with me. His blowing up our airliner was an act of war, at the very least he should have been indicted, or are you saying no? And your logic, because we did nothing before means we must never do anything? When is your statute of limitations for mass murder of Americans? 1 year? 10? Did you read what I wrote. I have only called for a DMZ with a no fly zone over eastern Libya. This would give them time to negotiate between themselves a power sharing arrangement (worse comes to worse) or a defacto partition. They can then prove to be worthy of international recognition. If they are thugs and murderers we then withdraw to let them finish each other off, but you are assuming the worse without even giving them the opportunity to prove they are. I guess you were also opposed to Bosnia and Kosovo and would be happy if Milosevic and his crew were still around. After all, it was only the balkans. the only Goddamn way we will survive this century is if as many people in the world have control over their own lives. So do you propose we forgive and forget what Gadhafi has done in Libya? That is real politics. Make that argument then because that is the best choice from your vantage point.

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 3:28pm

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

"A free election for Palestinians only led to bloody civil war, ferocious repression by both the winning and losing sides, and, of course, more refugees." You call that free? On what planet? Way too much pathology going on to make that free.

- blackton

March 15, 2011 at 3:33pm

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

"What can I say, I hope you all get your popcorn ready and enjoy watching Benghazi and its 700,000 people get crushed." Sheesh Blackton... Raw like sushi... LOL. Good one. Well, I guess that's what happens in civil wars. somebody always gets crushed. But why would we enjoy watching it happen? Are you projecting in some way? "I think this will be a major blunder by Obama, a potential election game changer. I sure as hell can't vote for him if he lets this happen." I agree with you here. The perception that he's doing nothing surely doesn't help, even though the facts don't bear this out. We'll see. "We are using drone attacks in Pakistan to take out suspected Taliban goat farmers in rural villages, because...I used to think it was to build a civil society in Afghanistan, now it is because he just is." Wait a minute, but didn't you say logistics was an issue rural villages with goat farmers? Oh, I forgot that only applied to Dafur. Can't do nothing in Dafur. Check. Seriously, should we do something simply because we can? According to you, we ought to act based on our ideology and self interest. I don't see either being the case in Libya. "And I don't give a rats ass who I offend. I think this is a gross moral abdication. Spence states better the whole Eastern half of Libya perish then...I don't even know... it is tremendously oil rich and could easily afford weaponry...I guess he thinks better an insane dictator rule there because he doesn't want to waste one drop of jet fuel." You're running out of pitiful excuses to justify your appetite for war. First you said our actions ought to be based on policy and self interest. Now you're back to the "gross moral abdication" thing. Ha! So what about Rwanda? Congo? Dafur? Liberia? And now the Ivory Coast? Isn't our inaction also a gross moral abdication? Why didn't you push for intervention in all those places? As we speak, Ivory Coast is devolving into civil war. The refugees are already streaming into Ghana. Talk about strategic self interests - Ghana recently became an oil producing nation. A former British colony with close ties to the U.S, the bulk of Ghana's oil contracts have been awarded to British, Canadian and U.S firms, with the U.S slated to purchase a significant % of Ghana's sweet crude. It would therefore be in America's interests to ensure stability in West Africa as a hedge against mid-East oil. So why aren't we in Ivory Coast?

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 3:34pm

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

BLACKTON, enough. We're not going to convince each other on this and I'm bored with the conversation. Your arguments and insults have made no impact on me. My arguments and unfailing politeness have made no impact on you. I'm retiring from the argument, relatively confident [for now] that President Obama will continue to act sensibly in this matter. If you prefer to regard this as some form of submission on my part, that's fine -- indulge yourself. I'll see you elsewhere on TNR, when another interesting argument presents itself. Maybe we'll be on the same side of that one.

- DC Spence

March 15, 2011 at 3:41pm

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

"Yes, a million Libyans are not worth the risk of a single drone." Blackie, I love it when you make no sense. :) ... "I guess he thinks better an insane dictator rule there because he doesn't want to waste one drop of jet fuel." ... and when, in a hamhanded attempt at ridicule, you descend into self-parody. "No, how about try South Korea." Three years of war, 52,000 dead, near nuclear holocaust, Donald Sutherland's last great movie and a long-running series ... and yes, South Korea is thriving, but in 1950, it was not at all clear that would be the outcome.

- icarusr

March 15, 2011 at 3:43pm

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

I find it amazing that so many who seem to be liberals--which implies they believe in democracy and human rights--are suddenly so hesitant about the US taking military action in Libya. The argument is, we don't know how it will turn out. Of course we don't. But there are all sorts of signs of hope for democracy and human rights in the middle east right now. If you believe in those things, why are you unwilling to take a chance on them? There is no such thing as taking action without taking a chance. And there is also no such thing as not taking action without taking a chance! And in Libya right now there is an emergency situation. Is liberalism about ideals, or is it another form of modern complacency? There are extreme situations that do occur--and they do test whether you mean it when you say you have ideals.

- jeremysmit

March 15, 2011 at 3:49pm

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

"Once again, as in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere, peacenicks are ready to sit on their principles to the last drop of blood of people being targeted by a vicious murderer." Arnon, for this calumny, you deserve the grossest insults. I will spare you. Bosnia and Rwanda: please read your history. Most "left-wingers" were in favour of intervention in both Bosnia and Rwanda, on the basis of the duty to protect. There was no US intervention in Rwanda, because of Somalia, and because of right-wing, isolationist, "we don't want no stinking nation-building" position of Republicans. Bosnia - the Dayton Accord was signed finally with credible threat of US intervention. Until then, the challenge was that European countries most affected did not want US military intervention, nor would it have been appropriate for the US to intervene, plus there was the whole Republican "we have no business there" - i.e., no oil - attitude. Spare us your idiotic histrionics against "peaceniks". If the US, and the West, has failed to act in these and similar theatres, it is not because of left-wing fecklessness, it is because Republicans only like war when oil is involved, and then only on their own terms. Hard to take their blather on human rights seriously, as a result.

- icarusr

March 15, 2011 at 3:51pm

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

Well let's see. If we must think in terms of state identity consequence I would rather imagine that many folks, with both good and bad intent, will watch pretty damned carefully whether or not we intervene in this clear cut case of nasty dictator v the people. Will it have a detrimental effect on the whole? Does a pedophilic priest reflect poorly upon the Catholic Church? The answer to both questions is a resounding, Yes. Let's not pretend that there will be negligible fallout. It may manifest itself in ways that are very hazardous to large groups of individuals. I don't enjoy the confidence that some here seem to. Namely that, all things being equal, our unwillingness to put our money where our mouths are will not rebound in unforseen and dangerous ways. Rational looses its luster when confronted with life and death. I can think of many ways to ride that horse to leverage anger full of indictment at the expense of the US. It doesn't matter if it is true in the main. Unfortunately these things demand a convincing willingness to pay up in blood in order to lessen the likelihood of having to do so. Yeah, there wasn't much mention of that in H. Clinton's, " It Takes a Village". To unpleasant I guess. Apparently the children stories in the Islamic orbit don't neglect this little lesson. Did I piss enough people off with this little riff?

- jacko

March 15, 2011 at 3:56pm

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

edit: Too unpleasant I guess as apposed To unpleasant I guess.

- jacko

March 15, 2011 at 4:02pm

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

Jeremy: "liberals" also believe in, er, the rule of law, without which democracy and human rights do not function. We believe in the rule of law, not only in the observance of traffic rules and exeuction of mentally retarded, but also in international affairs. International law - by which we meant treaties the United States and other nations have freely entered into, with the full intention of being bound by them and binding others, along with other principles and rules that nations of the world acknowledge as binding (such as the laws on piracy and genocie and all that) - has specific avenues for "intervention". There is collective securities (UNSC actions), collective self-defence, self-defence, jus cogens and emerging principles of law such as duty to protect/humanitarian intervention. But that is it. The existence of civil strife or war in a corner of the world does not, in itself, give a right of action, in law, to the United States or China or Russia or Burundi for that matter to intervene and set it right. There are good reasons for this rule of law; there are excellent reasons for observing it. We can get into it later, if you like, but so much is clear: if we are serious about "humand rights and democracy", it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the foundations of it are there; without the rule of law, there can be no democracy nor any "rights" - which are claims in law - and unilateral intervention - to partition a sovereign state, to stop an army column advancing, etc. - is not consistent with the rule of law. There you have it. There is no inconsistency. No one is advocating or cheering on or is indifferent to the death of Libyans - rebels or otherwise - in the civil war; no one is suggesting we sit back and enjoy the carnage, or close our ears and eyes to it; no one, in fact, has opposed "intervention" leading to the removal of Gadhafi. After Iraq, at least for most of us, it is clear that ignoring due process and law internationally has terrible consequences: for the international community, for the country being invaded and regime-changed, and for the country doing the invading. Let there be action, Peretz and LW say: indeed. Let there be multilateral action, with the full support of the United States, to remove Gadhafi. For this to happen, it is not necessary for Obama to be on the evening news rattling the US Fifth Fleet; nor it is necessary for Amercan drones or aircraft to be involved in yet more attacks on yet another Muslim country. Let the Arab League do something. France wishes to act; let them act - and support them. In the fact of crisis and tragedy, let us not become like the senile McCain, suspend the campaign and declare "We are all Libyans now!", but let us act in deliberation to ensure that measures that we put in place today will have been thought out and thought through. This might be a right-brain, left-brain issue, but it is not a right and left issue.

