The New Republic

What makes sense is to stay within the boundaries of the UNSC resolution which does not authorize regime change, even though TNR editors think that is a good idea. Imagine that! The UNSC does not make its decisions on the grounds cited by John Judis. And as is more and more apparent, TNR editors are entirely driven by whatever they regard as the best political outcome, are heedless of costs and unintended consequences of war, and have no use at all for the existing system of international law. Its only use as far as they are concerned is to authorize the US to do what it wants and, failing that, the US should just ignore it. The Bush doctrine lives on at, of all places, The New Republic. I am grateful that none of these people is anywhere close to the levers of power. I am having trouble distinguishing them from William Kristol. The latest news articles in the Times suggest that Obama is well aware of the distinction and has no intention of abusing the UNSC resolution to try and do what it does not permit. Thank god. We should stick to preventing a humanitarian disaster as the resolution contemplates.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 12:11am

The TNR editors really have learned nothing from the invasion of Iraq and, as I have said a couple of times now, I think it apparent that their support for unilateral intervention in Libya is born of their desire to vindicate their own fecklessness with regard to Iraq and their discreditable doctrine of war in violation of international law when they think it a good idea. Judis's speculations about what might have happened had Obama only heeded TNR in its rush to war is very much in this vein. Now we have to hear rank speculation about casualties that would have been avoided although there is little evidence that an NFZ standing alone would have accomplished much. In other words, the TNR editors merely want to insist that they were right even though events have shown, thus far, that they have been wrong. Cue crocodile tears for Libya.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 12:16am

More rubbish from roidubouloi: "The TNR editors really have learned nothing from the invasion of Iraq..." This leftist fananatic has learned nothing period. He blames Martin Peretz for antisemitism in the world and now blames TNR for the invasion of Iraq. This is what he being "taught" by his moronic teachers.

- nr106646

March 22, 2011 at 12:27am

Well, well, here is NR continuing his unbroken string of entering every thread with personal attacks and insults directed at other posters. Methinks you are confused, NR. "Failing to learn" does not have the same meaning as "caused." I shall have to find out what my moronic teachers have to say about this. Oddly, as they are all professors of graduate economics, they spend all of their class time discussing economics and none that I can recall discussing political affairs. This must stop! I don't think you realize, NR, that you are both making yourself look very foolish and making apparent even to those who have not been paying attention that your claims to deplore personal attacks on posters are complete nonsense. You are doing so well at this, with no assistance at all from me, that I wish simply to urge you to carry on. Nothing that I could think up to try and discredit you could possibly serve as well as what you yourself are doing. I feel remiss in not having realized this sooner. Live and learn (that is "learn," not "cause," are we clear?)

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 12:36am

PS I have already posted two comments over on the Kaplan thread. Shouldn't you be rushing over there to post something attacking me?

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 12:38am

The all knowing Roid is upset because someone questioned his wisdom. He still hasn't proved that TNR's position on Libya is meant to be a "corrective" to their supposed endorsment of removing the genocidal Saddam from power.

- nr106646

March 22, 2011 at 12:45am

What makes you think you raised a question, NR? I don' t see any. And I am not at all upset. Far from it. I am enjoying your work here far more than I ever could have imagined.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 12:50am

Roid attacks the TNR for endorsing the overthrow of Saddam by the US and then attacks another editor of TNR for questioning the use of air power by the US. Roid can't post anything on any topic without attacking someone or something. It takes talent to write about an issue without attacking the author. Roid lacks talent just as he lacks knowledge on most topics. He only knows what his teachers just told him.

- nr106646

March 22, 2011 at 1:07am

Roid, you've been right all along, and I think most readers of these threads understand that. There was one point when I doubted an authorization of force would get through the SC, and suggested some sort of Arab League authorization, and you pushed back against that. Quite rightly so. Can you imagine the disaster that would have ensued, NATO going into this with purported Arab League cover? There would have been nothing but an ineffectual NFZ, and after a few bombs dropped on air defenses, the authorization would have been withdrawn, or at least haggled over. It would have been worse than doing nothing. It turns out I was also wrong about the "liberal isolationist" being a TNR straw man. Judis is right about that, there is a shockingly large proportion of the left that seems incapable of getting past their knee-jerk response to all uses of military force. On the other hand, if TNR has been trying to bring liberals into the interventionist camp, they have been, to put it mildly, counter-productive. Liberals might accept the need for humanitarian intervention, but only if it is emphatically not Bush-style, is truly multilateral, within the four corners of legal authorization, and with limited military goals within a political framework. In failing to recognize any such distinctions between sorts of intervention, TNR has done as much as any magazine to push liberals away.

- dpaup

March 22, 2011 at 7:42am

Is it possible to have a discussion of national security policy on this website without the comments being dominated by roidubouloi and this person who follows him around, spitting bile. We get it, you don't like roidubouloi. Point made and understood. I really don't care and I have to think most other commenters agree with me on this, even if they don't agree with me on much else. roidubouloi -- you're a reasonable contributor here, whether I agree with your opinions or not. You could help this situation by just ignoring this person. You seem to engage every single time. You must be tired of it by now. Just ignore.

