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 The Case Against Our Attack on Libya

WORLD MARCH 20, 2011

The Case Against Our Attack on Libya

BY MICHAEL WALZER

There are so many things wrong with the Libyan intervention that it is hard to know where to begin. So, a few big things, in no particular order:

First, it is radically unclear what the purpose of the intervention is—there is no endgame, as a U.S. official told reporters. Is the goal to rescue a failed rebellion, turn things around, use Western armies to do what the rebels couldn’t do themselves: overthrow Qaddafi? Or is it just to keep the fighting going for as long as possible, in the hope that the rebellion will catch fire, and Libyans will get rid of the Qaddafi regime by themselves? Or is it just to achieve a cease-fire, which would leave Qaddafi in control of most of the country and probably more than willing to bide his time? The size of the opening attack points toward the first of these, but success there would probably require soldiers on the ground, which no one in France, Britain, or the United States really wants. The second is the most likely goal, though it would extend, not stop, the bloodshed.

Second, the attacks don’t have what we should have insisted on from the very beginning—significant Arab support. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have promised military forces, but they represent roughly 1 percent of the Arab people. There is no support coming from either Tunisia or Egypt, Libya’s immediate neighbors. The Tunisian army is small, but the Egyptian army isn’t small, and they have an air force, too. The United States has spent billions of dollars on the Egyptian military, and it is astonishing that Egypt is not willing to make any contribution to the intervention. That is a very bad sign, for the attacks will undoubtedly kill civilians, and these will be innocent men, women, and children, Arab and Muslim, killed (again) by the French, the British, and the Americans. Russia and China, who opposed the intervention, abstained on the final Security Council vote, perhaps because they can’t imagine an outcome that better suits their interests in the Middle East and Africa.

Third, opposition in the Security Council didn’t stop with Russia and China. India, Brazil, and Germany also opposed the intervention, and then abstained. The African Union refused to send a representative to the meeting called by President Sarkozy in Paris to consolidate support for military action. The Arab League called for the creation of a no-fly zone, but some of its leaders are already criticizing the attacks required to make it work. And, again, no major Arab state is participating. It is an old pattern that we thought was finished after the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia—where Arab states (and other states too) don’t take responsibility for doing what they want done … by someone else.

None of this would matter if this were a humanitarian intervention to stop a massacre. But that is not what is happening in Libya today. There would have been a cruel repression after a Qaddafi victory, and it would have been necessary to help rebels and dissidents escape and to make sure that they had a place to go. Watching the repression wouldn’t be easy (though we seem to be having no difficulty doing that in Bahrain and Yemen). But the overthrow of tyrants and the establishment of democracy has to be local work, and in this case, sadly, the locals couldn’t do it. Foreigners can provide all sorts of help—moral, political, diplomatic, and even material. Maybe neighbors, who share ethnicity and religion with the Libyan people, could do more. But a military attack of the sort now in progress is defensible only in the most extreme cases. Rwanda and Darfur, where we didn’t intervene, would have qualified. Libya doesn’t.

Michael Walzer is a New Republic contributing editor and professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 54 comments

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

54 comments

These are valid concerns. On balance, however, I think we've done the right thing. We really can't have had another example of calling on people to rise up and throw off the dictator followed by massacres "closely followed" by our forces from the sidelines. If nothing else the fact that the Security Council actually stepped up, and that other nations are taking the lead, makes this a valuable precedent. It does seem ridiculous that all that fancy equipment we've provided for the Egyptians and the Saudis over the years is sitting idle, but that might change. In the mean time, our intelligence community should be applying a full court press to identify and support the right rebel leaders. Libya has been, after all, one of the principal sources of foreign terrorists in Iraq.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 4:51am

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

Thank you. Michael Walzer. This campaign is a mistake, and Obama knows it. He is already telling us, through Sec'y Gates, that we are days away from stepping back and away from the battle. It is as clear an admission of the foolish nature of this adventure as one can ask for, although the support of TNR and the leading role of Sarkozy are also pretty compelling indicators. Let's hope this ends well. Neil

- purcellneil

March 21, 2011 at 9:21am

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

"Watching the repression wouldn’t be easy" That really says it all.

- lammersd

March 21, 2011 at 11:22am

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

A well reasoned response. I'm with RP though. On balance, we had no choice and it's important to see that the UN isn't going to sit back and watch yet another massacre.