- icarusr

March 15, 2011 at 4:04pm

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

The kind of support Diamond proposes that we provide to the rebels - arms, humanitarian aid, communications equipment, and the jamming of Qaddafi's forces - we can do all that and it will not be sufficient. Not if the situation is as dire as Mr Diamond says. Clearly we also need to bring some US air power to bear on the conflict if the rebels are to gain sufficient time to organize themselves to fight. In short, we will have to be far more committed to one side in this fight than Mr Diamond admits here, and we will find it very hard to disengage. I ask myself whether I would be prepared to kill someone, including unintended killing of non-combatants, for the cause of Libyan regime change. The answer is "no". I ask myself why I got up every morning for 30 some years without thinking about Qaddafi at all, except in the brief aftermath of Lockerbie (when we all decided he could stay in power), and now I have people telling me over breakfast that we have to send arms and set up no-fly-zones. Mr Diamond trots out the domino theory, without an apparent sense of irony. In Vietnam we saw dominoes, and also in Iraq. I get a particular itch when that is the argument for war. Sorry. We bombed the Serbs to stop a genocide in progress. That was the justification, and I think we should do it again under similar circumstances. I do not feel compelled however to take sides in every civil war, or to drop bombs in the name of regime change. I think Obama is right. America did much good in Egypt without dropping bombs on people. It is unclear that we can say the same for Afghanistan or Iraq. Neil

- purcellneil

March 15, 2011 at 4:13pm

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

icarusr "Once again, as in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere, peacenicks are ready to sit on their principles to the last drop of blood of people being targeted by a vicious murderer." ‘Arnon, for this calumny, you deserve the grossest insults.’” An insult is the last resort of the lame-brained poster. You are also as usual dishonest for not posting the first part of my reply: Here is the complete post: {03/15/2011 - 3:23pm EDT | arnon DC Spence "Once again, as in Iraq in 2003, we see the DC punditocracy lining up to fight to last drop of somebody'e else's blood." Once again, as in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere, peacenicks are ready to sit on their principles to the last drop of blood of people being targeted by a vicious murderer.}

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 4:19pm

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

Ick. Your talking your book. No different than a stock trader in a guest slot on CNBC. I'm short IL ( International Law) They are dishonest about how the keep their books and the bullshit rumors they spread about the shortcomings of their competition. Actually I hate their banana cream pie in the sky. But guys like you just keep on telling me how great it is..... and good for me, too.

- jacko

March 15, 2011 at 4:20pm

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

The argument that we shouldn’t act in Libya because there are worse human rights abuses elsewhere, is a-historical argument. It’s also a recipe for inaction. It allows innocents to be massacred. It’s basically a conservative argument which has been used by them to do nothing to alleviate suffering even in their own country because ‘one can’t help everybody.’ Historically, the argument is incorrect. When one country helps another as we did South Korea in the 50’s that one country can develop into a country that can then help other countries. This has happened over and over again. It’s also not true that one must pick which country to help first. Usually national interest and local and world politics will determine which country to help. The liberal point is that in helping one get rid of a tyrant you end up helping others since that one will eventually also become a country capable of helping others. Conversely if we allow a tyrant to stay to murder his people and stay in power other tyrants will be helped also. It’s no accident that the countries (and heads of state present and former) who are taking the side of Khadafy are also tyrannical regimes of one kind or another.

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 4:30pm

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

On Libya, too many questions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/AR2011030803149.html In September 1941, Japan's leaders had a question for Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto: Could he cripple the U.S. fleet in Hawaii? Yes, he said. Then he had a question for the leaders: But then what? --------------------------------- I think a similar question was asked before the Iraq invasion, and the answer was that we would be greeted as liberators. But what if we weren't? No one bothered to answer that question. The rest as we say, is history. Can those who are advocating intervention in Libya answer this question... After we take out Qaddafi then what? Even the article that K2K posted, "just in case anyone wants to know more about the council that France and the Arab League have officially recognized", contains this gem: "Still, it’s unlikely that a post-Gaddafi government will support U.S. policies in the Middle East. Members of the national council said they were opposed to U.S. policies in Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan."

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 4:38pm

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

"Still, it’s unlikely that a post-Gaddafi government will support U.S. policies in the Middle East. Members of the national council said they were opposed to U.S. policies in Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan." I think it's a foregone conclusion if we stay on the sidelines. Perhaps such a thing would contribute to a little more zest in validity of convictions. Let's assume that the US as long as it has a powerful standing with a foundational philosophical premise and commitment to the individual will be a target for those interested in leveraging whatever advantage might be found in the inevitable hypocrisies that are apparent in the unavoidable frictions and tensions inherent in the entire endeavor. Most of us don't realize just how fragile and relatively new the entire idea of freedoms AND the ability to invest and influence the powers that be as guaranteed to the individual really is as weighed against the reality of history.

- jacko

March 15, 2011 at 5:10pm

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

Blackton wrote: "After this what do you think are the chances that any person living in a 3rd world dictator will stick his neck out? From now on moderation by Mubarak types must never occur, if you take power kill anyone and know that feckless Democrats will look the other way..." Oh the hyperbole! Each country is different politically and culturally. At the same time that Egypt and Tunisia were having non-violent revolutions, the Ivory Coast was in the throws of political violence, still is. I really don't get your point that somehow if we don't do things in Libya as you've advocated somehow folks living in 3rd world dictatorships would stop being human. It insulting to their collective humanity and intelligence. "And the most pathetic thing is these are the same people who weep when low income residents in America get their heating subsidies cut...my GOD they might have to wear a sweater...but Libyans, they can f-ing die, NOT OUR PROBLEM." You had no problem with Dafur, Congo, Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and now the Ivory Coast. So why is it OK to keep letting the , er, black Africans fucking die but not the Libyans? You have to be at least consistent, if you're making a moral case for intervention then explain why the same morality is not applied to all the examples I've given. If on the other hand you want to make a self interest case, then state what the US stands to gain. So far, you've been all over the place.

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 5:11pm

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

I think the Arab League, since it has endorsed a No Fly Zone, should enforce same. Or at least help. Right? On the other hand they seem to think a no-fly zone can be implemented and enforced without any attacks on ground installations. A no-fly zone is impossible under those conditions. Therefore, what we are seeing is this: a long time ally who did keep the peace for over 30 years is gone - hopefully in favor of a more democratic and open state - but with no guarantees either of a true Egyptian democracy or of future peace in the region - and Qadhafi will probably remain in power. As we converse here, his forces sweep eastward. By the time all the chattering is over, Libya will have been subdued. Am I the only person who finds this whole situation ironic?

- Sophia

March 15, 2011 at 5:16pm

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

I'd ask again the questions that never seem to quite get an answer: 1. The people who should be most concerned about events in Libya are surely Libyan and other Arab communities in Europe. Why no marches, protests outside the U.S. embassy, angry calls for intervention? 2. If the Arab League is now, for the first time, convinced that an Arab dictator has to be taken down, why don't the Egyptians and the Saudis, who have serious military assets, step forward under the umbrella of common action? 3. Even if that poses genuine difficulties, what about the French? They have stepped forward and recognized the rebels' leadership, so why aren't they sailing ships across the Med to Benghazi? If France is now so far out front of the Obama administration in their love for freedom and democracy, as Larry Diamond intimates, why don't they DO something about it? As I said before, many of these nations will move under our leadership. But it's worth asking whether they'll stay the course if and when it gets nasty, when suddenly the U.S. is once again "killing Muslims."

- ironyroad

March 15, 2011 at 5:22pm

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

wkwami: I appreciate that you read that WaPo article about the governing council in Benghazi. I would be very happy with a real government in Libya, without the King of Kings of Africa as Qaddafi calls himself, even if the new Libyan government did not support US foreign policy anywhere. I am not aware that ANY member of the Arab League or OIC supports US policy (whatever it is today) in Israel, Iraq, and/or Afghanistan. I am surprised that you do not realize how much Qaddhafi has directly contributed to destabilizing civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa since the 1980's, with his training school alumni like Charles Taylor and Kabila, Senior. As to Ivory Coast? well, how many thousands of UN blue hats does it take to effect a peaceful transfer of power after a free and fair election? another 2,000 on the way...why is the UNSC so reluctant to give the blue hats authority to shoot???? to stop the civil war???? It is tragic that you missed the key point: "... Mustafa Abdul Jalil, who quit as Libya’s justice minister last month to protest the regime’s suppression of protesters, heads the national council. Since March 9, when Libyan state television reported Gaddafi’s bounty on his head, Jalil has kept a low profile. ..." another key point is that protests erupted in every city except maybe Sirte, which is why Qaddhafi is blowing up his country city by city. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebel-council-seeks-to-transform-... and now Qaddhafi is begging the foreign workers to come back. seems his oil industry does not work without all those foreigners. I hope Benghazi holds - as a major port, they can withstand a siege, but probably not a barrage of SAMs.

