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, Libya, And Status Quo Bias

JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 14, 2011

Obama, Libya, And Status Quo Bias

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Sudarsan Raghavan of the Washington Post reports on the sickening unearthing of a secret prison in Libya:

IN BENGHAZI, LIBYA Peering into a subterranean jail, Adil Gnaybor shuddered with fear. Rusted prison bars once covered with earth were now exposed, dug up by rebels who had discovered the secret labyrinth of cells. The space was too small for Gnaybor's 5-foot frame, and a white tube provided the only source of air.

"If I go inside there, perhaps I will die," Gnaybor said, staring into the hole.

Thousands of Libyans have been arriving here at a complex of palatial homes, known as the Katiba El Fadil bu Omar, where Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi stayed during visits to this port city. It is here that Gaddafi also had an underground prison. ...

Al-Badri, a 62-year-old who came with his three daughters, said: "I expect anything from Gaddafi. He could bomb Benghazi, even use chemical weapons." He declined to give his full name, for fear that he would be targeted if Gaddafi returned.

"What is America waiting for?" he continued. "Until Gaddafi manages to kill all the Libyan people?"

I'm mindful of my lack of relevant expertise, but the case for a no-fly zone and arms shipments to the rebels seems more compelling than the case against. It's the possibility of a disaster against the likelihood of one. Leon Wieseltier's online column is very powerful. Tom Ricks argues, "This does remind me a lot of Bosnia '94."

Let me add a couple thoughts of my own. Generally, uprisings like these can succeed on their own because they reach a critical mass where the regime loses all legitimacy, and the military will no longer intervene to save it. That calculation fails when the regime has a massive oil slush fund that it can use to hire foreign mercenaries.

Second, the Obama administration's decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan show that it's obviously not allergic to the use of military force. Rather, it seems to have an extremely strong status quo bias. The policy rationale for aiding Libya's rebels seems clearly stronger than the policy rationale for pressing on in Afghanistan. Yet here we are. You can justify each decision on its own terms, of course. But it appears to me that the level of fear of American intervention in the Middle East displayed by Obama here -- a level strong enough to foreclose a no-fly zone in defense of, and aid to, an indigenous uprising -- would also be strong enough to push it out of one or both of its current wars. Instead, we simply have status quo across the board.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 81 comments

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

81 comments

You're confusing the amount of effort to LEAVE a situation where we're in a continuing WAR, with a situation where we have NO INTEREST whatever. I'll note even the "people on the ground" (whoever they are) who are calling for a no-fly zone, vehemently add they want NO foreign troops. I think this three-week wonder is dramatically different from what Clinton did in the Balkans. And I'll note what Clinton did in the Balkans was quite controversial at the time. Plus, we DO already have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, meaning we need to restore tax-rates AND get out of both Afghanistan AND Iraq. Adding Libya to that list does not seem wise. Having said all that, IF we could get consensus from the UN, and IF we knew who would take power once Qaddafi falls, and IF we knew that person or group wasn't fundamentalist Islam, then MAYBE a very limited role like a no-fly zone wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. But that's a lot of very big IFs.

- AllanL5

March 14, 2011 at 9:52am

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

Yes, but at the risk of being redundant (see the spectaculary idiotic "Darkness Falls" and prolific responses that followed), who precisely are we supporting? I mean, we're all in favor of democracy. Sic Semper Tyrannis, power to the people! ....except, see, "democracy" doesn't take charge of a country once they wash the blood off the guillotine. A person does. And that person, so far as I can tell, remains unidentified among the Libyan rebels. I'm all for the no fly zone. Just as soon as we can be sure we're not helping to put in place another blooththirsty psychotic dictator, who will be on tv thanking the great US of A while he's merrily butchering all possible political opponents as he consolidates power. You want to prevent that,? Fine, it means boots on the ground. LOTS of boots. So what's our exit strategy? What happens when the rebels take the capital, but then divide into warring camps? Do we support...with lethal force, mind you... the star-bellied sneeches, or the ones without... or do we just stand in the middle and shout "stop it" ?? Chait's post is certainly more thoughtful than Wieselter's, and I don't necessarily disagree... but this is easier than just launching a few F18's from the nearest carrier and hoping for the best.

- Tristan

March 14, 2011 at 9:58am

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

Mr Wieseltier's column wasn't powerful, it was preposterous. The fact that Mr Chait was impressed by it brings his judgment on this issue immediately into question. The problem with a no-fly zone is it won't work. Qadaffi has plenty of cash and other resources to continue fighting without his air force. When he does, that's when people like Mr Chait will decide "in for a penny, in for a pound" and that's when the calls for direct military intervention will become loud. [See Bill Kristol already demanding a U.S. invasion.] People who demanded an ineffectual no-fly zone will then argue that the U.S. cannot afford to have its credibility damaged by Qadaffi so easily getting around the no-fly zone. So we'll have to do more. And more. And more. Before you know it, we'll be responsible for: -- getting rid of Qadaffi's regime, -- preventing the rebels from shooting anyone and everyone they suspect was associated with Qadaffi's regime, -- negotiating power-sharing arrangements among Libya's many, many disputatious tribes, -- ensuring that the rebels don't fall out among themselves and start shooting each other, -- creating a civil society where none exists, -- arranging for free elections where none have ever taken place, -- rebuilding Libyan infrastructure, which will have been largely destroyed by the war. I'd love to read Mr Chait's plan for all these things. [For some reason Mr Wieseltier decided not to include his plan. Strange. I've never known him to be shy about tacking on another 2000 words to an article.] Remember when a suggestion that the Iraq War could cost hundreds of billions of dollars met with incredulous denials and a sacking for the person who predicted it? Mitch Daniels promised us the Iraq War would cost $50 billion AT MOST! And Donald Rumsfeld [as well as plenty of uninformed media bozos, some here at TNR] assured us the war would end quickly, with little loss of life or long-term commitment. Isn't it obvious to everyone by now that these interventions are ALWAYS far more complicated and expensive in blood and treasure than the hawks promise? For once I'd like these hawks to be honest and say something like: "Yes, this is going to take a long time and it will cost a lot of money. We're going to be in Libya for years and we have no guarantee of success. However many Libyans or Arabs cheer us when we topple Qadaffi, it won't be long before somebody makes a mistake and shoots a bunch of innocent civilians and then the entire region will be on fire with rage and thousands of jihadists will flood into the country to eject our troops from the country. This is going to be a long, complicated, expensive and, perhaps, bloody struggle in Libya. However, it is worth it for the following reasons..." [I'm not listing those reasons because I can't imagine what they could be.] The reason nobody gives that sort of speech, even though almost everyone knows it is probably the most accurate description of a U.S. intervention in Libya, is because it doesn't poll well. The goal is just to say anything to get the country into a war and then demand escalations every time something doesn't go according to plan until you've got 75 thousand troops in a Middle East country and getting them back out again is so humiliating and complicated that gutless politicians just come up with one excuse after another to avoid admitting the entire endeavor was a gigantic mistake. But maybe all that won't happen this time, eh? No doubt Mr Wieseltier and Mr Chait have a plan for avoiding all that. These two men, blessed with extensive military experience and knowledge of the Middle East, will surely have a detailed plan to intervene in Libya without getting bogged down for years. I eagerly await their release of this plan.