- DC Spence

March 22, 2011 at 8:53am

I'm not a fan of this intervention, but I think if it works it will be because President Obama does it his way, not the way urged upon him by pundits like Mr Judis, Mr Krauthammer, Mr Peretz, Mr Wieseltier, Mr Kristol, Ms Rubin, Mr Chait, and so on and so on. [You know, the usual suspects.] There really isn't any way President Obama could have gotten the cooperation of the UN Security Council without the looming threat of a civilian catastrophe. Mr Qadaffi badly hurt his cause by openly boasting about the bloodbath he was ready to loose on Benghazi. I think these were the developments that enabled President Obama to get the UN approval he needed. The neocons [and those, like Mr Chait, who don't call themselves neocons, but seem to agree with them whenever the subject of bombing an Arab country comes up] may not care about UN approval, but President Obama wisely does. It gives the intervention the legitimacy it needs to see things through to a successful conclusion. There is a widespread belief among the foreign policy chattering class in this country that the U.S. only really shows "leadership" when it gets out in front and tells everyone else what to do. But that hasn't worked so well. President Obama has a new model for U.S. leadership, which involves waiting for situations to develop where U.S. leadership is possible and desirable. In this case, the prospect of massive civilian casualties was the necessary precursor to forging something like an international consensus at the U.N. I remain deeply skeptical about this intervention, but I cannot but admire the patient way President Obama went about lining up the UN support for what is being done now. The sort of sober, careful consideration President Obama gives to matters like this demonstrates, yet again, how far more suited he is to the job he holds than Senator John McCain -- or the "bomb first and ask questions later" crowd which dominates TNR and the foreign policy commentariat in this country. President Obama did NOT wait too long. If intervention was going to happen, he moved at precisely the correct time. The rank amateurs who dominate national security discussion at places like TNR, Fox News and the Weekly Standard have no idea what they are talking about and, as usual, remain stubbornly unwilling to admit their own past mistakes or learn anything from them.

- DC Spence

March 22, 2011 at 9:07am

Great post DC Spence, right on the mark. Molly - this is to you if you're reading this. No problem on being frustrated these days, I can't disagree with the spirit of your position opposing this intervention. I'm glad you and others are articulating it so well (although posters attacking each other over a murdering madman like Qadaffi and the thoughts of important journalists we all love tires and bores me). I just disagree with the application in this case. I thought of you when I read this editorial by Max Boot this morning. You might hate him, I find him brilliant and deeply admire him even if I don't always agree with his right leaning taking on things: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22boot.html?hp Military interventions focused on humanitarian concerns (although the strategic concerns are considerable here as well) are rarely comparable to each other in a political sense and never interchangable in any sense (except the death, mayhem, tragedy parts). Meaning Libya is Libya, its leader is uniquely loathed throughout the world (the Arab world as well) and the multilateral will is there to intervene in this case, thank G-d (I'm not Jewish, but I have taken to using that beautiful way of referring to ...well, you know who). I wish things were different in Bahrain, I hope the international will is there to intervene there as well. The sad fact is that once Saudi Arabia is involved, we're effed in ten ways. As far as our whacked out priorities as a nation? Well, the reason we're effed now that the Saudi's are involved in Bahrain are obvious and pitiful - musn't alienated Daddy Oil, get the natives too restless there in the process. Yes, we're simply falling apart in most ways domestically with destructive zombies gleefully cheering it on. And the blood runs in the streets in Libya. I wish all of those things were different. Don't worry about being mad - I am too.

- WandreyCer

March 22, 2011 at 9:33am

Oops, the rest of my comment was eaten by some sort of concatenation of the NYtimes link and the "view full comment" link. Interesting trick TNR!