- K2K

March 15, 2011 at 5:46pm

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

Libya: Another Unnecessary War Of Choice http://blogs.forbes.com/dougbandow/2011/03/14/libya-another-unnecessary-war-of-choice/ Eight years after invading Iraq, U.S. forces remain on station. Nearly a decade after ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, Washington is more deeply involved than ever. Yet the architects of these interminable wars are lobbying to embark on another military adventure in Libya. The U.S. government long has been tempted to meddle in other nations’ affairs — and rarely to good results. It is difficult to transcend history, ethnicity, culture, religion, tradition and geography to “fix” other countries. Iraq dramatically demonstrated that social engineering through war is even harder. The protests sweeping the Arab world offer hope of liberty for tens of millions of people long subjugated by a variety of kleptocratic autocracies. But revolutions sometimes yield worse repression. Washington also worries about the rise of anti-American radicalism. Libya appears to be an easy case, since Muammar al-Gadhafi long was hostile to the U.S. Thus, the Washington commentariat, the famed “Sofa Samurai” who cheer on wars in which they do not fight, is now demanding action against Gadhafi. Although protestors quickly overran most of eastern Libya, the regime rallied in the capital of Tripoli. Better armed than the insurgents, Gadhafi’s forces shot down demonstrators and bombed opposition areas. The regime has regained some lost territory, leading to fears of protracted conflict, even civil war. The Libyan crisis is a tragedy, but is important to America only in the usual Washington game of threat inflation. President Barack Obama claimed the Libyan imbroglio posed “an unusual threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” The former is errant nonsense. Libya always has been peripheral to American security, especially after the Gadhafi regime dropped its terrorist attacks and nuclear program. The latter is irrelevant–much of which goes on around the world conflicts with the “foreign policy of the United States.” Neither is cause for war...

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 5:47pm

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

" If the Arab League is now, for the first time, convinced that an Arab dictator has to be taken down, why don't the Egyptians and the Saudis, who have serious military assets, step forward under the umbrella of common action?" They can and should be part of a league of countries along with NATO forces and France to stop Qaddafi. It needs to happen very soon, though.

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 5:51pm

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

blackton: the Democratic Party would not even give someone like Harry S. Truman a shot past city council these days. no academic pedigree :) and Senator James Webb of Virginia is retiring. If I had to read Webb's mind, based on his storyline for the film "Rules of Engagement", I doubt he would have even ordered the USS Kearsarge and Ponce to transit the Suez Canal into the Med until Benghazi was already under bombardment AND Libyan refugees were flooding to the Egyptian border. I believe Obama was premature on that order, because it made the 'rebels' think that the NFZ was actually going to happen, and Qaddhafi would have then restrained his assault. irony: three good points. It would appear the Saudis are far more concerned about a Shi'a uprising, and Egypt is still trying to get some sort of stability restored before they have to re-impose martial law. The real irony is that Hezbollah would love to nail Qaddhafi (Lebanon is taking the lead on the UNSC resolution this week). Too bad Hezbollah does not have an air force :) nari224: my apologies for not being clearer that the quote I cited may have been appropriate about sand berms during the BP oil spill, but it also seems to capture Obama's posture on a host of other issues, except his picks for the Final Four. The article is worth reading at your library because it goes in-depth over the entire dispersant issue.

- K2K

March 15, 2011 at 6:02pm

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

arnon: Turkey refuses to allow any action under the NATO authority. anything that happens has to be a "coalition of the willing". My bet is that Egypt may be forced into leading that coalition if Qaddhafi is unable to cut off the roads east of Benghazi. "...The [UNSC] resolution would provide political and legal authorization for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, strengthen existing economic sanctions -- including a more robust enforcement of an arms embargo -- and expand a list of individuals, organizations and companies that are subject to travel bans and to the freezing of assets from Libya. The draft also calls for a ban on the use of commercial flights to transport mercenaries into the country and other means to end the involvement of foreign fighters. ...Lebanon, the Arab League's representative on the Security Council, is now playing a central role in pushing the current resolution." sorry, copied from Fox because I use dial-up and can not open other news sources on this breaking news.

- K2K

March 15, 2011 at 6:18pm

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

Blackie, What you do to help those women is beyond commendable. Do the traffickers have people like you in their sites? Do they know about people like you and see you as a threat? It seems that in a place as vicious as many parts of Mexico are becoming, this could be a dangerous endeavor.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 15, 2011 at 6:46pm

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

K2K wrote: "I am surprised that you do not realize how much Qaddhafi has directly contributed to destabilizing civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa since the 1980's, with his training school alumni like Charles Taylor and Kabila, Senior." Agreed, but does that justify intervening in Libya today? Why didn't the West stop Qaddafi in all those years? Why all of a sudden we have to get rid of Qaddafi or else life on planet earth would never be the same? "As to Ivory Coast? well, how many thousands of UN blue hats does it take to effect a peaceful transfer of power after a free and fair election? another 2,000 on the way...why is the UNSC so reluctant to give the blue hats authority to shoot???? to stop the civil war????" a) the UN soldiers are protecting the other guy who is running his government from a hotel across town, which in and of itself is a tough job under the circumstances, and b), Gbagbo is really finished. It's only a matter of time: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058916,00.html "It is tragic that you missed the key point: "... Mustafa Abdul Jalil, who quit as Libya’s justice minister last month to protest the regime’s suppression of protesters, heads the national council. Since March 9, when Libyan state television reported Gaddafi’s bounty on his head, Jalil has kept a low profile. ..." another key point is that protests erupted in every city except maybe Sirte, which is why Qaddhafi is blowing up his country city by city. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebel-council-seeks-to-transform-.." I don't think I missed your point at all. Have you considered the possibility that Mustafa Abdul Jalil quit the government because he saw a political opportunity to extend his longevity? A change of leadership was already in the offing, and Saif was not likely to retain many of the old guards after his father retires. Now, this rebel has been by Qaddafi's side for 40 years, carrying out his orders until now. I don't know about you, but I'd be cautious with any of these defectors. Taking the word and trying to figure out their the motives and intentions could be a costly mistake.

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 6:56pm

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

What a load of sanctimonious crap here! "Not our problem", "fight to the drop of someone else's blood", blah blah blah. I'm as liberal as they come on virtually everything, and sitting on our hands while the screams of the tormented fade away under the rattle of machine gun fire is making my blood boil! Who gives a shit if the Libyan rebels turn out to be less than Jeffersonian democrats (with a small "d")? Khadafi is a murderous, monsterous, tyrannical terrorist. His own country has risen up against him. And we're going to sit on the sidelines as they beg us for help? And help that will cost a pittance, but has the potential to reap a bumper crop in goodwill and respect world wide? Air power alone can tear a new asshole into Khadafi's forces in a matter of hours. There isn't any Libyan Air Force worth a popcorn fart in a hurricane to resist. Remember what American air power did to the Iraqi Army desperately trying to escape Kuwait 20 years ago? I imagine none of the don't-get-involved crowd posting here remembers Kitty Genovese. What the hell is wrong with this country? I guess we can't wait to become the next two-bit has-been power that once made pretence to strut the world stage.

- bonsaibush

March 15, 2011 at 7:08pm

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

Jeez K2K - be careful what you wish for (re Hezbollah) - yikes. As far wkwami - I don't think you can make equivalences like this. Ideally the UN and other groups would indeed at least try to prevent mass casualties. But in the case of Libya - the US has spoken out against Qaddafi and done nothing to really help the rebels. I understand the idea of caution, considering we don't really know much about the rebels - but life is important isn't it? If we are going to do nothing should we speak out? We haven't heard much at all about anything that goes on in Africa period - this is a shame as well - people can't judge or decide to intervene if things aren't covered in the news.

- Sophia

March 15, 2011 at 7:10pm

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

Yeah I hear what bonsaibush is saying. We've become insular and cynical and apparently either unable or unwilling even to help our neighbors. We don't want to help the poor in the US, or the teachers, or each other, let alone people getting creamed in Libya.

- Sophia

March 15, 2011 at 7:12pm

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

"Jeez K2K - be careful what you wish for (re Hezbollah) - yikes." Yes, my reaction exactly.

- noga1

March 15, 2011 at 7:33pm

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

I don't always agree with him - especially on this issue - but Frum shows how analysis of motives and policy is done: http://www.frumforum.com/does-obama-prefer-a-qaddafi-victory I don't think I am as cynical about Obama as Frum is. I think there is a genuine belief that this is not a war the US should be in on its own, and that Libyans and the international system as a whole would be better off if the "lead" were somewhere else. History will tell.

- icarusr

March 15, 2011 at 7:50pm

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

Sophia wrote: "But in the case of Libya - the US has spoken out against Qaddafi and done nothing to really help the rebels. I understand the idea of caution, considering we don't really know much about the rebels - but life is important isn't it?" Are you sure the US has done nothing to aid the rebels? Can we accept the possibility that there's a whole lot going on behind the scenes we're not privy to? And yeah, life is important except my point is we pick and choose which life is more important. So explain to me what makes Libyan lives any more important than the ones we're neglecting to save while strongly advocating another "shock and awe" campaign in yet another Muslim country? A quick and clean war is a discredited American fantasy.

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 7:51pm

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

" A quick and clean war is a discredited American fantasy." No American I know believes in "a quick clean war." This is a red herring.

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 8:07pm

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

icarus, I followed your link, checked out the comments, and, lo and behold, blackton had taken over the thread, riding his DMZ hobbyhorse.

- dpaup

March 15, 2011 at 8:13pm

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

Tee hee - so he has - and what's more, he's getting much the same replies ...

- icarusr

March 15, 2011 at 8:56pm

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

arnon wrote: "No American I know believes in "a quick clean war." This is a red herring. Really? For the sake of argument, let's say you're right... So what are you proposing we do in Libya? How much of a commitment would be acceptable to you?

- wkwami

March 15, 2011 at 9:03pm

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

wkwami "'arnon wrote: "No American I know believes in "a quick clean war." This is a red herring.'" "Really? For the sake of argument, let's say you're right... So what are you proposing we do in Libya? How much of a commitment would be acceptable to you?" It's up to you to prove first that " A quick and clean war is a discredited American fantasy" among other facile bumper sticker insights you have been positing here.