- DC Spence

March 14, 2011 at 10:57am

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

101st Airborne is right on again. It is a little more complicated than a few air sorties. We had a no-fly zone for years over Iraq and it eventually led to invasion. I seem to recall the U.S. helping a group of "freedom fighters" in the 1980's. We were instrumental in getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan, providing in effect a "no fly zone" with Stinger missiles. However we had no boots on the ground and couldn't influence the "freedom fighters". And what did we get for our efforts,what was our thanks? 3,000 dead on September 11. The United States has expended enough blood and treasure over the past 60 years cleaning up Europe's colonial messes in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. I'm 56 years old and have enjoyed perhaps a decade of peace. Enough of the U.S. being the "indespensible nation." Let the French and the Italians establish a no fly zone.

- dubyadoubte

March 14, 2011 at 11:10am

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

Those of us who care about people have an interest in Libya, Allan. I bet if you were a dissident in Libya, A. and Tristan also, that you would want a no-fly zone and some arms. Now, of course we cannot help everyone in every situation, but this is doable. And comparing Libya to Iraq is preposterous, dub.

- liberalref

March 14, 2011 at 11:24am

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

liberalref "Those of us who care about people have an interest in Libya, Allan. I bet if you were a dissident in Libya, A. and Tristan also, that you would want a no-fly zone and some arms. Now, of course we cannot help everyone in every situation, but this is doable." I agree.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 11:27am

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

How many American deaths are we willing to accept to help the rebels and depose Gadaffi? How much are we willing to spend - a few billion or tens of billions? I realize it's unfair to ask Chait if he'd be willing to pay higher taxes to oust Gaddafi, because he surely would, but, considering the lay of the land in Congress, we're talking about cutting food stamps, not taxing rich people. There's more than one way to starve the beast, and if we can spend a few billion on brave Libyan freedom fighters, that's a few billion that won't go to fatcat teachers and police and lazy layabouts suckling on Uncle Sam's teat. I also can't help but wonder what Gates and the Joint Chiefs are telling Obama. My guess is that they're telling him that it may not go well, and that it's not as easy as it sounds. Wes Clark has more military experience than I do (more than all of us combined, to be more precise), and that seems to be what he thinks.

- Geoff G

March 14, 2011 at 11:29am

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

Libref - if I was a dissident in Libya, I would want a no fly zone. And 10 minutes later, once American pilots were watching in horror from 15,000 feet as the carnage continued on the ground, I would want an armored tank division. Likewise, if I was a gang rape victim in the Congo, a starving family in Eritrea, or a peace and freedom loving individual in Mogadishu, Sierra Leone, Kashmir, Darfur, Juarez... the list goes on, and is in no way limited solely to those wishing to see a dictator toppled. What is your standard for deciding that even if this should be our fight, perhaps we should give the matter a great deal of thought before jumping in with both feet, guns blazing? Why aren't you advocating an immediate no fly zone over, say, Pyongyang? As for Peter's analogy to Iraq, I don't think it's all that preposterous. Certainly there are a multitude of differences, but his point is valid: The US has a long history of embroiling itself in military debacles immediately after declaring "this will be a cake walk". Iraq is a perfect example of this. But Lib, can you guarantee if we topple Qaddafi that Libya will not descend... maybe after a month, maybe after a year... into a bloody and protracted civil war? The problem now being, as Powell said, you break it you own it. Even if we gave only marginal assistance (which, frankly, wouldn't accomplish anything but make some on our side feel good about themselves), WE NOW HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY to the country's ultimate outcome. In for a penny, in for a pound. What do you feel is an appropriate sacrifice, in terms of US dead, for a Libyan revolution where we have no idea what's coming next? How long do you feel is worth it in terms of the length of our deployment? How much, in terms of real dollars? Make no mistake: A no fly zone will accomplish absolutely nothing to change the picture on the ground, and once we're in the air, if the killing continues the overwhelming impetus will be to commit ground forces. It may sound tremendously jaded, but our SOLE standard for doing to do so should never ever be "but they want and need us there".

- Tristan

March 14, 2011 at 11:43am

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

Tristan "Libref - if I was a dissident in Libya, I would want a no fly zone. And 10 minutes later, once American pilots were watching in horror from 15,000 feet as the carnage continued on the ground, I would want an armored tank division. Likewise, if I was a gang rape victim in the Congo, a starving family in Eritrea, or a peace and freedom loving individual in Mogadishu, Sierra Leone, Kashmir, Darfur, Juarez... the list goes on, and is in no way limited solely to those wishing to see a dictator toppled." People have used this same kind of excuse (If you are going to help these victims of tyranny why not those other victims over there...) for over a century. It's because of people like Tristan that nothing was done about many genocides in this and last century. Too often it's "liberals" and people on the left who take such a stand. Right wingers who take such a stand are at least being consistent with their values, but this view contradicts all liberal values.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 11:53am

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

"Rather, it seems to have an extremely strong status quo bias." Has someone replace Chait with the spirit of David Broder? If there ever was a statement of the obvious, this is it. Chait think this is a criticism, but in fact, it is the greatest demonstration that the Obama Administration is not the evil, socialist, Islamist terrorist-coddling, feckless Administration its detractors portray it to be. To the extent that there is continuity of policy, the reason is that US interests tend to be constant and do not change with Administrations; and while the means deployed to protect and advance those interests might be changed or altered, any such change must come only gradually. This is why American troops did not leave Iraq on January 21, 2009. So yes, there is an in-built bias in favour of policy continuity in foreign affairs, because that is the way things are and you should not wish it otherwise. "The policy rationale for aiding Libya's rebels seems clearly stronger than the policy rationale for pressing on in Afghanistan." Well, I am not sure about the "clearly". The US has been involved in Afghan affairs since 1980. In 2001, it invaded the country and overturned its government. Through eight years of mismanagement, it bungled the exercise and failed to ensure that there is a stable government in place to avoid a repeated of 9/11. If anything, the fact that there remains a "policy rationale for pressing on in Afghanistan" should make one pause, and reflect, carefully about policy rationales for intervening in or invading other countries in the midst of civil strife: you can bomb to your heart's content, but you will not pacify a country until your soldiers are patrolling the streets, and perhaps not even then. Let us then have a debate along the line of DC's paragraph. If you think you can persuade the American people to intervene after having directly told them what the costs and uncertainties are, then I say wonderful! But to constantly minimise the costs and exaggerate the benefits, and accuse those who wish to at least reflect the lessons we have learned in the last two decades of directly military involvement in the Middle East, appears to me at best disinguous. We've seen this film before; the sequel is not likely to be prettier, and the director appears to recognise it (hence the hesitation).

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 11:57am

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

arnon - well, this particular liberal spent just under a decade with the army, and most of that in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, where I kind of felt like I really was both taking a stand (compared to some, anyway) and helping get rid of a bit of tyrrany and injustice here and there. I would have spent another decade, but wounds prevented otherwise. You assume anyone who doesn't want to see the US rush into combat with no overwhemling reason, no strategy, and no end game is some sort of weak-kneed pacifist who never wants to take a stand? How wonderful. I can't thank you and people like you enough for being at least partly responsible for the deaths of 4,000 of my brothers. You are an inspiration to dipshit neocons everywhere, arnon.