- WandreyCer

March 22, 2011 at 9:36am

dpaup We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and are now heavily engaged in an air offensive in Libya. Looking back over my lifetime, now 55 years, it seems to me we have had a constant stream of wars, mini-wars, police actions, peace-keeping operations, no-fly zones, liberations, invasions, call them what you like they all look like war. Far from there being a problem of a knee-jerk opposition to war on the left, it seems to me that the real problem lies on the other side of the argument -- we are far too willing as a nation to launch a few cruise missiles at some poor bastards that have pissed us off. Think about it - Qaddafi has been there for 40 years -- what possible need is there suddenly for regime change? Yes, the President said Qaddafi must go, and rebels took up arms, quite possibly encouraged by Obama's words. So what? Since when do we drop bombs on another country to avoid embarrassing or contradicting the President? It is quite possible that Qaddafi would have butchered the inhabitants of Benghazi. I'm not convinced, and in any case, we ought not to go to war based on such bluster alone. I find two things very troubling about this war: first: the confusion about war aims (protection of non-combatants vs regime change) that is evident in the piece by Judis and in remarks by many others; second, and more important: the complete absence of Congressional authorization of the military action. If the case for this action is so compelling, why are its scope and intended effects so unclear, and why is Congress so reluctant to vote its support for it? Humanitarian arguments for cruise missile strikes and other air warfare always strike me as suspect -- we are lulled into thinking these tactics are easily and cleanly accomplished, with little risk of American lives and with limited collateral damage (an arachaic euphemism, I know). Because we think this stuff is easy and clean, we don't really give it much thought when a President initiates such an offensive. We have nothing to lose, and it feels good to impose our will on some bad guy we despise, especially when they are too weak to hit us back. Except for news junkies like us, Americans ask few questions and hardly pay attention to more than a few spectacular video clips of the shock and awe variety. It all feels so irresponsible, immoral, shameful. We wield great power and ought to use it much less frequently. It's fine for Nicholas Sarkozy to play cowboy -- we who have much greater power ought to be more restrained in the use of force. It's not a knee-jerk opposition to the use of military force, but a desire to see such force used more carefully and less frequently, a desire for greater restraint on the part of a superpower, a desire for greater consideration of the unintended consequences, and a desire to see Congress not abdicate its constitutional role and responsibility. Neil

- purcellneil

March 22, 2011 at 9:36am

purcell - well spoken. there's a great OP/ED by Mike Kinsley on this very thing today, if you're interested. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinsley-libya-20110322,0,6788283.story

- Tristan

March 22, 2011 at 9:40am

Quite right DC Spence on both posts. Just needed a little help to make the first point for which I thank you.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 9:56am

I don't think the aims are unclear, but some people want them to be. If one reads UNSC1973 and pays attention to what Obama says, it is to prevent threatened atrocities, not regime change, a perfectly responsible goal. That requires both an NFZ and keeping Q away from Benghazi which the participating powers understand and are prepared to do. If we stick to this, ignoring the bellicose editors of TNR, and keep our own use of force to a minimum, we will come out alright although Q may be there for quite a while yet. If airpower proves unequal to the limited task, we will need a further UNSC resolution which may or may not be forthcoming. If not, we should stand aside in the absence of a threat to the US. We are still not the cops of the world.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 10:06am

Neil, DC and Roid: all great posts. Tristan: thanks for the link. I confess, at this point, I am drawn to the drivel TNR publishes on this issue more out of morbid curiosity than anything. This is like a daily train-wreck; just can't stop looking. And to see how easily, and how well, commenters demolish the silliness propagated by the professional writers and soi-disant analysts. The article is not, in itself, atrocious (not like the bilious posts of Peretz and LW on the subject), but it is hard to take seriously when you read lines like this: "I myself would have preferred Obama to have taken leadership several weeks ago in assembling a coalition, and building support, for intervention." (All the accounts we have of what has been happening is, as indeed LW commented condemning Obama, that the Administration has been working behind the scenes to build precisely such a coalition. With spectacular results. China and Russia actually voted, with the US, to send the matter to the ICC; and five days after the Arab League gave its support for a NFZ, at US insistence, the UNSC resolution included a civilian protection clause. Obama may not have been front and centre, but there is no reason for the President to insert himself into the matter when he has a capable Sec State who is, by all evidence, both persuasive internally and effective internationally. AND, when his involvement as CinC was needed, it took Obama precisely a day to ask for and approve military plans.) "Moreover, Obama did the absolutely worst thing—he called for Qaddafi’s ouster, but did not do anything about it, and discouraged others from doing so." (Because the various UNSC resolutions and multilateral negotiations were not anything at all; and what is the evidence that Obama discouraged others from doing anything? France, for all its screaming, was insistent that there would be no move without the UNSC.)