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 9:10pm

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

I don't know wkwami, what is going on behind the scenes and unless you're an administration mouthpiece neither do you. If you are an administration mouthpiece, know this: people are concerned and unsure of what the administration stands for if anything. That goes double for domestic policy so while you're apologizing for Obama in this thread maybe you can also defend his tax cuts. Finally, you're running another red herring up the flagpole. This thread isn't about all the folks who've been killed in other wars, or whether they are more or less valuable than Libyans; it's about our so-called desire to oust Gaddafi.

- Sophia

March 15, 2011 at 9:13pm

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

ATLeft: "I see TNR is banging the drums of war again. Awesome . . . because it worked out so well last time." War will never work out well. Some 20-30% of the population thought the US should call a truce with Hitler during most all of WWII, including the final weeks of the end. Think about that: The clearest example of evil the world has ever seen, and 25% of the US population was fine to call the war over and shake hands and let Hitler go about his business. Most at TNR would have been in that group, I hate to tell you.

- seattleeng

March 15, 2011 at 9:36pm

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

Sophia, I think wkwami's point was, in part, the Sturm und Drang here is at best premature. That doesn't make him an administration apologist. And as for bringing other situations, some of us are saying we should respond in principled ways. It isn't a principle if it applies in only one case.

- dpaup

March 15, 2011 at 9:39pm

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

But Sophia, isn't our "so-called desire to oust Ghaddafi" being packaged, for good or ill, as a principle that governments shouldn't turn military force on their own people? We stated the same principle in relation to Egypt back in late January. And we have indeed stood by where a major breach of that principle has taken place before, many times. wkwami's point about the increasing importance of West Africa -- in respect of oil, too, apart from anything -- makes his example of Ivory Coast and the complete lack of interest what happens there very relevant. And, to be fair, it's simply not true that his statement that we don't know what's going on behind the scenes is falsifiable by the fact of his not being an administration mouthpiece. Last year, this very TNR discussion board was full of people expostulating that Obama was doing nothing on Iran until the moment that we got a very tight and surprisingly unanimous UNSC resolution. It turned out that the administration was doing a hell of a lot to get not only allies and friendly neutrals but also Russia and China on board for a new sanctions regime. I'm not a mouthpiece but some careful reading and intelligent guessing can give you a sense of what's going on. This thing in Libya isn't over until it's over, and quite frankly if it goes badly and Sarkozy starts making snide remarks about how the U.S. and Obama failed the test, our public answer should be, dude, Benghazi is four hundred miles across the Med. You have ships. Why didn't YOU do something along with the political grandstanding.

- ironyroad

March 15, 2011 at 9:42pm

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

Hitler! World War Two! Alright, so any time Wieseltier and Peretz say its time to jump, anyone who asks why is, at that moment, just because the issue has just then been made the cause celebre at TNR, a Nazi appeaser. Because TNR has spoken.

- dpaup

March 15, 2011 at 9:48pm

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

dpaup "Hitler! World War Two! Alright, so any time Wieseltier and Peretz say its time to jump, anyone who asks why is, at that moment, just because the issue has just then been made the cause celebre at TNR, a Nazi appeaser. Because TNR has spoken." Where and when did L. W. or anyone at TNR invoke Hitler or the Nazis as a justification for ousting Qaddafi?

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 9:59pm

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

arnon, I was referring to seattleeng post @8:36pm

- dpaup

March 15, 2011 at 10:08pm

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

His post is one of many offering bad analogies to the Libyan crises, either pro or con, dpaup.

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 10:18pm

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

arnon, yes, but I couldn't let that one go by without some response. As I said at the top, I've been thinking of Iraq, 1991. Not as much for an analogy, though, as for a contrast in attitude. I mean, there was no reason not to go on to Baghdad except that it would have exceeded the legal authorization and upset the status quo more than people wanted. If I remember right, the people who thought that decision wrong weren't beating the war drums like they are now, or like they were in 2002-3. Maybe because the earlier phase had worked out some of the blood lust. Or maybe because the pres was republican. In '91 we had a NFZ, and encouraged a Shiite uprising. And when the rebels were slaughtered, we took pictures from 20,000 feet. Thinking back, do you have any inclination to say, well, at least we tried? I supported that war and the NFZ, and also Bush's decision, but I sure don't feel good about that whole sorry mess. So what happens this time, if the NFZ isn't sufficient? I promise you, it will not feel like we had done are part, and we can leave it at that.

- dpaup

March 15, 2011 at 10:53pm

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

Early in the discussion Blackton wrote: "After this what do you think are the chances that any person living in a 3rd world dictator will stick his neck out? From now on moderation by Mubarak types must never occur, if you take power kill anyone and know that feckless Democrats will look the other way..." Absolutely right on! We today have our chance to do something to try to turn back evil (I think that shooting people in hospitals, torture of innocents, bombing children, etc. are evil) by doing something, at absolutely no dollar cost since the Lybian billions are there to take, and latter day pacifists say we should stand by and do nothing. The horror of this so called liberal/now style pacifist position, the absolute horror of it. Note: I am not suggesting we should put American troops in danger -- only that we offer material help, financed with the billions of Lybian stolen dollars in our banks.

- PeteBeck

March 15, 2011 at 11:45pm

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

I don't see much similarity between Iraq 1991 and Libya 2011, dpaup. No NFZ has been instituted in Libya, yet. We also did not encourage the Libyans to demonstrate and later rebel against Qaddafi's rule.

- arnon

March 15, 2011 at 11:45pm

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

arnon, to me the point of thinking of past experiences is not to see how much this is like that, but to expand the imagination, draw our attention to things we are missing in our present perspective. The contrasts can be as instructive as the similarities. My point was this: There are a lot of people now calling for a NFZ, in part as an encouragement, a morale booster, to the rebels. At least some of these advocates, it seems to me, are anticipating it would feel good to do something, even if all we are willing to do is the NFZ. The experience of 1991 makes me think they are wrong about that much. It won't feel good, it won't be anything to be proud of, not when ground forces are what's really needed. Now, that much doesn't matter to me, cause I'm not much for basing foreign policy on emotions anyway, but I thought it something worth mentioning.

- dpaup

March 16, 2011 at 12:10am

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

"It's up to you to prove first that " A quick and clean war is a discredited American fantasy" among other facile bumper sticker insights you have been positing here." Adorable, just adorable. I can print and send you a couple of those bumper sticker insights. Which one would you prefer? I think "quick and clean war = American fantasy" would look good on your car. What say ye?

- wkwami

March 16, 2011 at 6:20am

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

PeteBeck wrote: "We today have our chance to do something to try to turn back evil (I think that shooting people in hospitals, torture of innocents, bombing children, etc. are evil) by doing something, at absolutely no dollar cost since the Lybian billions are there to take, and latter day pacifists say we should stand by and do nothing. The horror of this so called liberal/now style pacifist position, the absolute horror of it. Note: I am not suggesting we should put American troops in danger -- only that we offer material help, financed with the billions of Lybian stolen dollars in our banks." Specifically what kind of help are you proposing we give that does not put American lives in danger? Why are you not willing to put American lives in danger for a cause you believe in? Does this horror become less so once American lives are on the line?

- wkwami

March 16, 2011 at 6:38am

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

Sophia wrote: "This thread isn't about all the folks who've been killed in other wars, or whether they are more or less valuable than Libyans; it's about our so-called desire to oust Gaddafi." Sophia, situational humanitarianism is very relevant to this discussion. When did we develop this desire to oust Gaddafi? What are we willing to do to accomplish this goal? "I don't know wkwami, what is going on behind the scenes and unless you're an administration mouthpiece neither do you." You're right, I'm not an administration mouthpiece, but I'm also not hiding in a bunker. I'm just saying... Will Obama Order U.S. Intervention in Libya? "You start from the premise that he's crazy," says the senior Administration official . Add his refusal to go quietly (on Monday he told ABC's Christiane Amanpour that he could not step down because "my people love me; they would die for me"), his bristling arsenal in the hands of ruthless mercenaries and other loyalists, and his massive reserves of oil wealth with which to pay them, and you have an international pariah capable of committing the kinds of atrocities that have prompted international intervention in places such as Somalia and Bosnia. It's the scale of murder and mayhem that Gaddafi is capable of unleashing that has Washington focused on behind-the-scenes efforts to oust Gaddafi . "Getting him out is key," says one U.S. official. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2045328_2045338_2055984,00.html #ixzz1GlALeuRL

- wkwami

March 16, 2011 at 7:57am

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

Odd to read such inflamed rhetoric for the cause of American intervention in the Libyan civil war. Very odd, indeed. Evidently, a regime that has been in place for almost 40 years has suddenly become one that must be removed by force of American arms. Why? Because an uprising against that regime is faltering and may be crushed in the next few days. We are told we must act, and quickly, to come to their aid. More than that, actually -- we will be judged a failure if the rebels are destroyed despite our assistance. So act we must, and right away. There's a war on someplace, and if we don't hurry, we might miss it. Let's choose a side and jump in, right now. What's wrong with all you peaceniks? I think what's wrong with us is that we have grown wary of the warmaking impulse that allowed us to invade Iraq without good reason. Testosterone and phony "intelligence" fueled that unjust war. A casual negligence and widespread timidity among liberals and the press were enablers of that fiasco. What's wrong with us is that we have grown tired of watching the failure of American arms to achieve our aims, in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the loss of many lives and the expenditures of hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars. What's wrong with us is that we need a good reason to put American servicemen and women in harm's way, and that our military actions often have unintended consequences -- the loss of civilian lives that cannot be avoided when we decide to use force. Is there a compelling American interest in Libyan regime change? Why didn't we know that two months ago? Given a choice between knee-jerk pacifism, and knee-jerk militarism, I think I would prefer to side with the pacifists. I'm listening to those who want to make a case for war with Qaddafi, but mostly what I am hearing is emotional nonsense. Could it be that all the frothing and foaming is undermining their persuasive power? Neil