- Tristan

March 14, 2011 at 12:08pm

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

There were those who were extolling the Courage of Sarkozy for asking for military intervention. I've gone back and re-read the accounts. First, he and his government screwed it up royally in respect of Tunisia and Egypt - his foreign minister has not been seen on any events because of her family's ties with Ben Ali - so many analysts are seeing Sarkozy's strong words as so much covering up of his government's performance before. Whether the analysis is correct is besides the point, but the context is there. Second, French officials have been careful to say that they will not act without UNSC sanction. Well, that is not coming, at least not for the time-being (and if it does, it will be another miracle of diplomacy). So the call for military strikes should be modified to "Let's attack, subject to conditions that will not materialise!" The NATO Secretary General, meanwhile, no doubt speaking only after NATO Council approved the lines, had a slight softer line: "sound legal basis". NATO considers the Kosovo action to have been based on "sound legal basis"; and so multilateral intervention without UNSC sanction is not to be ruled out. This tells me that the NATO view (no doubt supported by both the US and France) is actually more aggressive than the public French view on the subject. Looks like there are a lot of "consultations" going on, there is a lot of thinking, and probably planning, on how to proceed multilaterally. In this sense, at any rate, we are not in the "status quo ante Obama" - the Bush world - but the "status quo ante Bush": action, where action is merited, but in a multilateral context (Clinton in Kosovo; Bush I in Iraq). There is nothing to be ashamed of here. Third, some cities are changing hands constantly, it would seem. An NFZ or a DMZ would be useless in this context. To call for air strikes when you have no idea, from day to day, who is in which position to be struck appears to me less courageous than foolhardy.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 12:08pm

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

Tristan: I was about to comment on Arnon's post - yet again, the whiner's first line of response is not to reason but to attack, this time "liberals" and lefties, and no doubt he will come back with some other whine about how NO ONE can criticise Obama, blah blah blah - but your post, I think, is the definitive word in response. I just found out that one of my students is deploying to Iraq. Advanced degrees in law from Ivy League and European schools and as liberal as any of my American friends, he is now one of the "boots on the ground" that people here refer to; I don't believe in God, but pace Pascale, I pray for him (and his wife and young child). It turns my stomach when armchair critics blithely advocate military intervention, and then, when called on to justify the costs, accuse "liberals" of indifference, among others, to genocide.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 12:18pm

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

Ick - yet another reason why, come subscription renewal time, you need to stick around my friend. Best of luck to your student. May he come home safe. God bless.

- Tristan

March 14, 2011 at 12:24pm

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

"I would have spent another decade, but wounds prevented otherwise." It's an honour, Sir, to share these boards with you.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 12:26pm

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

I certainly don't like the armchair warriors who pugnaciously advocate the use of force always or at least often (e.g., neoconservatives). I have put a lot of thought into my support of a no-fly zone and my position has evolved over time from initially not being supportive of taking action. This mindset would be totally foreigner to icar. Also, I notice that when icar is criticized, he immediately cries "flame war", but he is happy to lay into others. Someone like this should never ever employ the term "whine." It is just unreflective and daft for such people to do so. Thank you for your eloquent words, arnon.

- liberalref

March 14, 2011 at 12:45pm

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

yes, and no way Republicans next year are going to run the audio from CNN tapes of young women speaking fluent English begging for nothing more than an NFZ and how Obama simply turned his back after stating Gadhafi must go. I will wash my hands of Obama if he lets this happen. Status quo bias my ass, it is simple idiocy to bomb rural houses in F-ing PAKISTAN with drones in the hope that there are Taliban inside ut ignore the wholesale raising of Benghazi. Congratulations for all of you, Democrats have lost so many elections because they are painted as spineless and feckless. If Obama loses next year you can certainly take comfort in the fact that hey, at least Gadhafi is still in office...or something. Political suicide is what this is. And if Republicans win (they will also win the Senate) expect to see the myriad threads of Obamacare be plucked one by one until it all unravels, at which point they can repeal it as a failure. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Gov. Richardson, etc. Democrats all have sought a NFZ, and again you seem to think Republicans would never dare use those words against Obama. Right now we have the worst of both worlds, Obama with bullshit bluster (all options are on the table and will stay there forever) which will only inflate Gadhafis narcissitic insanity if he wins. If Obama said nothing beyond it is an internal affair of Libya I would have disagreed but he has frozen assets, brought up ships, etc. He intervened enough to annoy Gadhafi but not enough to make a difference. Brilliant statecraft. As I said, I wash my hands of him. If he loses next year it is on YOUR heads for not heeding my warning. A Democrat will not lose in a post 9/11 world doing something to stop Gadhafi from killing hundreds of thousands of people (this is f-ing Gadhafi, a guy who blew up Pan Am over Lockerbie, are you people freaking insane????) Yes, take great comfort in Gadhafi winning and Obama losing. What a thrill for you. Of course I justify a DMZ and no fly zone in Eastern Libya. It will prevent genocide, will pose no risk to American soldiers and will give Gadhafi and his brood time to weigh their long term options. Worst comes to worst it is a defacto partition of Libya. Anyway, for Obama to lose support from someone like me does not bode well. Democrats got shellacked not because of people voting Republican, but from Democrats staying at home. I will stay at home. If Obama loses enthusiasm edge, he is toast. But hey, he has the Libyan pacifist vote all locked up. All 10 of you.

- blackton

March 14, 2011 at 12:54pm

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

Blackton - 1. Saying we should consider many, many things before launching combat air patrols (much less creating and enforcing a DMZ) is not EXACTLY the same thing as supporting f-ing Ghadaffi The Pan Am Murderer. You didn't have to be a facebook BFF of Saddam's to have voiced the same level of concern about Iraq. 2. I know this may not make a great deal of sense to you, but election forecasting should not be the single most overwhelming factor in deciding whether or not to go to a foreign country and start killing people in the name of peace and democracy. Sounds crazy, I know, but there it is. 3. Consider switching to decaf.

- Tristan

March 14, 2011 at 1:04pm

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

DC Spence "Mr Wieseltier's column wasn't powerful, it was preposterous. The fact that Mr Chait was impressed by it brings his judgment on this issue immediately into question." Or it could be the other way around. the fact that DC Spence thought W's column to be "preposterous" brings his judgment into question.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 1:30pm

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

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US and UK have already determined that Qaddafi will be removed by any means necessary, but would also like to minimize their own military commitment to that end--not only for this case, but more generally, wanting to grease the legal and diplomatic machinery that has regional security organizations (NATO, the Arab League, the OAS, etc.) take the lead in armed humanitarian interventions. How would they work toward that end? It seems to me that they would not commit themselves to any action until they got a commitment from the Arab League to engage as needed. They would perhaps privately talk of air cover should the Arab League commit on the ground, but not publicly commit to a no-fly zone to will likely be ineffectual. They would want to keep the "do something" pressure on the Arab League, and especially Egypt. Is that is what is going on? I don't know, but neither does Wieseltier. Yet this is just the sort of possibility he dismisses out of hand, assuming, without argument, that any call for multilateralism in FP is an excuse for inaction. And now Chait speaks of status quo bias. What status quo? The one in which it is only the US that is obligated to "do something"? Or does Chait too buy the question-begging premise that any call for multilateralism is somehow "objectively" support for any dictator one cares to name?

- dpaup

March 14, 2011 at 1:31pm

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

Let's go to war with Libya, with or without UN sanction, whatever, because if we don't, Blackton won't vote for Obama.