- icarusr

March 22, 2011 at 10:10am

I'm beginning to think that the only "responsible" way for the U.S. to succeed at its unelected role as "Team America - World Police" is that we simply forgo all of the legalistic and moralistic gum flapping that occurs and take the Irish Cop approach and just start knee-capping before we ask questions. The logic being that you're all guilty, we just haven't caught you committing the crime yet. And since we haven't used our nuclear stockpile in a while, this might be a good time to start putting it to use again. Then we can forgo any boots on the ground, endless money spent enforcing NFZs and DMZs, and stop pretending that when the world calls/begs/pleads/shames/asks the U.S. to act/intervene/"do something will you" that they actually, you know, sincerely want our help without subsequently carping or whining about what damage hath been wrought by the dogs of war. Putting the cup of heated rhetoric aside... The realities are, and they have been parsed by TNR posters here as well as the TNR staff, is that the U.S. DOES belong to an international community of nation states that, at least appear sincerely to be, desirous of an international body of law. There was a time when the U.S. could "go it alone" back in Teddy Roosevelt's day. We're no-longer "walking softly", we're just carrying a big stick and stomping along. Since then, the contraction of the world, both politically and economically, has resulted in a collective grab bag of sovereignty states vying for greater international statue while simultaneously wanting little to do with the "policing" aspect. China has taken the soft economic approach, Russia has become an isolated, kleptocracy run by Putin, Germany is still hung-over from WW2, Britain...well. France, I won't even bother with. That people think the U.S. was shamed into Libya, after France and Britain "put the screws" to Obama is disconcerting. It's as if he's come to believe the only nation on earth that can or should do anything morally interventionist is the U.S. Not our allies, not NATO, not the U.N. Perhaps Obama is trying to maneuver the U.S. into a position of being less "Word Police" and more team player with the bench sitting nations of the world actually stepping up and putting blood and treasure on the line. In fact the claim is now made that because of complacency on the world stage by other nations, it gives the U.S. greater moral clout to "act" because no one else is. The U.S. is going to be bled dry by a thousand cuts as we "police" the troubled corners of the world on the doorsteps and back doors of other nations (without them even having skin in the game.) I've been a foreign policy realist for a long time and came to that position by trying to understand the U.S. roll in the world both historically and currently over many years. I've had to defend U.S. foreign policy from criticism by foreign friends (of countries considered allies/friends) who consider (right or wrong) every U.S. action or intervention a 21st century version of colonialism or imperialism. There are instances when our action is needed but we can't expect every instance of slaughter or internal strife to be a humanitarian crisis. I would rather boots on the ground in Darfur than Libya. What some folks are failing to grasp or care not to consider in their desire for strong humanitarian interventionism by the U.S. is that the subsequent international skirmishes in the world will be less and less political and increasingly so because of scarce resources & their economic impacts. International crises caused by water disputes, natural & mineral resources, droughts, desertification, and the growing impacts of climate change coupled with population growth will lead and continue to lead to pockets of instability that the U.S. cannot respond to on a never-ending basis.

- singlspeed

March 22, 2011 at 10:38am

Tristan, Thanks for the link. Lawrence Kaplan also posted an interesting piece today that hits on the same point I was trying to make above. Best regards, Neil

- purcellneil

March 22, 2011 at 10:45am

still waiting for the discussion on whether the Responsibility to Protect is more than just words. Last Friday, Obama specifically said Qaddhafi had to withdraw his forces and restore water, etc to Misrata, Zawiya, and Ajdabiya. That was a clear clue that the UNSC 1973 vote was based on evidence that indiscriminate military force had already caused perhaps thousands of civilian deaths, and what had become an effective siege of Zawiya and Misrata for more than a week would lead to possibly tens of thousands of deaths even before Benghazi fell. If you do not agree with the RtP, then you should not complain about how governments of any stripe kill their own citizens.

- K2K

March 22, 2011 at 10:50am

But dpaup, you were wrong about the Arab League. They've wrenched the fig leaf from Obama's privates and are now openly condemning our new adventure.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 22, 2011 at 11:16am

Roi, you are a master of insult, and reading you can be like watching Nadal play tennis. But can you now just please, please ignore NR? He is clearly Jackson. The style of writing is straight out of his screeds. But even if he's not, even I'm getting bored. Please. Enough. He's sick. It's like fighting with a toddler.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 22, 2011 at 11:18am

Roid the cult hero hero is angry that Judis dared criticize his sun god Obama.

- nr106646

March 22, 2011 at 11:31am

MOLLYSIMON, of course I was wrong about the Arab League. (Isn't that what I said above?) I don't know what I was thinking. Good thing we got that SC resolution, something much more than a fig leaf. Neil: Your questions are generally the right questions to ask of military ventures, and way too often go unanswered. In this case, however, I think we have to keep the international context in mind. I agree with roid on the question of war aims. As to the question of use of military force generally, it seems to me the Obama administration is trying to foster the development of the diplomatic machinery and mind-set that has other states acting in the interests of peace and stability, not always waiting to see what the US will do. And practically, in this case, it came down to: Should the US actively discourage the French and British from acting through the SC, or get behind them? I'm sorry, but the answer just seems dead obvious to me.

- dpaup

March 22, 2011 at 11:48am

roid - by far the cruelest thing you could do to nr is totally ignore him, as DC Spence and Molly have suggested. Since he has no credibility, nothing he writes can hurt you or in any way detract from the cogency of your posts. There is simply no good reason for you to be distracted by his attempts at harassment. Molly - I guarantee you nr is NOT jackson. Jackson may be intemperate, but he is also erudite and knowledgeable, qualities not noticeably present in nr's posts.

- JackR

March 22, 2011 at 11:55am

Amr Moussa is not the Arab League, and his comments did not rescind the Arab League decision to ask for a no-fly zone. The Arab League position gave the UNSC the cover to act, and that is what matters. Obama is doing the right thing, but he now needs to quietly assist the rebels (intelligence, training, and weapons perhaps from a third party) to allow them to win. It wont really take much. If they can take back most of their losses and push toward Tripoli, then Qaddafi's loyalists will jump ship without the need for a street battle in Tripoli. The question remains whether Qaddafi ends up dead or in exile somehow, and who will take him?