- purcellneil

March 16, 2011 at 8:47am

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

arnon writes: "Where and when did L. W. or anyone at TNR invoke Hitler or the Nazis as a justification for ousting Qaddafi?" They didn't that I know of. My point was this: A guy like PurcellNeil would have been writing the same stuff in 1942. Heck, 25% of the population felt that way at the time In other words, there is a segment of the population that will fight for nothing. Even when facing a guy as evil as Hitler, the will rationalize away why he's not such a bad guy. Ergo, their opinion today on other matters such as Libya is largely irrelevant. History has shown that fighting a war to get out from under the thumb of a dictator is a very dicey undertaking. Lots of failures along the way. But as expensive as it can be in terms of blood, there are times it has proven worth it (S Korea, WWII). Not sure if Libya is worth it or not. You really need a stomach to see this stuff through. The worst thing you can do is spill the blood and then not see it through (Viet Nam)

- seattleeng

March 16, 2011 at 9:26am

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

"Not sure if Libya is worth it or not. You really need a stomach to see this stuff through. The worst thing you can do is spill the blood and then not see it through (Viet Nam)" Seattle: not sure where to begin. There are always people who will argue anything - that is not a good reason for or against that argument. Some people always want war, some never, and the point is not whether each is always right as a matter of principle, but whether in context, arguments advanced by one should prevail other the other. In this sense, your observation that you are not sure whether Libya is worth it suggests that you have yet to be persuded by the war side, or have found some of the pacifist arguments worthy of a second look. If so, if you can make a rational choice and weigh arguments, so can the rest of us - and it is possible, it is entirely possible, that we have arrived at the "pacifist" option not out of fear of spilling blood but out of doing so for the wrong reason, at the wrong place, with the wrong resources. So - tell us now why you are ambivalent, not how much pacifists of today would have loved to have capitulated to Hitler of 1942.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 9:47am

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

It seems a lot of folks here are arguing against blackton's straw man. PeteBeck @10:45pm firmly positions himself against the "so called liberal/now style pacifist position" and then proceeds to place himself with those blackie is inveighing against: "Note: I am not suggesting we should put American troops in danger -- only that we offer material help, financed with the billions of Lybian stolen dollars in our banks." In fact, now that I look at it, it's kind of funny--the purest example of a straw-man argument I have ever seen, turned against the one making it. If that was your intention PeteBeck, sorry i didn't catch it.

- dpaup

March 16, 2011 at 10:09am

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

Sophia wrote: "We haven't heard much at all about anything that goes on in Africa period - this is a shame as well - people can't judge or decide to intervene if things aren't covered in the news." To say "we haven't heard much at all about anything that goes on in Africa" is willful ignorance. You simply don't want to know what you don't want to know. While Africa is not covered as much as other areas, there is enough coverage about key issues to engage those who want to be engaged. But lack of coverage does not explain away why there is no will for intervening in African conflicts. Blackton at least conceded that logistics was the issue in Dafur even though the U.S has no problem with the logistics of bombing goat farmers in Afghan villages.

- wkwami

March 16, 2011 at 10:33am

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

dpaup: :) Funny. It looks as if those most in favour of "intervention" are, in fact, more chicken shit about intervention that those against intervention. "Material help" using money that does not belong to us. And see if any sovereign country will leave a single dime in American bankds ...

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 11:29am

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

Incidentally - will be in DC next week - anyone interested in a pint, icarusr@gmail.com.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 11:39am

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

icarusr says that the rule of international law should be respected. Meanwhile, a truly evil dictator is about to slaughter thousands or tens of thousands, and the pathway of international law is blocked. So there are tragic choices. It is simply not the case that the maintenance of democracy requires absolute adherence to treaties, or even the obeying of all enacted laws. The real world is not about absolute logical consistency. It is about real choices, which usually involve serious sacrifices. The prospect of thousands dying and a dictator who already has ample blood on his hands having his way in the face of a popular uprising in favor of democracy, it seems to me may indeed, under certain circumstances, specifically the ones the world faces at this very moment, require the sacrifice the of the principle of "the rule of international law" for the sake of human lives and for the sake of a very concrete hope for democracy in a specific place where none had been before. The real world is about tragic choices. It is indeed tragic that the rest of the world dithers. But all in all, is democracy better furthered by strict adherence to "the rule of international law" in this concrete case, than it is furthered by at least some direct military action, of the kind the people on the ground in Libya and the Arab league are PLEADING for, action which will avert mass murder and which may indeed bring some hope of democracy where there was none before?

- jeremysmit

March 16, 2011 at 12:42pm

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

purcellneil: I think what's wrong with us is that we have grown wary of the warmaking impulse that allowed us to invade Iraq without good reason. I think what's wrong is the left has grown weary of keeping this lead balloon afloat. Wars are never smart. Can anybody give me an example of a smart war? Sometimes, however, they are necessary. There were very good reasons for the Iraq action to take down Hussein and his Bathist monstrosity. Even excluding WMD. I'm not going to bother listing them all. Just because lets give Q a hypothetical military the size and scope of what Bathist Iraq enjoyed and see if that doesn't change your calculous somewhat. Now you would likely not change your mind about invasion and would be clamoring for international and UN sanctions with a faith in containment but it would still change the considerations rattling about in the attic. Now let's have Q giving evidence of ME dominance aspirations with capability to influence the worlds oil supplies in accordance with acquiring influence and power. That changes the picture somewhat, Neh? Too bad the aftermath expectations are not immediately pleasing to our Western sensibilities. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing and let that be enough. The notion that such a bent and perverse society shaped by years of the grossest kinds of abuse would take up with anything remotely rational is very irrational. That our 'neocons' (whatever that is) would sell this happy ending is what pissed me off. That Bush was unprepared for the kind of resistance he got pissed me off even more. Too many fairy tale folks in that particular White House. Would we be met with similar unhappiness in Libya? It is most certainly possible. Maybe even likely. Should that preclude us doing the right thing? For my part, No. We should help free these people. But be prepared for with a realistic head and heart. I guess I'm a bleeding heart conservative. Hmmm. Those definitional categories are under a little stress these days. No? And the kaleidoscope takes a turn.

- jacko

March 16, 2011 at 12:46pm

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

noga and sophia: I do NOT wish for Hezbollah to have an air force, but I DO wish there was some way for Hezbollah to take their 50,000 missiles and fire them on Qaddhafi - just so ironic that Qaddhafi's mortal enemy IS Hezbollah. wkwami: as to Ivory Coast? The UN blue hats have ZERO authority to use deadly force to intervene in what is becoming a civil war. I consider Ivory Coast to be the tragic poster child of the complete failure of the United Nations and international law. and, just for the record, the former Justice Minister who is now head of Benghazi's council only started serving Qaddhafi in 2006 when it was thought Qaddhafi & sons were actually committed to reform. Qaddhafi will be facing an urban insurgency for a long time. Maybe that is what the international community wants, but they will have to seal the borders and stop the boat people. maybe by then, Egypt will finally have to take action, once they have re-instated military rule and martial law, because they will be so threatened by the refugee crisis.

- K2K

March 16, 2011 at 1:14pm

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

"Would we be met with similar unhappiness in Libya? It is most certainly possible. Maybe even likely. Should that preclude us doing the right thing? For my part, No. We should help free these people. But be prepared for with a realistic head and heart." Jacko, you know, despite my series of "agin' it" posts, this comment of yours gets closer in many ways to where I'm at. If we could do something without the USA!! USA!! shouting or the weepy self-deluding "of course they're going to love us" fantasy or the moronic "we're going to kick ass" jock-bs, then I'd stand behind it, and say, nothing's without risk. Which could even be positive. I'm reminded of that scene in The Untouchables when Sean Connery says to Costner when they're about to raid their first illegal alcohol set-up, and are standing ready with a sledgehammer and their weapons. As one of the guys raises the hammer to batter their way in, Connery says, "Wait a second. You know that if we go through that door, there's no going back. Ever."

- ironyroad

March 16, 2011 at 1:15pm

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

jacko, it is heartening to read someone in favor of US military intervention actually weighing the issues. One more matter to contemplate: If you take a second look at the Arab League position, and listen to interviews of Arabs, both in and out of power, you will find them supporting only a very limited kind of no fly zone--no bombing, basically shooting planes out of the sky. Anything more, it seems, would be too much like "shock and awe", and they're unified in saying, anything but another Iraq. Now, you get a different tone from the people in Libya, so I don't know how you would weigh this point. To me it suggests that the Arab League is rather blithe about the safety of NATO pilots. You said icarus has been talking his own book on international law. Well, I have nothing more than a layman's understanding, but it seems pretty clear that, for fairly good reasons, an emerging principle is that neighboring states, preferably in regional collective security organizations, take the lead in humanitarian intervention. In this case it seems clear to me: The Arab League needs to get off the dime. They have clear interests in seeing Q out of power. Especially Egypt and Tunisia, in avoiding the refugee crises to come. Will they come to see it that way soon enough? I don't know. That's the whole dilemma now, and what makes me less than assured in my position. But it does seem to me that "sometimes you just have to do the right thing" begs the question a bit.