- dpaup

March 14, 2011 at 1:37pm

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

Tristan “arnon - well, this particular liberal spent just under a decade with the army, and most of that in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, where I kind of felt like I really was both taking a stand (compared to some, anyway) and helping get rid of a bit of tyrrany and injustice here and there. I would have spent another decade, but wounds prevented otherwise.” Your personal experience is irrelevant, Tristan. My father was severely wounded in battle (Korea) but didn’t use his wounds in his arguments. “You assume anyone who doesn't want to see the US rush into combat with no overwhemling reason, no strategy, and no end game is some sort of weak-kneed pacifist who never wants to take a stand?” I made no such assumption. “How wonderful. I can't thank you and people like you enough for being at least partly responsible for the deaths of 4,000 of my brothers. You are an inspiration to dipshit neocons everywhere, arnon.” I don’t think there is one neocon position on this. Your comment is laughable and it reminds me of right-wingers who claim that any argument for a strong union movement are an inspiration for communists and fascists. I could also say that your nonintervention argument is an inspiration for tyranny everywhere but will refrain from doing so.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 1:38pm

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

This thread is shaping up as a replay of the W's thread and I doubt anyone will convince anyone else.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 1:40pm

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

Blackie:

"Democrats have lost so many elections because they are painted as spineless and feckless. If Obama loses next year you can certainly take comfort in the fact that hey, at least Gadhafi is still in office...or something. ... It will prevent genocide, will pose no risk to American soldiers and will give Gadhafi and his brood time to weigh their long term options. Worst comes to worst it is a defacto partition of Libya."
1. The mechanism by which Democrats are "painted" one thing or another, whether that is a correct portrayal, and whether the portrayal was directly responsible for Democratic losses in Presidential elections are all, I submit to you, fairly contentious and, in any event, as Tristan notes, ought to have little or nothing to do with sound policy, sound foreign policy, protecting the national interest of the United States, the lives of its soldies and the lives of others. It is a strange comment to make, after eight years in which policy was consistently, and disastrously, sacrificed to politics. 2. The second sentence above is certainly tendentious - there is no guarantee that committing the US to another war in a Muslim country will win Obama the next election (it did not help Bush I), nor that not committing forces will lose him any (he promised to withdraw from Iraq and won the election). The comment is, as you must surely know, gratuitous. What you are demonstrating, in my view, is not "spine", but the worst sort of Crowly-crouch Democratic spinelessness: going on the attack on your side by buying into Republican scare tactics: "If we don't bomb Iran today, there will be mushroom clouds in the Middle East next Thursday at three-forty three p.m." Like most Republican operatives, in a true Rovian tactic, you accuse the rest of us - who, as I noted above, do not disagree on objects but on means - of not-so secretly wishing a tyrant to remain in power. It is nonsense; surely you must recognise it as that. 3. "Genocide" has a specific meaning in law. It does so not out of diplomatic niceties, but because of the serious consequences that flow from characterising something as "genocide". (Saddam was a genocidair, and my support of the Iraq war was, in large measure, based on that assessment.) Mass murder, crimes against humanity, war crimes - any of these might well fit the Libyan situation, but there is no evidence that a specific group of people is being targetted for elimination. To describe a civil war in which the former interior and justice ministers of an oil rich country have amassed arms, with the support of large chunks of Libyan people, against what is left of the government may not be called "genocide" without some risk, at least, of terminilogical inexactitude. 4. I really do like your "worse come to worse": one would have thought that partitioning of a sovereign state by unilteral military intervention of a foreign power - even in defence of the local population is a terrible precedent to set, rather one blithely conceded as an acceptable second best outcome. One might say that the fact that the state in question is oil rich, that the foreign power is 5000 miles away, that the result of such partition is going to be hundreds of thousands of displaced peoples flowing into neighbouring countries (NOT the foreign power doing the partitioning) and so on and so forth, would give you some pause before posing this option as not so bad. But perhaps, in predicting the end of Westphalia, I overshot myself: maybe this is the world were boundaries and the notion of sovereignty really no longer matters.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 1:53pm

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

Arnon: "Or it could be the other way around. the fact that DC Spence thought W's column to be "preposterous" brings his judgment into question." Note how you complain and whine about being insulted? We are having a pleasant discussion, and as soon as you arrive, we get the stench of one-line personal attacks, rather than engagement on substance. If you think that this is a reply of LW's thread, then don't participate - go away and suck on a peppercorn. If you wish to stay, and continue to insult people - instead of engaging their arguments - expect to be insulted back, at least by those of us who can't stand smug whiners. So far, your comments have demonstrated you so far to be an impertinent vacuous ass, so I suggest you change tack and start discussing the issues.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 1:59pm

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

Blackton and arnon are spot on. Consider switching to spinal mode, Tristan. Icar says that it is "fairly contentious" that the Democrats have lost presidential elections because of the soft stands on defense. That question was settled a long time ago, now. The answer is yes, they did suffer such losses, and no one outside of the McGovernites (a shriveled tendency, indeed) in particular and the left in general, disputes this any longer. So icar's little parlor trick can be employed by anyone, any time, on anything. Gee, the theory of evolution is fairly contentious, is it not? And icar is a teacher?

- liberalref

March 14, 2011 at 2:06pm

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

Is icarusr an American? I thought he was an Iranian living in Canada? If so why is he making comments and passing judgment on American politics? "The mechanism by which Democrats are "painted" one thing or another, whether that is a correct portrayal, and whether the portrayal was directly responsible for Democratic losses in Presidential elections are all, I submit to you, fairly contentious..."

- Packard

March 14, 2011 at 2:12pm

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

The argument for the use of American military force in Libya is very weak. Maybe the rebels would offer Libyans more political and civil rights than they have had under Qaddafi; maybe not. We have heard such things before, and have been disappointed. Maybe we can get in and out in a matter of weeks or months, with minimal loss of American lives; maybe not. Maybe we would be welcomed with open arms; we have heard that before too. Is this the new model for American military engagement? Some civil war breaks out, practically anywhere and at any time, and we will take sides in every case? Go Team America! As for the "status quo" in Iraq and Afghanistan, am I mistaken in thinking that we have been withdrawing from Iraq under this president? Am I mistaken, or are we not committed to beginning the withdrawal from Afghanistan this summer? If the pace is too slow, perhaps we should think twice before jumping into Libya? I think we should ask ourselves whether our use of force would really be necessary and prudent. Take a deep breath. Neil

- purcellneil

March 14, 2011 at 2:14pm

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

icarusr “Arnon: "Or it could be the other way around. the fact that DC Spence thought W's column to be "preposterous" brings his judgment into question." Note how you complain and whine about being insulted? We are having a pleasant discussion, and as soon as you arrive, we get the stench of one-line personal attacks, rather than engagement on substance.” That wasn’t a personal attack at all. I was merely repeating ironically his judgment on Mr. Chait. 03/14/2011 - 10:57am EDT | DC Spence “Mr Wieseltier's column wasn't powerful, it was preposterous. The fact that Mr Chait was impressed by it brings his judgment on this issue immediately into question.” Icarus should stick to comments addressed to him since he doesn’t seem to care about context.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 2:17pm

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

Welcome to another episode of "When reasonable people disagree..."

I think it boils down to the fact that America has burned its good will and bridges in middle eastern countries for far too long. We cannot act unilaterally because it will invalidate the authenticity of the uprising with the surrounding nations because they will never be certain of our motives or intentions and therefore the purity of the outcome in Libya (America's puppet Muslims? America's 51st state? Another Iraq?). Yes, this means we have to allow unnecessary suffering, we can't rise to the occaision because too many people would see it like the fox protecting the hens from other hens. And I think we all know who we have to thank for this.