- WandreyCer

March 21, 2011 at 11:28am

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

What I'd like to know, dear friends, is when all the "no blood for oil" screaming starts. Contra Wandrey, of course we had a choice, and I'll support the CinC. But Walzer should be read very carefully - we need clear objectives, which the CinC has talked about but not provided. This makes me very uneasy. Oh, and does Congress matter at all?

- butchie b

March 21, 2011 at 11:36am

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

butchie, Apparently, Congress does not matter, and is happy to stand back and watch. I generally support the President, but I believe his actions in Libya need specific Congressional authorization, and very soon. As in the case of Bradley Manning, the President seems to think he is above the law. I am quite concerned. Neil

- purcellneil

March 21, 2011 at 11:47am

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

Powell, Wandrey, did you read Walzer's piece? He makes concrete points, and you answer back with, "We had no other choice." Or, "It would be hard to watch from the sidelines." Yes, Neil, congress is happy to step back. This way, when it goes to hell, democrats and republicans alike can blame him and not lose any of their votes. In the meantime, it's clear Obama was terrified of being called a wuss. Unfortunately, I'll be stuck voting for him because the other choice, at this point, will be way worse. And you're right about Manning. Obama, on Libya and Manning, is showing his spinelessness.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 11:56am

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

Walzer who is a well-respected political philosopher has drafted a pithy response of objections to intervention in Libya. I am not sure by merely reading this short article if his objections are meant to apply only to US intervention or more universally to intervention by any country? His argument against intervention is coherent though not convincing especially not for the English or French. Walzer notes towards the end of his article: “None of this would matter if this were a humanitarian intervention to stop a massacre. But that is not what is happening in Libya today. There would have been a cruel repression after a Qaddafi victory, and it would have been necessary to help rebels and dissidents escape and to make sure that they had a place to go.” The outcome of a policy of non intervention would mean tens of thousands of refugees. Many of them would try to make their way to Europe unable to take in more refugees. What was at stake in a non intervention policy in Europe is not the same of what was at stake in America.

- Packard

March 21, 2011 at 12:18pm

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

Molly, I did read the article and I stand by my admittedly brief response. It was brief because I do not subscribe to the either/or black/white dichotomy on this war and see no reason to blather on in this case pounding my chest when I wouldn't dare. Mr Walzers was a reasoned response, which I found both philosophically satisfying and unworkable in the real world of this situation. I could be wrong, I am almost always very humble in matters of US military intervention. As another TNR contributer wrote - we're probably creating an insugency as we speak, have we learned nothing blah blah. I can make that argument too. But I find the case for intervention manifestly stronger in this case. The only people whose opinions I mistrust are those who are adamantly sure - one way or the other - from minute one until further notice.

- WandreyCer

March 21, 2011 at 12:35pm

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

As far as Obama, I think he showed courage in listening to his advisors and not militantly sticking to his Brent Scrowcroft like ways in the face of a gruesome massacre that's been live on Al Jazeera - with the rebels begging for our help. It was becoming a catastrophic error for the world to sit back and watch. Events are on-going, so again - I make no firm pronouncements. Obama had to and he did. I don't think watching a massacre counts as courage, myself. Not when there is will in the world to help, which in this case there blessedly was. When is the last time the French took the lead in anything? That the UN got off its ass in time to do anything? I understand the case against this intervention very well, I just disagree.

- WandreyCer

March 21, 2011 at 12:41pm

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

I agree with Wandrey, and I'd add that there seems to be some kind of permanent dog-and-pony show in this country determined, no matter what happens, to paint Obama as a wuss or some kind of dithering innocent or a rhetorically effective puppet controlled by the "system" or whatever. I think the president and his team (esp. the Sec State and the ambassador to the UN) have performed very effectively in this crisis. They kept their nerve in the face of shouts to go in now! now! now! Relatively quickly, however, they had a request for a No-Fly-Zone from the Arab League to work with -- not to mention very public appeals for help from Benghazi -- and obtained a UNSC resolution with no veto. Yes, time was lost for the purpose of making the intervention valid in international law -- no doubt a sign of weakness for the USA! F**k Yeah!! crowd, who would of course be the first to jump up and blame Obama if we had gone in unilaterally and some disaster had ensued. No we don't know how this will transpire. Ghaddafi could hang on. There might be a kind of Yugoslavia-style break up of the country. If we had guarantees from the future we'd never need to really make a hard choice on anything.