- dpaup

March 16, 2011 at 1:25pm

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

Is this like the Red Army watching across the Vistula as the SS destroyed Warsaw much more completely, and with about twenty times the loss of life, than the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear disaster destroyed Sendai? Will Bengazi become the new Srebrenica? Probably.

- Robert Powell

March 16, 2011 at 1:55pm

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

“Funny. It looks as if those most in favour of "intervention" are, in fact, more chicken shit about intervention that those against intervention. "Material help" using money that does not belong to us. And see if any sovereign country will leave a single dime in American bankds ...” Typical Icarus post, accuse generalize but offer no specifics. He writes as if is an American concerned about this country when he isn’t. When challenged make stories about the classes he taught. Icarus all lies all the time.

- Packard

March 16, 2011 at 2:08pm

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

“Funny. It looks as if those most in favour of "intervention" are, in fact, more chicken shit about intervention that those against intervention. "Material help" using money that does not belong to us. And see if any sovereign country will leave a single dime in American bankds ...” Typical Icarus post, accuse generalize but offer no specifics. He writes as if is an American concerned about this country when he isn’t. When challenged make stories about the classes he taught. Icarus all lies all the time.

- Packard

March 16, 2011 at 2:09pm

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

Thanks for the comments gents but I have to actually accomplish something this early afternoon so see you a bit later. Wish me luck on some piano chops. I'll have some piano chops with some syncopated gravy to go please. I'm getting hungry.... Later.

- jacko

March 16, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

"Typical Icarus post, accuse generalize but offer no specifics." Packard, he was obviously responding to dpaup's comment (that itself offered a specific example) marked 10:09 a.m. at the top of the page. How specific do you need? I would emphasize for my part that many of the people arguing against intervention here are doing so because the parties arguing for it won't step up and say what they propose to do if the measures they want don't bring about the desired results. That makes the case for intervention, as I've seen it here at least, one that seems long on passion and short on clear thinking.

- ironyroad

March 16, 2011 at 2:27pm

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

"I would emphasize for my part that many of the people arguing against intervention here are doing so because the parties arguing for it won't step up and say what they propose to do if the measures they want don't bring about the desired results." What would you do if after Qaddafi regains control starts executing anyone who participated in a demonstration against him? If the proposed measure, say a NFZ is adopted and it doesn't work it may not help all of K's victims but knowing that he will be held to account might limit his brutality and save a lot of lives. There is no perfect solution and neither side is a hundred percent right or wrong.

- Packard

March 16, 2011 at 2:33pm

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

jacko, Good luck with the chops. I will agree with your premise that we should do the right thing, but I would argue that the right thing for us to do, almost always, is to refrain from using force to influence political outcomes in other countries. Why Libya should be an exception to that rule is unclear to me. It has been suggested by some here that the liberal thing to do is, almost always, to apply our might on the side of democracy and freedom and against the forces of tyranny. I think that is quite mistaken. I don't believe that liberals must be pacifists, but a quick resort to military force to force regime changes in countries with despotic leaders is a neocon perversion, and not at all consistent with a liberal view. I think Ross Douthat has been right in his NY Times posts. Whether the right thing is to attack Qaddafi is unclear, and therefore we should exercise restraint. Neil

- purcellneil

March 16, 2011 at 2:39pm

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

jacko, Good luck with the chops. I will agree with your premise that we should do the right thing, but I would argue that the right thing for us to do, almost always, is to refrain from using force to influence political outcomes in other countries. Why Libya should be an exception to that rule is unclear to me. It has been suggested by some here that the liberal thing to do is, almost always, to apply our might on the side of democracy and freedom and against the forces of tyranny. I think that is quite mistaken. I don't believe that liberals must be pacifists, but a quick resort to military force to force regime changes in countries with despotic leaders is a neocon perversion, and not at all consistent with a liberal view. I think Ross Douthat has been right in his NY Times posts. Whether the right thing is to attack Qaddafi is unclear, and therefore we should exercise restraint. Neil

- purcellneil

March 16, 2011 at 2:39pm

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

"Would we be met with similar unhappiness in Libya? It is most certainly possible. Maybe even likely. Should that preclude us doing the right thing? For my part, No. We should help free these people. But be prepared for with a realistic head and heart." This reminds me of one of Fouad Ajami's greater articles on the eve of the war in Iraq. Two quotes: http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_and_the_arabs_future.htm "There should be no illusions about the sort of Arab landscape that America is destined to find if, or when, it embarks on a war against the Iraqi regime. There would be no "hearts and minds" to be won in the Arab world, no public diplomacy that would convince the overwhelming majority of Arabs that this war would be a just war. An American expedition in the wake of thwarted UN inspections would be seen by the vast majority of Arabs as an imperial reach into their world, a favor to Israel, or a way for the United States to secure control over Iraq's oil. No hearing would be given to the great foreign power. America ought to be able to live with this distrust and discount a good deal of this anti-Americanism as the "road rage" of a thwarted Arab world -- the congenital condition of a culture yet to take full responsibility for its self-inflicted wounds. There is no need to pay excessive deference to the political pieties and givens of the region. Indeed, this is one of those settings where a reforming foreign power's simpler guidelines offer a better way than the region's age-old prohibitions and defects." "The Arab world could whittle down, even devour, an American victory. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible, political landscape. It may reject the message of reform by dwelling on the sins of the American messenger. There are endless escapes available to that Arab world. It can call up the fury of the Israeli-Palestinian violence and use it as an alibi for yet more self-pity and rage. It can shout down its own would-be reformers, write them off as accomplices of a foreign assault. It can throw up its defenses and wait for the United States to weary of its expedition. It is with sobering caution, then, that a war will have to be waged. But it should be recognized that the Rubicon has been crossed. Any fallout of war is certain to be dwarfed by the terrible consequences of America's walking right up to the edge of war and then stepping back, letting the Iraqi dictator work out the terms of another reprieve. It is the fate of great powers that provide order to do so against the background of a world that takes the protection while it bemoans the heavy hand of the protector. This new expedition to Mesopotamia would be no exception to that rule." Whatever intervention in Libya is done it had better be done by the Arab league in the driver's seat. They have the money, the armies, the training, the weapons to do it. They share a language, a culture, sensibilities, religion, and more, with the Libyan so if they attack him, no one could accuse them of doing it for the wrong reasons. Let them match their deeds to their rhetorical flourishes. Here is their chance to show they deserve the world's respect.

- noga1

March 16, 2011 at 2:41pm

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

"specifically the ones the world faces at this very moment, require the sacrifice the of the principle of "the rule of international law" for the sake of human lives and for the sake of a very concrete hope for democracy in a specific place where none had been before ..." Ah yes. The principle is the rule of law, not the rule of international law, or any specific law. The principle is a foundational principle whose sacrifice we celebrate, for whatever end, at our own peril. I recall the famous exchange between More and Roper in "A Man for all Seasons" (cited below); I refer you to Daniel Patrick Moynihan's book, "On the Law of Nations", which has a far better explanation of why international law matters than I can give in these pages.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
The problem with sacrificing law, and the rule of law, is not just that it might not, in the long run benefit us. Even if someone has enough hubris to think that no amount of lawlessness will have an impact on a superpower's long-term interests, lawless behaviour, no matter how noble the cause, has its own internal harm. I recall the last exchange in "Judgement at Nuremberg". In my view, as this exchange shows, Abu Ghraib was the direct result of the initial decision to plough through the Iraq war without adequate international legal cover; we ignore the admonition at our own peril:
Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. You *must* believe it, *You must* believe it! Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it "came to that" the *first time* you sentenced a man to death you *knew* to be innocent.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 2:44pm

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

Packard: "He writes as if is an American concerned about this country when he isn’t." This is your third post on the relevance of my background to discussing matters related to American intervention in Libya. I will not deign to respond any longer to your drivel, but, having been rebuked several times not just by myself but by others on this very point, and persisting, as you do, in raising the matter, one has to question whether you have issues with foreigners having opinions or brains, or discussing matters of their choice. Clearly, the strength or weakness of my views, are to be determined on their own merits: should others here not think them valid, it is irrelevant where I am from, and if they are it is equally irrelevant from which city or under what sort of melanin disability I write my posts. So, I have to ask - are you a bigot?

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 2:49pm

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

Noga: one does not have to agree with Ajami (and at the time, I did) to concede that he writes very well; and of course in these passages, he was mostly right. Thanks for the cite. This line in particular is dead on: "Any fallout of war is certain to be dwarfed by the terrible consequences of America's walking right up to the edge of war and then stepping back." Which is why the US should be extremely careful in the steps it takes. An NFZ or a DMZ would be "walking right up to the edge of war"; and if they fail to contain the dictator and we still do nothing, the consequences are going to be far more disastrous than not having done anything at all. And if an NFZ or a DMZ, as jacko says, are we sure we know the costs and the consequences?

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 2:54pm

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

"If the proposed measure, say a NFZ is adopted and it doesn't work it may not help all of K's victims but knowing that he will be held to account might limit his brutality and save a lot of lives." I agree, doing nothing is not an option.

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 4:25pm

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

Srebrenica in Bengazi? Could be. All we need is a UN no-fly-zone and "safe area". Where are the forces of the Arab League and France? I'm reminded of Lily Tomlin: "Just when you think you're really cynical, they top you....you just can't keep up!"

- Robert Powell

March 16, 2011 at 4:27pm

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

Icarus's post is more incoherent than a post by Martin Peretz. He confuses Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Thomas More's and the film Judgment at Nuremberg to make a confused point. Moynihan would certainly not have been on the side of those who don't have the stomach to fight for our principles.