Think about that when you're sitting on your couch on November 4th, 2012.

- GSpinks

March 14, 2011 at 2:17pm

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

You put your finger on it exactly, arnon. Icar is just a big baby. You know the type - you encountered them in the schoolyard, and then in adult life, too. They are the ones who always cry foul and then turn around and accuse others of whining. Icar is extremely pugnacious but he is a fragile entity. People who inhabit glass egos shouldn't throw stones.

- liberalref

March 14, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

"If so why is he making comments and passing judgment on American politics?" Ah, you're right Packard. When I moved to Canada, after living in the US for a couple of years, I must have left my brain behind; plus, up here in Iglooland, we clearly don't have access to US Networks, cable news, US magazines and newspapers, international magazines and newspapers commenting on US politics, or Canadian news reports of US politics. I have no doubt that editorialists and opinion writers the world over who comment on US politics must reflect on their utter ignorance and repent for their wrong ways. Or ... were you referringto my my ethnic background? I do understand that the word "Iranian" somehow ought to bar me from reading about, studying and understanding American politics; what a complete waste my American professors of American politics would have thought it, teaching me about American politics and history for, oh, four years (and three more years in comparative legal studies). Now, they never mentioned it, but now that you do, I can see how frustrating it must have been, to read, year after year, essays written by this Iranian living in Canada, attempting to understand US politics ... Sorry packard - I will scurry away and reflect on the wisdom of my betters - and perhaps repent. 'Tis far better to be an ignorant American commenting on American politics, than an - gasp - "Iranian living in Canada." P.s. Up here in Canuckistan, poor ignorant Canadians refer to people like me as, well, "Canadians", on account of being, well, Canadian citizens and all.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 2:23pm

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

LibRef: "That question was settled a long time ago, now." Humphrey 1968 (the Southern Strategy/Vietnam) McGovern 1972 (Watergate) Carter 1980 (Stagflation) Mondale 1984 (Reagan) Dukakis 1988 (Willie Horton) Gore 2000 (Scalia) Kerry 2004 (Kerry) The thing about politics is that questions don't ever get "settled" definitively; we are still debating the causes and effects of the Civil War. Of all the elections above, only two may remotely be considered related to allegations of "softness" - Bush-Kerry and Nixon-McGovern. In each instance, there was enough in the character of the candidate and the circumstances of the elections to justify the Democratic loss, controlling for foreign policy issues. We can debate these, but I would suggest to you that "settled long ago" is not entirely an accurate statement of the state of scholarship on the subject. If you were to say that "Republicans have convinced themsleves that they can win election after election only by portraying Democrats as feckless", you would be correct - and I would even say that some Democrats think the same way. Then there is Clinton. And Obama - who won over a War Hero. So, yes, it is still open to debate. And insulting me does not change fairly obvious facts.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 2:56pm

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

Status quo bias (the bad kind): There is some evidence that the US, at least the Defense Department, has eased up on Bahrain, Yemen, etc., is no longer pushing very hard for reform. If there is any real US interest in Libya, it is in not having an Arab Spring die in its infancy. In Libya, the connection to the rest of the Arab world is somewhat tenuous. Other area dictators are not likely to think it much of an object lesson, one way or another. On the other hand, the US backing the pressure off a number of autocratic regimes would seem to be right on point, in direct conflict with our long-term interests in Arab modernization. And what would explain that mistake, other than overly cautious status quo bias? So why aren't we talking about that? Are US foreign policy mistakes of no interest to TNR unless they get to beat up on hippie pacifists as well criticize Obama?

- dpaup

March 14, 2011 at 2:56pm

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

3. Consider switching to decaf. Oh my God that is hilarious. I have never heard of such a brilliant witticism, not since yesterday when someone else said the same thing in an act like a patronizing asshole. Wait, I am sorry, I should not care about the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in Benghazi, I should simply be superior to it all. 1. Saying we should consider many, many things before launching combat air patrols (much less creating and enforcing a DMZ) is not EXACTLY the same thing as supporting f-ing Ghadaffi Yes it is if it is an excuse to do nothing. Good lord do I have to quote Burke? ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ And I bring up the election hopefully to show at least there is a direct self interest as to yourself. Stopping Gadhafi from razing Benghazi is not...NOT the same as dropping bombs on people. Strange inversion of reality you got there. Who would we be killing exactly by enforcing a DMZ? Foreign mercenaries or Gadhafi loyalists who want to raze Benghazi...you are right. I must be a MONSTER. Tell me why a no fly zone over eastern Libya and a demarcation line between East and West Libya is unworkable. Don’t just say it is because of Iraq or because of some other quote…explain in detail how it is unworkable. “Eastern Libya, the locus of the rebellion, sent more foreign fighters per capita to join the Iraqi insurgency than any other region in the Arab world.” And the question is why? Could it be that living in a brutally repressive society military adventurism was the only way out? That maybe if you give them direct control over their lives via a Democratic state they would not feel the need to go off to another country to die? I have lived in 3rd world countries for many years, I have seen firsthand the toxic brew of resentment that happens when a people feel trapped and humiliated. They can not fight the local government, but the local government is more than willing to imbue a toxic hatred of America as though America is at fault for their status.

- blackton

March 14, 2011 at 2:59pm

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

"It's because of people like Tristan that nothing was done about many genocides in this and last century. Too often it's "liberals" and people on the left who take such a stand." Sorry arnon, but if you direct an ad hominem comment like that at a poster, that poster is perfectly entitled, in return, to refer to personal experience when arguing back. It's doesn't strengthen your case if you personalize the discussion and subsequently accuse your interlocutor of personalizing the discussion. Like libref, I was initially opposed to the NFZ and and now I've been changing my mind (although I'd want to be convinced that it will be effective enough (with communications disruption and other measures against Ghaddafi's command systems) to actually make a tactical difference on the ground. I still say, however, that I look in vain for anyone who will tell me what the options would be, or should be, if we take that step and it doesn't produce the desired results. What happens if we can't effectively tell rebel forces from pro-Ghaddafi mercenaries and irregulars on the ground, for example? This will require some symphony-like coordination and control. Anytime I post that question about Plan B, I get passion and vehemence (some of which I share, at least its motivation) back from the intervention enthusiasts, but no thinking this through. Just evasiveness on the key question and, from some, the accusation that I just want to stand back while the Libyan rebels die, 'cause I'm, you know, a hand-wringing liberal wuss or something. But ok, if we can get something like a NATO+Arab League arrangement going in which we provide a lot of the backbone but operations include Egyptians, Saudis etc then maybe it's possible and maybe at least we can engineer a positive stalemate on the ground where Ghaddafi has to negotiate himself out.