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 1:09pm

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

I would just reiterate that the lack of clear objectives is greatly troubling. Are we trying to oust Khadafy? Try to let the rebels win? Partition (Joe Biden - call your service)? Something else? Whatever the aim is, when do we stop? I've been around things military since 1972, and this is the oddest US intervention I've ever seen. Neil, why did the CinC not go to Congress first. Put them on the spot, no?

- butchie b

March 21, 2011 at 1:57pm

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

Michael Walzer clearly did not have his facts when he wrote: "None of this would matter if this were a humanitarian intervention to stop a massacre. But that is not what is happening in Libya today. " Actually, Obama specifically said on Friday after UNSC1973 “Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas” The reason? There WAS, and continues to be massacres of civilians in Misrata and Zawiya (and probably in the Berber city of Zawara), all west of Tripoli. In the east, direct attacks by tanks, mortars, and mobile machine guns was starting in Ajdabiya just after the UNSCRes1973, and on Saturday, same started in southern Benghazi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misurata Feb 24, 2011 to the present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Az_Zawiyah Feb 24 - March 10-11, 2011 In the east: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ajdabiya March 15 to this very moment Anyone care to consider that "all necessary means" might actually include direct attacks on Qaddhafi and sons IF they retain control of enough military?

- K2K

March 21, 2011 at 2:07pm

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

butchie, I don't know, of course, but I assume that Reid and McConnell, Boehner and Pelosi, and probably some of the relevant Committee chairs were consulted and that they expressed their support for immediate action. If so, the question is why they didn't follow that with a joint resolution expressing such support. I think this is very sloppy and frankly disturbing. When we act with such deadly force the very least that we owe our military, our citizens, and our neighbors in this world is some due process of law. It is not enough that the UN approves. It is of course possible that, as FOX News has reported, a sizable majority of Americans are not in favor of this intervention. If we get in and out quickly, and nothing but good comes of our actions, maybe the polls will rebound. Big question. It is possible that our leaders in Congress would prefer not to vote on a resolution before the answer is known. In short, we have a collaboration between a President who seems to be a fan of the Cheney-Yoo school of Presidential powers, and a Congress that is afraid to be held accountable. Not a good combination. Neil

- purcellneil

March 21, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

butchie - By the way, it has been a long time. Very nice to chat with you again. Neil

- purcellneil

March 21, 2011 at 2:24pm

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

I fear there is a confusion in Walzer's comments between public pronouncements and private agreements. One of the common agreements is along the lines of "I want you to do this and I'll support it, but I'll make all kinds of negative noises to appease my domestic constituency." One has to assume that a lot of diplomacy went into clearing this effort and getting sufficient cover to make it work. While there will no doubt be downsides to this--and the future in Libya is certainly in doubt--it is in fact hard to believe that most Arab governments were not happy to see the West get rid of this embarrassment. Even those facing their own unrest, who must have mixed feelings, might benefit, despite themselves, from the message that only so much suppression is acceptable.

- waterman

March 21, 2011 at 2:34pm

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

Second Neil on the goodness of hearing from butchie again, and agree with both gentlemen on the puzzling lack of Congressional resolution. Hell, I'd go for a full-dress Declaration of War. We need, IMHO, to separate the somewhat theoretical "international law" blessing bestowed by the UNSC from the actual legal concerns of a constitutional republic, which last time I checked we still were. In more practical terms, when does "no fly zone" convert into "close air support" as the rebels tighten their chin straps and head West again? Where are the special ops guys and the FACs? What happens when the rebels massacre loyalists? Does anyone really think Qaddafi and Clan will just move to Rome now that they're indicted by the ICCJ--wouldn't it be simpler just to kill them? And where are the Egyptian ground troops we've been feeding and equipping for decades? This may be doable--it's just six million people strung out along a few roads along the coast--but we have a drastic need to define our immediate to mid-term objectives and means.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 3:11pm

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

Thanks Bob and Neil. Bob - quite so. What happens when we stop? Does MQ go right back at it? This is all rather odd, especially in light of the quotes I've read today from Sen. Obama circa 2007 about how NO intervention is constitutional unless Congress approves, short of a clear and present danger to the homeland, which we can all agree Muamar ain't. What happened to all that hoo-hah about that evil W? As Neil points out, this is right out of the Cheney playbook.