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 4:33pm

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

Arnon: "He confuses Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Thomas More's and the film Judgment at Nuremberg to make a confused point. Moynihan, in his book, "On the Law of Nations", to which I specifically referred, quotes the passage from "A Man for All Seasons" that I cited. The only confusion is in the minds of people who, not having read a book, propose to comment on it. It was reading the passage in Moynihan's book that prompted me to see the movie, read the play and then to use them in my courses. Judgment at Nuremberg was the icing. And Moynihan, in this same book (which you quite evidently have not read), laments the rush to war that tramples underfoot the principles of international law. In example after example, he demonstrates how international law does not mean "not having a stomach to fight", but it means respecting principles that we ourselves have agreed to live by for hundreds of years. Before you accuse me of confusion, it would be useful to, you know, read a bit.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 4:42pm

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

RP: "All we need is a UN no-fly-zone and "safe area"." Sadly ... too true.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 4:43pm

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

I, for one, appreciate Ick's perspectives. Particularly in light of the experiences that he brings to the table.

- jacko

March 16, 2011 at 4:48pm

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

K2K wrote: "as to Ivory Coast? The UN blue hats have ZERO authority to use deadly force to intervene in what is becoming a civil war. I consider Ivory Coast to be the tragic poster child of the complete failure of the United Nations and international law." Agreed, but even with zero authority to use deadly force, they are still useful in protecting Ouattara as the internationally recognized President of Ivory Coast. In this instance, I think peacekeeping is the appropriate role for the UN forces. Let ECOWAS forces (ECOMOG) handle the "use of force" aspect if they have to. But even that mightnot be necessary they way things are going. If you're familiar with the New Forces, rumor has it that they're operational again with tacit approval from a certain superpower. Laurent Gbagbo made a grave mistake when he refused to take Obama's calls back in December. There is a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on at the moment. They are trying to keep this thing as local as possible. My whole point is that superpower "shock and awe" is not the only way to intervene in other countries. Each war or conflict will have its casualties - as perverse as it may sound it may be preferable for those casualties to be inflicted by the locals rather than by the US. I think the "how" of the intervention matters a lot more that we think. Especially so in the case of Libya. "and, just for the record, the former Justice Minister who is now head of Benghazi's council only started serving Qaddhafi in 2006 when it was thought Qaddhafi & sons were actually committed to reform." Fair enough, but I will again caution that as sincere as he may be, there is the possibility that he may not survive a post Qaddafi power struggle, thus all his good intentions may come to nought. I would hope that our decision to go to war would be based on more than the rebels good intentions. "Qaddhafi will be facing an urban insurgency for a long time. Maybe that is what the international community wants, but they will have to seal the borders and stop the boat people. maybe by then, Egypt will finally have to take action, once they have re-instated military rule and martial law, because they will be so threatened by the refugee crisis." That may well be the case. I should point out that this sudden realization that Qaddafi is a serious threat and needs to neutralized ASAP does not add up (we seem to be developing a taste for going after weakened Arab dictatorships) for some reason.

- wkwami

March 16, 2011 at 4:51pm

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

How about declaring Bengazi a free city, with the relevant rules enforced by an international force composed of French and Arab League ground forces with US air and naval support? Quickly now, is there International Law or not?

- Robert Powell

March 16, 2011 at 4:54pm

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

In the absence of UNSC resolutions, regional organizations (or even a single state), acting on humanitarian grounds, may well step in to protect the civilian population of a city from slaughter. But even if we were to grant that in certain extreme examples, international law not only permits, but requires intervention to protect a civilian population from its own government (outside of the cases of genocide) - and I am thinking of Vietnam-Cambodia here - it does not resolve the issue of whether it would be wise for the United States to do so, when the Arab League evidently is not there, when France prefers to talk the talk and push American soldiers to do the fighting, and when we are doing precisely nothing in Bahrain, where civilians are being shot, in plain sight of video cameras, by a foreign army invited to keep the peace. Bahrain/Saudi Arabia = US client states; victims, shi'ites/Persians, so I guess they don't count?

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 5:01pm

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

In response to icarus. You are misconstruing what I am saying. I am not saying that the principle of international law, or of law, should itself be sacrificed. I'm saying that in certain concrete circumstances it is not necessarily possible to do what is morally required and at the same time perfectly uphold every principle you are committed to. I think the reference to More you bring in doesn't fit what I am saying. The tone of that speech is a general attitude of "In order to really deal with evil, we have to abandon all principles of legal prodedure and just shoot the bastards so the world will be better off." I am not arguing for a general principle like that. Instead I am saying that certain concrete situations may indeed morally require that one, let's say, break a treaty. Moral choices--whether made by individuals or nations--are concrete and specific. Human life and the prospect of democracy are also values that have absolute validity. As a matter of fact, they have a deeper validity than laws or treaties do. But again, I am not taking the argument in the play that therefore laws or treaties should in general just be dispensed with! But what do you do in cases where there is a clear conflict between the moral requirement to save thousands of lives if you can, and a treaty requirement that you not act without others? There is no general principle which can determine this. It is a matter of the concrete circumstance. And it is something like a failure of moral vision to not see that what we are facing now is precisely one such exceptional concrete circumstance.

- jeremysmit

March 16, 2011 at 5:04pm

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

"There is no general principle which can determine this. It is a matter of the concrete circumstance." Spoken like a true Burkean - and I mean that as the highest of compliments. I might have misunderstood, but did not mean to misconstrue. Perhaps I was thrown off by the word "sacrifice". The interplay of law and morality is an intricate one - and I am not sure it is entirely resolveable on this thread. I am not a positivist, nor am I a Natural Law thinker. I think the strict positivist position - Positive Law is all that matters, morality be damned (and I am caricaturising for effect) - is problematic; any way, Nuremberg put paid to that. But there are dangers - enormous dangers - to Natural Law approaches ("Human life and the prospect of democracy are also values that have absolute validity. As a matter of fact, they have a deeper validity than laws or treaties do.") because, as an anstract and acontextual approach (and I acknowledge you do not mean that) this becomes too convenient an excuse to dispense with law and legal obligation at the whim of a moral concern. Now, for what it is worth, in my view, international law is all about concrete circumstance (see above my note to RP). And the principles of humanitarian intervention are very much derived from moral outrage. In this sense, international law and international morality are not only not in opposition, they complement and re-enforce one another. Kosovo is the perfect example of it; Nuremberg, and the invention of a whole class of law arising out of moral outrage, is the epitome of this complementarity. This is perhaps why reading your "sacrifice" point, I might have misunderstood the point you were making. Morality already provides for applicable law in concrete circumstances. The law does not prohibit unilateral intervention; it prohibits unilateral intervention as a first policy option. It does not prohibit selectiveness; it asks those who wish to engage in such action to ensure that the selectiveness does not bring the principle into disrepute: if we ignore subsaharan Africa and only deal with Middle Eastern crises; if we ignore some Middle Eastern countries only to concentrate on others, we might be saving some lives, but we end up costing a lot more because selectiveness, far more than inaction, is a green light to those not selected to act at will. And so on. There is, therefore, no opposition between international law and morality. The opposition is hyped up by those who: 1) view international law only through the prism of multilateral process, and this is wrong; 2) ignore the fact that multilateral process is usually an excuse - a fig leaf - for inaction by states, and not the cause of it; and 3) fail to understand that much of international law is a reflection of competing notions of interest and morality and already embeds many of the concerns you have raised. Roper, in the end, was not making a generalised statement about cutting all laws; he, too, was making a specific reference to the worst evil of all. It was, in fact, More who was the less contextual (and more problematic) of the two: he would uphold the law regardless of context. But it is worth remembering that after Nuremberg, no matter now evil the perpetrators, and despite enormous pressure by Stalin to simply dispense with the leadership of Nazi Germany - in a case that surpassed all known immorality known to the sorry history of man - the United States insisted on following law and legal process. They did so for all of our safety's sake.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 5:26pm

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

dpaup: " it is heartening to read someone in favor of US military intervention actually weighing the issues" I get the feeling, or rather impression, that presidential politics (for or against) is too often the motivator when considering the very serious matter of military state craft. I have no room for it beyond the calculation of capacities as commander in chief. I also got the impression that much of the criticism of the Iraq action wound up morphing into some pretty strange advocacies. Such that it wouldn't have been out of hand to suggest that the miscreant Hussein et al were the beneficiaries of assigned sympathies and 'Rights' that truly offended my tender sensitivities. As if the sole purpose of said advocacies was to diminish Bush's standing and facilitate a pan indictment of the Pubs. Even people who I thought knew better were mum and played along with the charade. So this ridiculous story line was fashioned that the Iraq action II was unjustified. I'll certainly not do that to Obama. These are very critical issues that are sufficiently problematic without all of the other ancillary intrigues. This Libya thing is a tough nut and my sitting still for sitting still requires from me a degree of faith that I am not used to indulging. I had mismeasured Bush's capacities of imaginations for mischief post kinetic and was flabbergasted. With that the likely price that would have to be paid up for the resolution of the Iraqi civil order. God bless those very brave men and women that paid for the credibility gap. Gutsy stuff but it is the only thing that was going to speak through the sturm and drang. Some of the sturm and drang was aide and encouraged by political critics desirous of ratifying their over all view as colored by personal political preferences. I would dare say some of those folks even now are secretly hoping for a clear cut failure in Iraq for no other reason but a perceived vindication of a personally held view..... as colored by personal politics. Self centered in the extreme. I can't prove it but I do know a little about human nature. I've even been accused of being one upon occasion. Human that is.... and don't get my wife started....