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 3:35pm

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

Blackie: I gave you the link for Lewis Mackenzie's analysis of no fly zones. He is the Canadian general who was in charge of UN forces in Sarajevo - and ran for the Conservatives, so no leftie softie he. Please check that out and let's have a chat afterwards. And, of course, one would say that it is incumbent upon those pressing for a course of action to accumulate evidence and argument as to how the same action will result in different outcomes, when done in similar conditions. That is why Iraq is important - not because I am spooked, but because having tried one set of means and found them wanting, we should, in my view, be careful in employing the same means.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 3:40pm

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

"if we can get something like a NATO+Arab League arrangement going in which we provide a lot of the backbone" If I read the tea leaves (or the pages of the FT) correctly, that is what is being worked out; with regional oranizations providing the legal cover, NATO the air cover, and the Arab League ... who knows, but presumably something more concrete on the ground, which would also provide the answer to your question (which is precisely why Mackenzie's article was so useful). Serbia is a useful model, but limited; expect a lot of civilian casualties as Gadhafi puts arms in donkey carts and anti-aircraft weapons on hospital rooftops.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 3:46pm

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

GSpinks @2:17pm nails it. Internecine warfare among liberals is not pretty. Remember how the Democrats tore themselves apart over Indochina? The party still hasn't recovered from that, and to it you can add the Balkans, Iraq, and, to a certain extent, Afghanistan. Personally, my heart goes out to the Libyan rebels, and if I thought we could get away with it (as I originally believed we could in Iraq), I'd favor action. Unfortunately, the chances of creating anything other than a horrible mess are close to zero, not to mention the unwisdom of starting a new task before finishing the rather difficult jobs already undertaken. If the French, Italians, Arab League or any combination thereof want to jump in, good luck.

- henderstock

March 14, 2011 at 3:47pm

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

The notion that Obama should intervene militarily in Libya for electoral reasons is offensive. The notion that not intervening in Libya will hurt him in the next election is laughable.

- DC Spence

March 14, 2011 at 4:12pm

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

The painting of Democrats as "soft" on defense stems from the failures of Vietnam war policies & protestations combined with the preemptive NeoCon attitude of the Right. The GOP have continued to add layers of that paint on Democrats over the last 30+ years. But within the context of American history the GOP has been far more isolationist in policies (pre-Vietnam) and coddling of tyrants worldwide under the veil of fighting the Cold War and no less imperious or no more defensive. The see-saw nature of our foreign policy over the last 200 years has been a direct reflection of the built-in contradictory nature of American idealism and exceptionalism. That a liberal would question or at least pause out of concern with regards to sending in troops to Libya to enforce a NFZ might be because we have heard the same chattering voices from the Right 8 years ago in the buildup to Iraq. History seemed to takes generations to repeat itself, now it takes just a few forgotten news cycles before we hear the same calls to arm 'freedom fighters' and 'revolutionaries' just like we did in Afghanistan in the 80s. The current calls to arm neglect the Libyan political situation in the name of stopping fratricide amongst Libyans. Libya is not defending itself from outside tyranny ala Afghanistan or Iraq. The US should provide support in what ways it can to help foster the removal of Ghadaffi but there needs to be something more coming from the rebel side in demanding what they need and desire than a simple NFZ. While there is a moral need & desire to stop and quell the precipitating movement towards all out civil war in Libya, we also need to determine (beyond the shortsighted view of securing oil production) what our true goals and interests should be in Libya and how those interests are seen and interpreted by Libyans and the Middle East. We can't afford nor should we foster another 10 years of sectarian violence and retribution against America because we facilitate a complete power vacuum without an understanding of what Libyans want beyond Ghadaffi being gone. That the Arab street has, through a groundswell of self-empowerment, begun to determine its own future through its own means. This is a region that has been under colonial control of one form or another for over 200 years. The Ottoman Empire broke into pieces and the subsequent colonialism by Europe and Britain after WW1 effectively partitioned the entire region into false provinces that were not born from the people who inhabit them. I do support some level of assistance (whether that is direct intervention or indirect support through materiel remains to be determined) for the rebelling Libyans but I also think we need to step carefully lest we, in the name of freedom and liberty, shoot ourselves in the foot drawing our guns for the showdown. We need to make it known we're not there to set up bases or install a puppet government but simply supporting the nascent democratic uprising in Libya and that is all we are there for and not yet another military foothold on the shores of Africa and the M.E.

- singlspeed

March 14, 2011 at 4:55pm

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

From the latest Pew poll: "The public by a wide margin says the United States does not have a responsibility to do something about the fighting between government forces and anti-government groups in Libya. And while opinion is divided over enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, this view is undercut by the fact that Americans overwhelmingly oppose bombing Libyan military air defenses. ... "Reflecting the public's reluctance about U.S. involvement in Libya, barely half (51%) favor increasing economic and diplomatic sanctions against Libya. The public is divided over the possibility of enforcing a no-fly zone -- 44% favor this action while 45% are opposed. Yet just 16% favor bombing Libyan air defenses -- 77% oppose bombing the sites. And large majorities reject providing arms to anti-government groups (69%) and sending troops into Libya (82%). ... "The view that the United States does not have a responsibility to act in Libya is shared widely across demographic and political groups. Majorities across gender, age and educational groups say the United States does not have a responsibility to do something about the fighting there. "Just 33% of Democrats say the U.S. has a responsibility to take action in Libya, as do 27% of Republicans and 24% of independents."

- DC Spence

March 14, 2011 at 5:19pm

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

Before going full metal, Qaddhafi waited at least three days after Obama/Gates moved two USN destroyers and two USMarine amphibious assault ships off the coast of Libya. Better Obama had done (and said) nothing than taunt Qaddhafi into this game of 'chicken'. Qaddhafi's spokesmen keep using the word "cleanse" as in "cleansed of armed gangs" after 'victory' in Ras Lanauf. Benghazi has a million people. By Wednesday, Qaddhafi might just be launching his SAMs indiscrimately into Benghazi, because he knows he can, and his forces actually lose when the combat is urban at close quarters. Then his spokesmen can say "heavy duty cleansing of armed gangs" [with a barrage of indiscriminate missile strikes because Qaddhafi knows he does not need the population of Benghazi, a thorn in his side for 42 years]. BTW: OAS stands for Organization of American States. I think people mean AU, the African Union, which apparently still wants to preserve all the post-colonial borders (in the AU charter) and reject foreign intervention, although I suspect the people of Sierra Leone, Chad, and Liberia actually are still glad there was some intervention to stop Qaddhafi's proteges in their day. "Mar 15, 2011 African dissent on no-fly zone counts" By M K Bhadrakumar http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC15Ak02.html blackton: maybe we need a thread where everyone studies the maps first:) Everyone who claims Libya is not an American interest never looked at a map of the North African coastline, and how international shipping has to flow south of Sicily, assuming it gets through the Suez Canal first. I guess the Eisenhower Doctrine and Truman Doctrine have been shelved since 2009.