- nayyer_ali

March 22, 2011 at 11:56am

The US did not intervene in far worse humanitarian crises, such as Rwanda and Darfur. It does not intervene in the Congo, Burma, Tibet, etc. The Libyan government was not hostile to the US--until we started a war with it. It did not seek to deny us oil. It cooperated with us on intelligence matters. The revolution in Egypt appears to be resulting in the strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood, which will do well in the elections to be called before democratic forces can organize. The Libyan rebels may be young students such as the ones who revolted in Egypt. The Egyptian students have been shoved aside. Who is waiting in the wings of the Libyan revolution? Will humanitarians tell me how young Americans became a foreign legion for the Arab League and the United Nations?Will humanitarians tell us why we should face increased risk of domestic terror and possible military casualties for a war we didn't need to fight?

- rmlesq2006

March 22, 2011 at 12:00pm

I did think "Sun King" was mildly amusing though. I prefer to refer to Obama as "Jesus," myself. My other post was munched, I wanted to contribute Max Boot's editorial in the NY Times today. It manages to walk a line between Judis and Molly: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22boot.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1300809605-6cb0zNwOFYrekHuCGyGzDg

- WandreyCer

March 22, 2011 at 12:01pm

I think you are dead on, dpaup. If we want (and we should) a genuine system of collective security, not only as a matter of burden sharing but because we cannot bear the political weight of policing the world, it cannot consist of we decide and everyone else get's in line and if we won't participate unless we are in the lead. That would make collective security a functional impossibility. We should not lose sight of the fact that neocons in particular abhor the idea of collective security other than along the lines of we decide and they get in line to help us bear the load. The liberal interventionists are so overcome by their sympathies that they cannot tolerate the demands, uncertainties, and disappointments of a system in which we do not act unilaterally. They are heedless of what will follow if we break the fragile system we have and unwilling to sacrifice anything they consider a short-term good for the sake of the system. For the neocons, US vigilantism is the goal, for the liberal interventionists, a necessary concession. Either way, it would be a mess if they have their way as they did briefly with Little Cowboy Bush.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 12:04pm

Arab comedy in a yellow scarf: http://theweek.com/article/index/213397/assault-on-libya-whose-side-are-the-arabs-on Selected gem: "Anyone who expected them to "stand with the West when it was uncomfortable to stand with the West" is delusional. And that's especially true of the cowardly Arab League and Amr Moussa, nobody's idea of a good ally." And here is how a reverential Guardian article tries to re-dress the buffoon as a wise world leader: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/amr-moussa-secretary-general-arab-league "Moussa is now juggling a new series of demands. One of his jobs, says Claire Spencer, head of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the thinktank Chatham House, is to test ordinary people's reaction to a variety of positions on behalf of the Arab League's members. "Everyone is aware of the shifting sands in the region. There was little love lost for Gaddafi but all the members [of the League] are in a difficult position vis a vis their own populations," Spencer says. "Amr Moussa can act as a ballon d'essai." This explains Moussa's various reversals of opinion on the no-fly zone and concern about civilian casualties." "ballon d'essai' sounds just about right: a hot air balloon.

- noga1

March 22, 2011 at 12:08pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/amr-moussa-secretary-general-arab-league "Moussa is now juggling a new series of demands. One of his jobs, says Claire Spencer, head of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the thinktank Chatham House, is to test ordinary people's reaction to a variety of positions on behalf of the Arab League's members. "Everyone is aware of the shifting sands in the region. There was little love lost for Gaddafi but all the members [of the League] are in a difficult position vis a vis their own populations," Spencer says. "Amr Moussa can act as a ballon d'essai." This explains Moussa's various reversals of opinion on the no-fly zone and concern about civilian casualties." "ballon d'essai" sounds just about right, a hot air balloon.

- noga1

March 22, 2011 at 12:09pm

I believe that would be rendered as "trial balloon," rather than as a Montgolfier.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 12:53pm

NR: Roid criticizes Obama himself all the time. Roid has a legitimate disagreement with Judis and others on policy grounds, here. That said, and without time to go in further, it seems to me that Qaddafi is a murderous authoritarian, and it has deeply shocked me, this past week, how many on the left seem to feel that fears of a quagmire and the diplomatic and legal issues concerning foreign interventions, are such that it was acceptable and even preferable to sit back and do nothing while Qaddafi's mercenaries and loyalists slaughter a democratic uprising.