- butchie b

March 21, 2011 at 4:12pm

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

Hey Butchie - have missed you. Great points as always. You're going to pick on Obama for his (ahem) inconsistencies? He was being tutored by Scrowcroft then, who no doubt cringed. It's out of Cheney 1991, not 2000 anything. Call me impolitic, but waiting for these Republicans in Congress to do the right thing would be a fools game, good for Obama for ignoring those knee-jerkers. He had to act now, good for him.

- WandreyCer

March 21, 2011 at 4:55pm

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

Thanks, Wandrey. I'm not picking on anybody, I just wish POTUS would follow his own rules. He should have gone to the Congress, and while there are principled grounds on which to oppose this intervention, shame on any R who does it just because there's a D next to Obama's name. That said, no doubt we can destroy most of the Libyan military. Then what? Regime change? Partition? Something else? Not well thought through, IMHO.

- butchie b

March 21, 2011 at 5:03pm

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

I know it sounds a little Tea-Partyish, but the Constitution matters. And there is no more significant issue for the republic than deciding to go to war. Obama is my guy and I want to support him, but if he thinks he doesn't need to go to Congress very soon, he is just wrong. It is dangerous to let presidents act with such impunity, even if Congress is willing to sit back. Neil

- purcellneil

March 21, 2011 at 5:10pm

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

It would be really bad if Obama's behavior in this matter is attributable to the mistaken belief shared by many, apparently, that the UN Security Council is a higher legal authority in matters of war and peace than the US Congress. Kudos to the O-Team on getting a strong Resolution, but this is a vote any administration could win in Congress. Why did this one not even try? Under current practices, MacArthur's counter-offensive at Inchon which saved South Korea from sharing the North's experience of the benefits of rule by the Great Leader and the Dear Leader would have been held up and eventually ruled out by debate in the Security Council.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 5:50pm

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

"but this is a vote any administration could win in Congress. Why did this one not even try?" I dunno RP - I disagree. These people would vote down manna from heaven as long as it undermines Obama. They are mindless zombies that way, totally untrustworthy. He had to think about America's interests, God knows the Republicans in Congress won't.

- WandreyCer

March 21, 2011 at 7:12pm

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

I think he'd get the votes Wandrey. And in any case, I'm profoundly uncomfortable with a president "protecting America's interests" by ignoring Congress.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 7:36pm

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

RP and Wandrey -- I'm curious about this, too, and I agree with the concern that you and butchie have put out there. But I wonder if Boehner -- who I assume was informed in as one of the congressional leaders -- told the WH that he couldn't be certain that a war powers resolution of some kind would succeed with the GOP caucus as presently constituted. That would explain some things. Speculation, I know, but it's no more unlikely than that Obama is channelling his inner Cheney here.

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 7:48pm

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

Why didn't we leave it to the Arab League and Turkey to police Libya? Never mind that we still don't know who are the anti-Kaddafi forces we're supporting in this Libyan civil war. Not only is the US government confused about America's strategies and tactics. So, too, is the TNR clubhouse in Washington, DC.

- amidut

March 21, 2011 at 8:57pm

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

It's certainly possible that the Russians and the Chinese calculated that they could sit this one out, but the Russian arguments in particular ring false, and Chechnya is one word that hides behind the "crusades" remark. The other point is that, if 1973 is so obviously defective, either or both could have vetoed it. The question as to why cannot be easily answered (we didn't read it, is going to sound silly, for example). The Arab League has problems. It now has to explain why it wanted something that, when it got it, it didn't want it. Claiming you envisoned a "soft" no-fly-zone, for example, with tea and cakes on the afternoon, won't cut it either with the West or with the anti-intervention camp which still has considerable influence. Nobody doubts that Ghaddafi would have ignored that option completely. We don't as yet know how this thing will play out, but it doesn't strike me that Russia is, at the moment at least, in any great strategic position vis-a-vis the Middle East and the changes under way. Their natural allies are the forces against transformation.