- K2K

March 14, 2011 at 5:31pm

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

"Everyone who claims Libya is not an American interest never looked at a map of the North African coastline, and how international shipping has to flow south of Sicily," At least 350 km between Sicily and the nearest point on the Libyan coast. Put a trip wire of an aging frigate off the coast of Sicily, and you destroy any threat to shipping by Libya. (The first attack on shipping is trigger for outright war - and there you have your legal basis; and Libya, like every other nation in the world, knows that fine line between surviving as a country and being blown back to the Stone Age.) Try again.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 5:43pm

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

so, when did Somalia and Puntland get bombed back into the stone age, or does old-fashioned piracy not count? (maybe Obama's version of U.S. history has Jefferson sending the marines to the shores of Tripoli, Lebanon - so confusing, these place names) [quote of the year] "..."Everyone here is puzzled as to how many casualties the international community judges to be enough for them to help. Maybe we should start committing suicide to reach the required number," the rebel spokesman, Essam Gheriani, said in Benghazi. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8381758/Libya-David-Cameron-warns-time-is-running-out-to-stop-Gaddafi.html

- K2K

March 14, 2011 at 6:04pm

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8381758/Libya-David-Cameron-warns-time-is-running-out-to-stop-Gaddafi.html is the link that got trapped in "view full comment" above. seems Qaddhafi sent a plane to Belarus, "...The absence of a no-fly zone has allowed Col. Gaddafi's private jet, a French-built Dassault Falcon, registration 5A-DCN, to fly in and out of Belarus on suspected sanctions busting missions to shift assets or buy weapons. Hugh Griffiths, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), suggested that the plane had carried hard assets, such as diamonds, to buy weaponry. ..." for today's update on the actual fight: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0314/Why-Libya-s-Qaddafi-is-unlikely-to-push-much-further-east

- K2K

March 14, 2011 at 6:09pm

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

ironyroad ""It's because of people like Tristan that nothing was done about many genocides in this and last century. Too often it's "liberals" and people on the left who take such a stand." Sorry arnon, but if you direct an ad hominem comment like that at a poster, that poster is perfectly entitled, in return, to refer to personal experience when arguing back." I was citing a political position held by Tristan an others. It wasn't a personal attack. However, ironyroad , you have right to misread my posts. I have come to expect it from you.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 6:29pm

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

I would take "people like ironyroad" to be an ad hominem comment. Don't know about you.

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 7:58pm

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

ironyroad "I would take "people like ironyroad" to be an ad hominem comment. Don't know about you." Depends on the context, doesn't it. Then perhaps to you it doesn't depend on the context. Whatever people "like Arnon say" is bound to be an attack.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 9:23pm

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

Whatever, arnon. I am a bit puzzled why you seemed to have picked me out on these boards to direct a kind of personal animus against. I don't know that I've written anything either to you or about you that would have earned me that honor. For the relatively short time you've been around, I doubt we could have developed any serious issues, but one never knows. It appears to be your call, however.

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 9:35pm

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

ironyroad "Whatever, arnon. I am a bit puzzled why you seemed to have picked me out on these boards to direct a kind of personal animus against." Excuse me, ironeyroad, I never sent a comment your way first as I remember. Not here I didn't. I also don't know where you get this "personal animus" stuff. But it doesn't matter this thread is done since I am sure one will post any fresh argument either pro or con.

- arnon

March 14, 2011 at 9:45pm

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

Good things out of Persia: Cyrus the Great, Darius, Zoroaster. Not-so-good things from Persia: the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini, icar.

- liberalref

March 14, 2011 at 10:30pm

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

he he LibRef, this is the best you can do in response to my post? Between you and Arnon, you are proof positive of every conservative's worst nightmare about providing education to everyone. Don't you guys get tired of being so tiresome and predictable? Wind, attack, whine, rewind ... LibRef: you said something stupid, and then attacked me personally; I demonstrated you were really stupid, and now you attack me personally again, having failed to provide an answer. It really does not say much about you. I suggest you stop this silliness, because the more you try to get a rise out of me, or to engage with me, the more you are going to fail. Now, be a good boy, run along, pull up your diapers, suck on a pacifier and go to bed.

- icarusr

March 14, 2011 at 10:56pm

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

Irony: "For the relatively short time you've been around . . . . " I'm not so sure about that.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 14, 2011 at 11:24pm

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

Why do you say that, Molly? I don't have a great memory but arnon's handle seems new and I recall him showing up around, what, two months ago? I just meant that I was puzzled by his general tone and of course the "rudeness" accusation a little while ago too. Normally I can be sharp and sarcastic, like a lot of people around here, but rudeness is something different (imo). I asked for some evidence of the rudeness accusation and none came. So . . .

- ironyroad

March 14, 2011 at 11:41pm

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

I was watching a PBS doc on New York, got to the part where the French gave us the Statue of Liberty, thought back to '03 and "freedom fries" and all that, and it struck me what has been so bothersome here. Once again, we have a some people who've decided the time has arrived to embark on a military adventure, and suddenly all the reasons pro and con don't matter, why exactly go just this far at just this moment doesn't matter--you're with us or against us, and if against us, you're with them. It's crazy. Frenchmen helped buy our liberty with blood and treasure, gave us that beauty in the harbor, had been allies through the cold war, and suddenly, just because they reach somewhat different conclusions about the best way to deal with a dictator in the ME, they're persona non grata.

- dpaup

March 15, 2011 at 12:04am

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

You are right about icar, liberalref. It’s confounding to read an Iranian who does write as if he was an American and argue against attempt to aid oppositions in coercive absolutist countries like hid home country Iran. Is he for real?

- Packard

March 15, 2011 at 12:22am

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

Wait, didn't icarusr say he's Canadian? Is just a matter of opinion, so we're free to ignore what he says?

- dpaup

March 15, 2011 at 12:35am

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

Packard, if being Canadian is now a bar to commenting on TNR discussion threads, there are more active posters than you think who would be affected by that. Including icarus, I can think of four at least.

- ironyroad

March 15, 2011 at 1:21am

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

I'm with Chait, Wieseltier, Arnon, LibRef, Blackton and some others here. I think Blackton has argued the case exceedingly well. And like Chait I think Wieseltier's last column here was powerful. I don't weigh in too much on the no fly zone because also like Chait I am mindful of my complete lack of expertise. But after having read what I have read including around here, the piece here today by Diamond, yesterday's opinion by Anne-Marie Slaughter in the NYT, the opinions of other high named Democrats, and so on I think it's a seminal moment for Obama and that the time to act is fast eluding him. I also agree with Blackton, that American inaction juxtaposed with Kadaffy's resurgence and the slaughter that will lay in its wake may well be a political coffin for Obama and Democrats generally in 2012. What a narrative of impotence the Republicans will spin. That is part of Larry Diamond's point: after giving a balanced account of Obama's foreign policy to date, he is danger of having all that he has done seen through the lens of Libyan inaction that seems feckless and dithering. Chait makes a unique and potent point, in what I have read, of seeing Obama in reality--not rhetorically--as a prolonger of the status quo. One final note: Packard if intellectual capacity was a condition of posting here, you'd be barred. Reading some of your posts leads me to think you have little in the way of reading comprehension. That great strength of yours is matched only by your inability to mount a cogent agrument, analyze or reason. I am a Canadian Jew, which has no relevance whatsoever to my right to tell you, as I now am doing, to go, you know, forth and multiply.

- basman

March 15, 2011 at 1:35am

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

I have always wondered about that, Packard. And irony, what can you be thinking? We are not saying icar should not have an opinion on American policy, we object to the sneering , hectoring, aggressive tone that is his constant pitch. He lays into people and then cries like a baby, just like so many conservatives who complain about the culture of complaint. When I point that out, he comes back with his "diaper" comment. This is an adult? And you hope he renews his subscription? Why?

- liberalref

March 15, 2011 at 9:36am

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

And you hope he renews his subscription? Why? Because this lurker does not want the TNR blogs to turn into a mutual admiration society. I have had my quibbles with some of the posters--never quite got icarus until now, but he and others have very serious arguments against hurried and immediate intervention (actually learning from our recent past!) in Libya. Certainly, anybody's ethnic origin or citizenship is no reason to criticize or demonize them. I am clearly on the side of icarus on this one.