- Curran1

March 22, 2011 at 1:24pm

I don't think that is a fair characterization of the concerns, Curran. Apart from the potential costs to the people of the United States of armed intervention, there are legitimate moral concerns about engaging in non-defensive war in which many Libyans will die. It may be better to die than to live under Qaddafi, but that is not necessarily our choice to make for others. Perhaps many or most would rather live under Qaddafi than die trying to displace him. While there are some who view these matters with moral certainty, the heavenly view as it were, others think that international consensus, as expressed through the UNSC, bears directly on the morality of intervention, that what is to be shared is not only the financial and human burden, but the moral responsibility. We also whether the members of our community, our people, who serve in the US military in order to defend their families and their nation thereby become liable to serve and put themselves at risk to defend everyone everywhere. This are not trivial concerns and it is unfair to characterize that as thinking it "preferable to sit back and do nothing." As well, most here have been in favor of multilateral intervention with the goal of forestalling humanitarian disaster. Only a few come down in favor of refraining altogether and none of their concerns seem to me to be trivial. The whole course of this debate consists of interventionists trying to trivialize practical, legal, diplomatic, and moral concerns by telling us how horrifying Qaddafi is. But the one does not by itself answer the other. He wasn't so horrifying two months ago that he was high on the list of human rights offenders.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 1:49pm

As someone who considers herself a person of the left, I want you to know that I agree with you 100%. If Obama had acted sooner, there would have been time for him to go to Congress and the nation to explain why the intervention was necessary. The mercenaries were about to enter Benghazi by the time they started to impose the no-fly zone. By then it was too late. But that should not stop the Obama administration from explaining it now and from standing by the decision and not, I repeat not, justifying it by handing it off to NATO et. al. as soon as possible. I appreciate the stand of The New Republic on this issue. I was very afraid that no one would prevent the inevitable bloodbath.

- nr106662

March 22, 2011 at 2:27pm

Mr./Ms. Roid... Kindly heed DC's advice and just ignore your attackers. You have a lot of great perspectives to share, but some of it gets lost in the personal attacks. That you started this thread with a substantive post only to be attacked almost immediately is unfortunate, but I think you diminish your contributions when you respond in kind. There is an African saying that (loosely translated) when a crazy person absconds with your clothes while you're bathing, you don't chase after them naked to get them back - people might confuse which one of you is the crazy one. Mr./Ms. NR... I am not in anyway suggesting you're a crazy person, I think you and many others make TNR blogs more interesting to read. One of the reasons I subscribe to TNR is the comments section which sometimes is worth more than the articles. I am in no way saying we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya, as there is a place for biting commentary.

- wkwami

March 22, 2011 at 3:47pm

NR, respecfully you're mistaken. An understaning of the complexities involved in offensive military operations on another continent, operations that include several other nations' military forces, to say nothing of the extensive dimplomatic work we kno9w has been going on behind the scenes, and what you have is a President who was making decisions TOWARD military action from, at the absolute latest, maybe a week after the initial rebel uprising. Personally I doubt he even waited that long. As for explaining to Congress, the American people, etc, there are myriad reasons for playing it the way he did and not coming right out and saying "we're going into combat" from jump street. What is our true moral imperitive, what forces will be available (and, beyond what's on paper, aren't totally exhausted. A good commander needs to tell his CIC the truth about who's really realy for what will be the 8th or 9th deployment in as many years...); there's the need to secure the cooperation of the Arab states, who frankly should be fightinhg along side of us... how much behind the scenes cajoling did the SecState and SecDef try before giving up on getting Egypt, trained these many years through our Operation Bright Star exercises for these very operations? We'll never know, but it has been extensive, I assure you. There's the manuvering with Russia and China, which ended with a significant diplomatic coup for the president. There's the UBER complicated rules of engagement drafted and agreed with respect to the air power of several different nations all taking to the air at once, contingency planning on dozens of different areas like search and rescue, etc. You want a telling anecdote...? An F15 crashes in Libya, and one of the pilots is recovered by rebels (and is treated very well, entertained and made to feel as an honored guest) until they turn him over to US rescue forces. Do you have ANY IDEA how much that speaks volumes about the efforts we've ALREADY made on the ground and have been engaged in since day 1... extensive liaison and communications assistance, at the very least, with what I assume are Special Forces who must have been on the ground and engaged now for the last several weeks. It simply cannot be other than thus. I think once again Obama has shown himself to not only be the mkost intelligent one in the room, but utterly immune to criticism about "dithering" or "indecisiveness" or any other such nonsense. I respect your desire to see bloodshed stopped, NR, but (again, respectfully) on this you are completely off base.