- jacko

March 16, 2011 at 5:42pm

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

Hey Ick. I just couldn't pass up that shot across your bow. I think the problem that I have with Law in general is that it is often confused with an end rather than a means. Understandable enough in this day of banishing God to the cheap seats.

- jacko

March 16, 2011 at 5:46pm

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

"I just couldn't pass up that shot across your bow." Go wild man, go wild :>.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 5:50pm

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

“Before you accuse me of confusion, it would be useful to, you know, read a bit.” Your posts, Icarus, can’t stand close scrutiny. “The principle is the rule of law, not the rule of international law, or any specific law. The principle is a foundational principle whose sacrifice we celebrate, for whatever end, at our own peril.” What principle is that? We all agree here that the principle that the rule of law is important, but what principle are you citing to support your contention (I think this is your contention since you post is so confused that it’s hard to say) that supporting the opposition to Khadafy’s illegitimate rule would be illegal. If you are not saying that, what are you saying? The Moynihan book doesn’t support your claim and neither does the quote from “A Man for All Seasons” which historically is nonsense since Sir. More tortured and burned heretics himself. Would the historical More give the devil the benefit of law? I doubt it. As for the movie you cite the less said the better. Are you trying to make a case that our invasion of Iraq was like the Nazi invasion of Poland and other countries? Would we be acting like Hitler if we helped remove Hitler from power? You are more confused than Martin Perez.

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 5:54pm

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

"Are you trying to make a case that our invasion of Iraq was like the Nazi invasion of Poland and other countries?" Arnon, Judgement at Nuremberg had nothing to do with the invasion of Poland. "The Moynihan book doesn’t support your claim." Depending on what claim it is you are talking about. As for "the rule of law", given that you have not read the book, I suggest you stop commenting on it. It's one thing to be ignorant; another, entirely, to shout it from the rooftops. "Would the historical More give the devil the benefit of law?" Er. Who cares about the historical More? Holt's play is famous not because of More but because of his writing and his treatment of questions of faith and politics. "what principle are you citing to support your contention ... that supporting the opposition to Khadafy’s illegitimate rule would be illegal." I said nothing of the kind. Merely point out that the Charter of the United Nations that says a country may not unilaterally invade another country. There are exceptions to this rule, and in fact principles of international law that require intervention, but that is precisely what we are discussing: what are the circumstances under which the law permits, or even requires, intervention. Three or two weeks ago, unilateral intervention by the United States in Libyan affairs would have been illegal. If Benghazi is under siege or its people about to be slaughtered, intervention, even unilateral intervention, may be permitted by law; whether it is wise for the US to do so, is another matter entirely.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 6:04pm

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

"Er. Who cares about the historical More? Holt's play is famous not because of More but because of his writing and his treatment of questions of faith and politics." This is bull, the plat became famous because it was a play written about a Saint. The play has been heavily and rightly criticized because it falsifies history. Before you accuse others of ignorance Oh great savant make sure of your facts. Your post is a fantasy. More is not the Lawyerly saint you think he is. Moynihan would not have opposed helping the Libyan opposition, and Judgment at Nuremberg dealt with Nazi war crimes of which the invasion of Poland was a primary example.

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 6:14pm

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

icarus, I'll second your small manifesto. An analogy that might help is to English common law, that most Burkean of institutions--apply moral intuitions to concrete situations, articulate a general principle in justification and to inform moral intuitions going forward, modify said principle in further, problematic cases, and so on. Plus work up a few Magna Cartas along the way. Whether the process is positivistic, God-guided, or something else altogether depends on where one believes those moral intuitions are seated. Note, though, that is not a question we need to answer to engage in the process.

- dpaup

March 16, 2011 at 6:17pm

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

"Judgment at Nuremberg dealt with Nazi war crimes of which the invasion of Poland was a primary example." No, it dealt with crimes against humanity, not war crimes. And the context of it was fairly circumscribed. Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. "the plat became famous because it was a play written about a Saint." There are lots of plays and books about Saints. There are certainly a lot of problems with the historical More - and James Wood discusses all of these in his wonderful review of the play - but, again, none of that has anything to do with the themes that the play deals with. I did not cite the play because I think the historical More is a lawyerly saint, but because the specific passage is an eloquent defence of a principle - the rule of law - that is often difficult to explain, let alone defend. "Moynihan would not have opposed helping the Libyan opposition" We don't know what Moynihan would or would not do. We know what we wrote, and what he wrote - including citing More - about international law. Three errors in one sentence. I strongly suggest you stop.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 6:21pm

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

Irony: You're a decent guy. Times they are a changing. As Bob Dylan succinctly put it. Hey thanks for persuading to stay a while back when I was going to give up the klatch. Perhaps you might bring a little of that to bear upon the Ickster.

- jacko

March 16, 2011 at 6:23pm

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

icarusr "No, it dealt with crimes against humanity, not war crimes. And the context of it was fairly circumscribed. Please stop talking about things you know nothing about." I barely touched on the Holocaust.

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 6:24pm

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

dpaup: well said. I find the meaning of law in HLA Hart, Franck's notion of legitimacy, and a modern variation of both of them in the concept of "interpretive community". One of the consequences of this approach is this: A statement posing as law that is at variance with universal morality cannot be law properly understood, that is, as a command upon the conscience of individual to do or not do an act. The corollary to that is, not every assertion of morality may undermine the force of law on the conscience. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Arab League and France and Italy are not intervening now, because they expect that if things get bad enough, they can force the US to act - and then blame it if things get worse. Too conspiratorial, perhaps, but the utter silence of the so-called Arab Street is deafening.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 6:28pm

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

"I barely touched on the Holocaust." The movie certainly did not. It was about the perversion of the German Justice system by the judges, sitting in the dock.

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 6:30pm

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

Wow. I guess it's two-minute-hate time again. I should clarify that the "small manifesto" endorsed @5:17pm is the icarusr post @4:26pm. Except perhaps ic should have put quotes around "More" to make clear what is generally assumed, that he is, in Bolt's play, a fictional character. I mean, the whole thing is so obviously anachronistic, how could anyone read it as history?

- dpaup

March 16, 2011 at 6:32pm

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

purcellneil: You have a defensible position. Thanks for the luck. Mayhaps I'll apply that to a redo here very shortly. Kind of a romping, driving Jeff Beck-ish bass foundational. Gotta bring the tude. Delivered with a bit of a good natured sneer. Off to it.

- jacko

March 16, 2011 at 6:33pm

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

"how could anyone read it as history?" I suspect Arnon is throwing all he can - reminds me of Burns trying to strike Homer - at me, regardless of whether any of it makes sense. He has not read Moynihan's book and not seen Judgement at Nuremberg, and is commenting confidently about both and criticising me for it. What difference would it make if I put More in quotes? :) ...

- icarusr

March 16, 2011 at 6:39pm

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

Icarus with another of self serving posts that prove nothing. Plays and films are not history. "I suspect Arnon is throwing all he can -" Wrong about this too. I barely scratched the surface of your fiction claims.

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 8:23pm

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

Not that I wish to spend more time on icarus than I have to.

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 8:25pm

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

Judgment in Nuremberg was a pretty mediocre film. Why would anyone want to use it in a law class?

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 8:26pm

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

BBC News America showed the women of Benghazi marching in the streets today. One banner read "How many have to die for the Security Council to act?" tsaw that about twenty minutes after I wondered - in a Gandhian moment - 'what would happen if one hundred thousand men and women of Benghazi marched out onto the highway to confront Qaddhafi's tanks, with the BBC recording it... and, now that families are driving loaded cars to the Egyptian border, perhaps Hillary's visit (the private meetings) will change the media meme tomorrow. Have to admit it was weird watching PBS and then BBC America covering the same story tonight with totally different perceptions. PBS almost conceding Qaddhafi has won if nothing is done tomorrow, and BBC far more nuanced in not being sure who had the advantage. hoping for better news tomorrow...on any subject.

- K2K

March 16, 2011 at 8:47pm

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

"Judgment in Nuremberg" didn't even make the list of best top ten films about the law: http://www.abajournal.com/gallery/top25movies/108 It came in at number 12 behind my "Cousin Vinny."

- arnon

March 16, 2011 at 10:41pm

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

It came in at number 12 behind my "Cousin Vinny." What a great flick. You're a smooth talker. You are. You are.

- jacko

March 16, 2011 at 11:43pm

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

jacko -- in general I'm a stick-in-the-mud and I like to duke it out with the same people, because I know a little about how they think. For example, I believe William Yard's absence is a loss to these boards, even though his wit and wisdom has been gone a long time, almost two years now. I am reasonably sure icarus will stay in the game.

- ironyroad

March 17, 2011 at 2:35pm

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

Well, I'll tell you -- I was strongly against a Bush-II style invasion of Libya. The problem with that approach is "getting done and getting out" is really difficult. But today when the US is going in to take out Libya's air defenses, I really got a thrill. See, the problem is that the US can DO military success, solve the military problem. The problem AFTER that is solving the "peace" problem -- who gets the country? Who becomes the new leader? What are the new leader's policies? Are they any better than Qaddafi? Fortunately we've avoided the most difficult problem -- how do we get our boots OFF the ground when we're in the middle of a civil war? Now THAT would have been difficult.

- AllanL5

March 19, 2011 at 4:05pm

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

But Jacko, nowhere in the the statement did they rule anything out. So boots on the ground are still a possibility.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 19, 2011 at 5:47pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close