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 9:04pm

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

Waterman: "it is in fact hard to believe that most Arab governments were not happy to see the West get rid of this embarrassment." But Saudi Arabia just sent troops into Bahrain to kill that country's citizens guilty of . . . protesting. I think Arab despots have very little regard for human life. And their about face isn't just what they're "saying." Does anyone here have any idea of when they plan to commit their troops? Weren't they supposed to be among the first to go in? Or did Obama know this ahead of time? Did he realize, without having to be told explicitly, that these are the people he's dealing with and not to expect anything.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 9:06pm

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

Everything Amidut says. And to Malahat, Butchie, and Neil, thank you for saying what I think but am unable to express in any way that does not include acrimony and bitterness. Wandrey, I apologize if I sounded obnoxious earlier, but this has me so frustrated and angry, I've been nasty to pretty much everyone on TNR today. Even people I really like, and that includes you. That said, your massacre justification is just not good enough for me. Massacres go on all over Africa and the Middle East. Heck, there are daily massacres in Juarez, and we do nothing about it. I said this on another thread, but this little adventure is going to cost us between $200 to $400 million. And we all know that amount is going to balloon I'm a parent of two public school kids, and I can't help but think what that kind of money could do education in this country, never mind the hundreds of other social services being slashed as we speak.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 9:18pm

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

malahat -- yes, you have a good case to make. However, we know two things: (1) Russia's influence has declined more substantially than ours has, by a long stroke, and Putin's "crusader" remark is almost a declaration of bankruptcy. The question that follows his remark is, why, if that's what you really believe, didn't Russia veto the resolution at the UNSC? (2) We don't quite know -- to put it mildly -- how this plays out, but at the moment the influence of the U.S. has been shown to be quite considerable. That we are facing unknown transformations in the near and medium term future is undeniable, but the protestors in Egypt were appealing to Obama for support and not to Putin, and it's definitely not the Russian version of facebook that they are looking at. If we can shift this Libya thing in the right direction, who knows? Also, Russia and China do not have the same interests, a fact which, I believe, trumps (or can trump in the longer term) their mutual desire to push back Western political values.

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 10:35pm

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

No, no, I mean that's the question that can be posed to Putin and Russia, not to you.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 12:34am

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

I was watching Lubitsch's movie Ninotchka a few days ago (Greta Garbo is amazing): -- How are things in Moscow, Comrade Yakushova? -- Good. The last set of show trials went off well -- there will be fewer, but better, Russians.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 1:21am

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

The axis of Walzer’s argument, its underlying premise, is that there is no humanitarian crisis: …None of this would matter if this were a humanitarian intervention to stop a massacre. But that is not what is happening in Libya today. There would have been a cruel repression after a Qaddafi victory, and it would have been necessary to help rebels and dissidents escape and to make sure that they had a place to go… How is Walzer so confident as to what Kadaffy would not have done, left unattended? The president, and so many expert others, made assessments that Kadaffy would have done precisely what he said he would have done. As someone wrote, in precise contrast to Walzer, “The battle of Benghazi had already begun; and it would have been not a battle, but a massacre.” From the reading I have done the latter view seems conventional wisdom and I trust the assessment that grounded the decision Obama finally took to involve U.S. might. Here is some of the preamble to 1973 in defiance of Walzer’s underlying premise: ...Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties, "Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians, "Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions, "Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006), "Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity, So if Walzer’s underlying premise is incorrect, then by his own admission his critique is irrelevant. By the measure of the right to protect, I think Walzer’s objections either fall by the way side or are misconceived.

- basman

March 22, 2011 at 3:28am

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

Well, gross and systematic violations of various human rights go on all over the world on a fairly regular basis. If Libya, why not Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc.? If all you want is a no-fly zone, game over. Has even one Libyan aircraft taken to the skies after the war started? Yes, they have anti-air(but not effective at all), but the purpose of a no-fly zone is NOT the destruction of the anti-air capabilities - but we've done that, too. Additionally, I see we've destroyed tanks and other ground equipment that have absolutely nothing to do with a no-fly zone, however defined. If one reads the comments of the SecDef, SecState and POTUS over the last month, they are all over the lot. Even today, what is our goal? Regime change? If not, how long does this go on? Until the rebels win - whatever winning might mean? Partition if they can't? How long do we do that? It's all very muddy, at least to me. I've been around the military since 1972, and this is the oddest intervention I've ever seen. Looks like amateur hour to me, but maybe I'm wrong. Oh, and when over 90% of the ordnance/sorties is yours, no other entity is "taking the lead."