- Tristan

March 22, 2011 at 3:57pm

As we're talking about the Arab League, did anyone catch Moussa being given a public knock upside the head by Ban-Ki Moon yesterday? I mean, if you can be reprimanded like a sheepish 14-year-old by the Secretary-General of the UN at an Arab League meeting and on TV to boot, you must be on some shaky ground. Ol' Moon may be a tougher nut than anyone thought.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 4:32pm

Curran wrote:"That said, and without time to go in further, it seems to me that Qaddafi is a murderous authoritarian, and it has deeply shocked me, this past week, how many on the left seem to feel that fears of a quagmire and the diplomatic and legal issues concerning foreign interventions, are such that it was acceptable and even preferable to sit back and do nothing while Qaddafi's mercenaries and loyalists slaughter a democratic uprising." When did we realize that Qaddafi was/is a murderous authoritarian? We are losing sight of the fact that when Qaddafi wanted to negotiate how way of out, the rebels drunk with their new found power turned him down. They turned this into an armed uprising. True to form Qaddafi responded with overwhelming force. That effectively turned this into an armed uprising. Now ask yourself if we had an armed uprising in America, what would the government do? In this article, Pat Buchanan answers that question thus: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42433&s=rcmp "Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?" Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war." (by the way, Pat Buchanan is no leftist, but he holds the view that we ought not to be in Libya, so lets stop assuming leftist=anti war.) In war people die. If indeed who claim to value human life, and who have been advocating intervention to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, how do they explain the difference between those deaths at the hands of Qaddafi vs deaths caused by the intervening armies? In essence, they are saying we should be willing to kill as many people as it takes to save as many people?

- wkwami

March 22, 2011 at 4:48pm

"We are losing sight of the fact that when Qaddafi wanted to negotiate how way of out, the rebels drunk with their new found power turned him down. They turned this into an armed uprising. True to form Qaddafi responded with overwhelming force. That effectively turned this into an armed uprising. Now ask yourself if we had an armed uprising in America, what would the government do?" I meant to say... We are losing sight of the fact that when Qaddafi wanted to negotiate his way out, the rebels drunk with their new found power turned him down. They had fired the first shot by the way. True to form Qaddafi responded with overwhelming force. That effectively turned this into an armed uprising. Now ask yourself if we had an armed uprising in America, what would the government do?

- wkwami

March 22, 2011 at 4:55pm

"I remember sitting by a pool in August 1990 with my friend Fred Siegel discussing George H.W. Bush’s “drawing a line in the sand” after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. “My comrades on the left can’t be against this,” I announced to Fred, but I was dead wrong. Within days, my own publication, In These Times, and others had raised specters of another Vietnam and of U.S. imperialism. I have had a similar experience of shock and awe today as I looked at various blogs and websites that air opinion on the left. With some notable exceptions (like Juan Cole), all I have found is opposition to the Obama administration’s decision to intervene in Libya. So I ask myself, would these opponents of U.S. intervention (as part of U.N. Security Council approved action), have preferred: (1) That gangs of mercenaries, financed by the country’s oil wealth, conduct a bloodbath against Muammar Qaddafi’s many opponents? (2) That Qaddafi himself, wounded, enraged, embittered, and still in power, retain control of an important source of the world’s oil supply, particularly for Europe, and be able to spend the wealth he derives from it to sow discord in the region? (3) And that the movement toward democratization in the Arab world—which has spread from Tunisia to Bahrain, and now includes such unlikely locales as Syria—be dealt an enormous setback through the survival of one of region’s most notorious autocrats?" The answer to Judis' questions about what the left would have preferred the answer is that they don't care about the lives of Libyans; all they care about is weakening of the US. These people act immorally in the name of some higher morality. They are not that different from the Russian revolutionary leftists who were willing to slaughter millions for the sake of their dream of a future utopia. It’s not surprising that some many leftist benighted posters here threw a collective temper tantrum by Judis’ mild criticism of the left.

- nr106646

March 22, 2011 at 5:14pm

NR... wrote: "So I ask myself, would these opponents of U.S. intervention (as part of U.N. Security Council approved action), have preferred: (1) That gangs of mercenaries, financed by the country’s oil wealth, conduct a bloodbath against Muammar Qaddafi’s many opponents?" Yep, that's what I would have preferred. I mean we seem to be okay with the bloodbath against the gangs of mercenaries, right? There are consequences to armed insurrection. Just ask the Confederates states... "(2) That Qaddafi himself, wounded, enraged, embittered, and still in power, retain control of an important source of the world’s oil supply, particularly for Europe, and be able to spend the wealth he derives from it to sow discord in the region?" And you know Qaddafi would do this because? "(3) And that the movement toward democratization in the Arab world—which has spread from Tunisia to Bahrain, and now includes such unlikely locales as Syria—be dealt an enormous setback through the survival of one of region’s most notorious autocrats?" Oh, well... that worked out pretty well with the Palestinians. Hamastan is a model democracy, so why not duplicate that in Libya. How's Lebanon doing?