- butchie b

March 22, 2011 at 9:29am

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

"Well, gross and systematic violations of various human rights go on all over the world on a fairly regular basis. If Libya, why not Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc.?" Yes, but with respect butchie, this is a nonsequitur (or something close). Basman wasn't making a general point about violations of human rights, but quoting from the preamble to a valid UN Security Council resolution as the basis for military and diplomatic action by member states. You can certainly say with some justification that, in theory, such violations could support a range of U.S., UN, and other responses of that nature across the globe, but surely you're missing the point? We have a perfectly clear and above-board resolution determining that these measures are grounded in findings of fact and international law, validated by a UNSC decision, and that is the basis for missiles, aircraft, electronic counter-measures, humanitarian aid, press conferences, 'I Hate Ghaddafi' t-shirts or quite frankly pretty much anything we want to use to get him to pull back from attacking rebel-held cities as a primary aim. The secondary aim is for him to permit free decision-making on the part of citizens of Libya as to their future. It's not a withering criticism of the current measures to note that aim #1 is likely to be somewhat easier than aim #2.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 12:50pm

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

Let me clarify that last sentence at bit: It's not a withering criticism of the current measures to note that aim #1, ratified by the UNSC, is likely to be somewhat easier than aim #2, essentially an objective of the U.S. administration.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 3:03pm

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

"To be or not to be" is my favourite Lubitch movie.

- noga1

March 22, 2011 at 4:55pm

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

I think it's meant to be 1940, malahat, not '42 (not sure if it makes a difference, but it was in production during '41 and came out in '42). Oddly enough or not, it completely elides the Soviet invasion of Poland from the story too. But a great comedy and Mel Brooks's remake is even better.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 5:29pm

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

Authentic frontier gibberish from Gabby Johnson! Yes, and the most obvious explanation is a "don't annoy our new ally" thing, as the German invasion of the USSR in June '41 must have changed our perspective radically.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 6:19pm

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

Great point irony. Poland was invaded twice in 1939, and what the NKVD did in their zone was the same as what the SS did in theirs. But since the Soviets had more experience in that sort of thing then, the consensus of survivors is that they were the more efficient in their efforts to decapitate Polish society. This episode, and its reprise after "liberation" by the Red Army in 1944-45, has been until recently erased from our history books. See Norman Davies and Tim Snyder for the best current attempts to reconstruct the historical record.

- Robert Powell

March 22, 2011 at 6:29pm

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

RP, it's been deleted in some ways from historical memory to this day. Most educated people know that there was a Hitler-Stalin Pact, but they aren't aware of some of its practical consequences in the early period of the war. It seems to me -- coincidentally I had coffee this afternoon with an historian colleague about Snyder's book, which he's going to review -- that the Soviet killings/removals in their part of conquered Polish territory were ideological and tactical while the Nazi killings/removals in their section (ultimately bigger, of course) were racial and strategic. The Germans wanted a longer-term occupation and enforced settlement for the future of the Reich, as well as a 'racial' hierarchy of authority; the Soviets wanted to neutralize the Polish civil and military establishment for short-term gains. Not to distract from the comic genius of Lubitsch, of course, who often (as Billy Wilder did) got closer to the politics than people might have expected.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 9:25pm

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

"Mel Brooks's remake is even better." No it's not. Another favourite Lubitch film is "The shop around the corner" which served as the inspiration for "You've got mail" which I like very much even though I know it is not really such a great movie.

- noga1

March 22, 2011 at 9:33pm

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

Ok it's not. Let's just say, it's not. But why is it not?

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 9:57pm

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

I'm making a difference between racial and ideological in that argument, but I need to leave this until tomorrow. G'night.

- ironyroad

March 23, 2011 at 12:42am

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

Good morning. Snyder's excellent "Bloodlands", because it takes into consideration Stalin's actions in the Thirties, shows the extent to which Nazi and Soviet goals and methods overlapped and were often complementary. It was ideology in both cases: the Nazis were in a war against racial enemies while the Soviets were obsessed with eliminating class enemies. In the event their methods and results were remarkably similar and fell disproportionately on ethnic minorities like Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Balts, Belarusians, and Kazaks. Both Hitler and Stalin were working towards colonial empires cleansed of ideological enemies and economically driven by slave labor. Hitler's was to be external to the Reich, Stalin's internal to an expanded Soviet Union, but for the people caught between these two monsters there was little to choose. Highly recommend the book, which provides information without which adequate understanding of the history of the last century is incomplete.

- Robert Powell

March 23, 2011 at 5:08am

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

"But why is it not?" Brook's version is Americanized and the humour is broad and burlesque-like, with punchlines waiting for the viewers' laughter to subside. Lubitch's film is different. It's got an East European flavour to it and the comedy is much finer. It is also subversive in a way that Mel's film could never be. In 1940 Hollywood was more or less forbidden to show or indicate knowledge of persecution of Jews in Europe. Yet Lubitch manages to make repeated subtle allusions throughout. His film is much more elegant and clever. It's like the difference between an apple pie and a strudel, if you get my meaning. I prefer strudel even though I can enjoy apple pies, too.