- wkwami

March 22, 2011 at 5:28pm

Tristan, thank you for the Kinsley link. There's only one line with which I disagree: "If Kadafi is still in power a year from now, even if he is obeying the no-fly rules, it will be regarded worldwide as more evidence of America's decline as a great power and regarded in America as evidence that Democrats in general and Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in particular are not ready to play foreign policy with the big children." It won't be evidence of a great decline, merely that we decided to cut our losses, and that we can't be depended on. We'll still be a super power, and the rest of the world will know it. Whether or not I think being a super power is all it's cracked up to be is another story.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 22, 2011 at 7:35pm

I reluctantly conclude Judis is right. The left lives - irony of ironies! - in a state resembling Nietzsche's eternal return, with every U.S. intervention being a simple repeat of all others. Yes, there are real perils to this sort of intervention - as there are real consequences of not intervening. Even if you see U.S. imperialism as the major enemy in the world today, there is quite a difference between living under the heel, velvet or otherwise, of a hegemon like the U.S and ending in a mass grave. Because no one has conclusive demonstrated (to my satisfaction at least) that rotting bodies in mass graves have successfully won any struggle of liberation. And that is the stark choice now in Libya, which makes it different from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

- cansv

March 22, 2011 at 7:39pm

And Libya is different from Bahrain/Yemen how? Perhaps we should intervene in Syria too-- why wait?--and then perhaps Wisconsin.

- mlottman

March 22, 2011 at 10:24pm

Libya is different from Bahrain which is different from Yemen because of the scale of the conflict, the political nature of the regime, the speed of its decay into military violence, and the closeness of the country to Europe, which would be the destination of armies of refugees if Libya collapsed. We went from a situation in which it looked like there would be a period of loud but civic conflict and transition to one in which an open armed confrontation flared between Ghaddafi, who appeared to be ready to do anything to hang onto power, and the opposition. It isn't U.S. conspiratorial influence that had the Arab League calling for a No-Fly-Zone for Libya. It isn't by accident that we got a UNSC resolution -- the fact that now seems to bother the "USA! USA!" element out there -- that set out clear parameters for stopping Ghaddafi's war against the people of Libya. It was the facts of the situation on the ground in Libya.

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 10:47pm

mlottman "And Libya is different from Bahrain/Yemen how?" It's closer to Europe and Khaddafy could potentially turn his anger on the Europeans. He did that before. Libya under this ruthless tyrant is more of a threat to the West.

- Packard

March 22, 2011 at 11:01pm

mlottman "And Libya is different from Bahrain/Yemen how?" One important thing to add to the previous posts - we actually could DO something militarily in Libya with a low chance of injuring civilians. Ghaddafi is using using aircraft and artillery to hit rebel positions from a distance. Modern Western militaries are well equipped to attack those threats with minimal chance of civilian casualties. Compare that to stopping troops on the ground from attacking protesters in urban settings. Are we supposed to helicopter in troops to land between the troops and protesters? Bomb the squares where the protests are occurring? I think it is important to note that Saleh seems to be trying to bargain a way out. He has certainly ordered atrocities committed, but those orders seem to have lost him the military and forced him into negotiating WHEN, not if, he'll leave. There is still reason to hope he will be removed without large military conflicts (and the civilian casualties that will undoubtedly accompany them).

- Attrill

March 22, 2011 at 11:36pm

No other government is laying siege to entire cities. Libya is different in that Qaddhafi cut the water and electricity and telcom in Berber-Zawara, Zawiya, and Misrata while sending in tanks and other armored ground forces to subdue those cities which had local "freedom fighters" in control of local governance(today's new term for opponents/rebels). Obama was very specific on Friday in non-negotiable demand to Q to not only withdraw his armor and tanks, but also restore water, electricity, and gas to Zawiya, Misrata, and Adjabiya. Misrata has not had water or electricity for ten days. No other government is laying siege to entire cities. BTW, seems as if the allies figured out how to take out Q's tanks solely with air power in Misrata overnight, without civilian casualties. 03/22/2011 - 5:14pm EDT | nr106646: "They are not that different from the Russian revolutionary leftists who were willing to slaughter millions for the sake of their dream of a future utopia." Last night, I read about Stalin's deliberate starvation of three million Ukrainian peasants in 1932-33, in the name of the revolution, in Snyder's "Bloodlands", and have to admit it does seem as though Qaddhafi's continuous revolution seems to borrow Stalin's tactics.

- K2K

March 23, 2011 at 12:25pm

Nice work on this issue K2K--consistently timely and informative posts. I think you'll find that Tim Snyder's splendid book will inform your further work. It has mine. Rgds, Bob

- Robert Powell

March 23, 2011 at 5:38pm

Bob, thank you so much. Responsibility to Protect is going to become a major issue, but the least the media could do is highlight that Qaddhafi is actually laying siege to many cities. I read a dry little book on the Monghols last week, but I think Q is using the same technique, minus the mountains of heads - that was Tamerlane :) Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands" is splendid in many ways. About six years ago, I looked at Yale's phD in History application. They asked you to cite which book of history most influences the way you want to write history. My age and health precluded actually pursuing another degree, but that question launched a very interesting quest for that one book. Until "Bloodllands", "Arc of Justice" was in first place. The concept of human instead of political geography is compelling. "Bloodlands" is also a great way to get one's mind into perspective when life, or the news, is too daunting. Now that I have a plumbing disaster, I will catch up at TNR another time. Too many posts on Libya.

- K2K

March 23, 2011 at 7:30pm