- noga1

March 23, 2011 at 7:25am

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

The strudel reminds me of that strudel eating scene in Inglorious Basterds; never was the act of sitting in a cafe eating a piece of strudel so fraught with mind numbing, icy fear rendered so cheerfully and matter of factly. A Tarantino genius moment.

- noga1

March 23, 2011 at 7:30am

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

That's true about the Eastern European flavor of the Lubitsch movie. I have to say, though, Americanized or not, there are moments of genius in Brooks too. No matter where I am, if I think of the scene where the Jewish actor looks somewhat bemusedly at the other theater people, who are all making the sign of the cross when the air raid siren goes, and makes a double-triangle Star of David sign, I start shaking with uncontrollable laughter.

- ironyroad

March 23, 2011 at 3:52pm

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

Thanks malahat. I also recommend Norman Davies' "Uprising '44", which covers some of the same ground with engaging writing and awesome research. Now, what about Libya? It seems that at least this time and so far we've avoided playing the role of the Red Army on the Vistula 1944 again. IMHO we're going to need a Congressional Resolution pretty soon to avoid the impression that Obama thinks the UNSC is a superior legal authority to the US Congress.

- Robert Powell

March 23, 2011 at 5:59pm

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

I can't comment on "Bloodlands" as I haven't read it, but there have been many discussions, triggered by books and movies as well as in the normal run of things, about the nature of the Nazi and Soviet regimes and their propensity to use the same terrorizing and exterminatory methods of going about their business. I think, however, that I'd like to keep at hand some way of discriminating between ideological mass murder (where the enemy/victim stood in the way of imposing a Soviet model of society, and the imposition of such a model was the ultimate goal) and racial genocide (where the enemy/victim was defined by inescapable protocols of identity and the complete eradication of that segment of humanity was the ultimate goal). I realize that both Nazism and Stalinism are ideologies, and I concede that point readily, but it's not so much the terminology as the distinction that's important. I'd be happy to see a more accurate vocabulary, but I worry about the conflation of Nazism and Soviet Communism and where it can end up.

- ironyroad

March 23, 2011 at 7:55pm

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

"No matter where I am, if I think of the scene where the Jewish actor looks somewhat bemusedly at the other theater people, who are all making the sign of the cross when the air raid siren goes, and makes a double-triangle Star of David sign, I start shaking with uncontrollable laughter." That's exactly what I meant by the "Americanized" humour. BTW, did you know that it was rather commonplace for Judean Jews at the time of Jesus to make the mark of "taf", that's the first Hebrew letter of the word Torah ( תּוֹרָה ), by way of expressing piety and the Christian crossing of oneself gesture was a later emulation of that habit? Once it became a Christian custom, the Jews dropped it.

- noga1

March 23, 2011 at 10:08pm

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

It's the sort of detail one picks up at Judaic Studies.

- noga1

March 23, 2011 at 11:29pm

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

It's not Americanized, but it still raises a chuckle. "I can't believe that guy -- it's already the first century and he's still making the sign! Can you have a word with him?"

- ironyroad

March 23, 2011 at 11:49pm

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

irony--in fact the Soviet system, particularly under Stalin, often defined "enemy/victim" in terms of "the inescapable protocols of identity" and set out to eliminate them in toto. "Kulaks" were defined extremely broadly, in the case of Ukraine amounting to the entire peasant class, and in numerous quotes by officials targeted for complete annihilation. Soviet Poles, including in parts of the Soviet Union that were Poland before the invasion, were massacred wholesale because they were Poles. The hundreds of thousands of women, children, and elderly who were dumped onto the steppes of Siberia and Kazakstan in sub-zero weather with no food, shelter, or appropriate clothing were targeted entirely because of who they were, not what they did. This applied not only to Poles and Ukrainian peasants, but to virtually entire nations like the Kalmyks, Tartars, Chechens, and others. It's generally recognized that only Stalin's death prevented Jews from being similarly targeted in the aftermath of the "Doctors Plot". It may be comforting to those with leftist tendencies to make distinctions between Nazi and Soviet crimes, but they were morally indistinguishable, and both the result of making a religion of the ideology of Party and State. If you get the chance, pick up "Bloodlands".

- Robert Powell

March 24, 2011 at 4:34am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close