- kras

March 15, 2011 at 9:57am

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

“ We are not saying icar should not have an opinion on American policy, we object to the sneering , hectoring, aggressive tone that is his constant pitch. He lays into people and then cries like a baby, just like so many conservatives who complain about the culture of complaint. When I point that out, he comes back with his "diaper" comment. This is an adult? And you hope he renews his subscription? Why?”” That’s it | liberalref, it’s the nasty tone and his habit of telling Americans that he knows more than they do what is good for us. There must be something in the water in Canada that makes them think they are so much smarter than us dumb Americans.

- Packard

March 15, 2011 at 10:01am

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

Packard: " It’s confounding to read an Iranian who does write as if he was an American and argue against attempt to aid oppositions in coercive absolutist countries like hid home country Iran." Your insistence on my ethnic origin is amusing; your suggestion that I write "as if he was an American" rather idiotic (you would not know my background if I were not open with it); you reading of my arguments as being "against attempts to aid oppositions" illiterate - please read above my comments about the Arab League and NATO. In any event, in a country where its Congress actually changes the name of French Fries in the middle of a frenzy for war, you could do with a bit of sober advice from outside.

- icarusr

March 15, 2011 at 10:49am

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

In icarusr's defense, the fact that he's from the region and lived through the Iranian revolution gives him a perspective on these events that we Americans do not have.

- zardoz67

March 15, 2011 at 10:52am

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

You mean the sneering perspective that Americans do not have? For an actual perspective worth having, from an intelligent writer from what used to be called Persia, check out Abbas Malekzadeh Milani, who has written for TNR. He also has penned a great book entitled "The Shah." Milani doesn't even sneer or act like a juvenile, either.

- liberalref

March 15, 2011 at 11:36am

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

I'm sorry, liberalref, but going back over this thread, I do not find that icarusr's posts are sneering or acting "like a juvenile," though there are other posters here that would fit this description.

- zardoz67

March 15, 2011 at 11:51am

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

Or more accurately, icarusr responds in kind to the juvenile posts that attack him.

- zardoz67

March 15, 2011 at 11:52am

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

What other posters - you, z? Icar's "diaper" comment is not juveneilia in the extreme? As I like to say, hermeneutic skills are in short supply. You would far better spend your time ogling the young Charlotte Rampling than commenting at the august publication, The New Republic.

- liberalref

March 15, 2011 at 12:58pm

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

liberalref, your own words damn you.

- zardoz67

March 15, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

Sure they do. I make fun of you because it is obvious to any sentient person out here that icar is aggressive and abusive and a whiner to boot, but you don't see that, so you attempt to make me the issue. Plus ca change ...

- liberalref

March 15, 2011 at 2:53pm

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

"As I like to say, hermeneutic skills are in short supply." I could swear LibRef is an Onion-writer. Zardoz: any reason you are under attack with, er, Charlotte Rampling? Just curious - I find her ravishing, personally, and would think it considerably more enlightening to ogle at her posters than to read the tripe TNR produces lately.

- icarusr

March 15, 2011 at 4:11pm

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

I am as confused by the nonsequitur as you are.

- zardoz67

March 15, 2011 at 4:19pm

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

Maybe he meant Julie Christie? I mean, that would make sense.

- ironyroad

March 15, 2011 at 5:33pm

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

Semi-literate alert: That's non sequitur (space between the words). Do they have humor in Persia, icar? If so, it certainly didn't rub off on you. And why do you come to TNR if it makes you dyspeptic? I know, I know, The Nation doesn't have a wonderful forum like this for you far-portnik ideologues. They champion "the people," but it doesn't mean they want to hear from them. Also, I love your "lately." TNR forever has been for an interventionist foreign policy and in favor of Wilsonian idealism. Can you possibly get any denser, icar? Your very existence illustrates my hermeneutic maxim; you are Onion material, if ever there were such. Lastly, for you children, Charlotte Rampling starred in a 1974 movie called Zardoz, and I thought maybe that is where z. got his name from. It's a joke, not a non sequitur, but I didn't expect that the wingnuts would get it.

- liberalref

March 15, 2011 at 9:46pm

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

Irony: "I don't have a great memory but arnon's handle seems new and I recall him showing up around, what, two months ago?: That is not at all what I meant.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 15, 2011 at 11:00pm

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

I got the name the same place the movie did: The WiZARD of OZ. I have seen the movie exactly once.

- zardoz67

March 16, 2011 at 10:23am

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

Now I'm genuinely confused, Molly -- what did you mean?

- ironyroad

March 16, 2011 at 1:38pm

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

"I got the name the same place the movie did: The WiZARD of OZ. " I thought Zardoz was Hungarian. I remember Charlotte Rampling from the 1975 film noire "Farewell, My Lovely" in which she is described by her erstwhile gangster lover the well named Moose Malloy: "She's cute, cuter than lace pants. " And then of course there is "Verdict" in which she gets her comeuppance for her treachery being mightily slapped by Paul Newman. A shocking scene. As for the subject under discussion here, of course I think no one should be excommunicated because of their ethnicity or foreign citizenship. BUT, would Packard have even mentioned or minded it if icarus had been pushing the same position he does? Would libref have even noticed all the "the sneering , hectoring, aggressive" rhetorical tactics, icarus's preferred and much loved (by some) kind of engagement, if they had been employed in the service of his own opinions? I think not. About a year ago, in a discussion about healthcare in which Canadian medicare system came up, I had the audacity to criticize it, from my own personal experience with it, and mentioned that Israel's model was much more efficient and less dehumanizing. (Or something like that). Icarus's response: If you are not happy with Canadian medicare system why don't you betake yourself to Israel, where it is so much better? Just to illustrate that this inclination towards rhetorical ethnic cleansing is not the sole domain of any one poster. It shifts with the wind. Tomorrow Packard and icarus may find they share an opinion and will gang up on an oppositional poster. And woe to him or her if they happen to be also from another culture. These two will share many "amusing" moments to entertain them. It's how it goes. Message boards are like slaughter houses, no holds barred, no quarter given.

- noga1

March 17, 2011 at 1:55pm

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

Compared with some discussion boards, though, TNR is like a puppy pile on the sofa.

- ironyroad

March 17, 2011 at 2:29pm

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

read this: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2011/03/libya-now-updating.html "> A desperate plea - from Hana El-Gallal, law professor from Benghazi: 'The global community must act to stop Gaddafi and his forces reaching Benghazi. If he gets here, he will kill everyone. We in Benghazi, in what is left of Free Libya, have a very simple message for the Security Council. Please, do something. We are desperate for your help and you must do it now.' > El-Gallal also features briefly in this report on life in Benghazi from a week or so ago. (Text here.) > The Times this morning condemns Barack Obama (£) for his passivity over Libya: 'The Arab world has been roiled by political dissent and violent attempts to suppress it. And when freedom was at stake, the leader of the free world was nowhere to be seen... Mr Obama is proving to be a brutal disappointment.' > That echoes Lebanon's Daily Star from a couple of days ago; except that here the target is broader than just the Obama administration: '... the inertia of the U.S. and Europe is... only further tearing down their reputations. By tolerating Gadhafi's massacre of his own people, they are giving the impression that their mouthfuls of freedom, human rights and democracy are nothing but a sham...' (The rights and wrongs of Western intervention then [Iraq] and now [Libya] are of course debatable, but this does bring out how non-intervention can also be the cause of accusations of democratic hypocrisy.) > The Guardian (who could have guessed?) is against intervention, but that there might at any point be a responsibility to protect Libyan lives doesn't come up for discussion by it. > Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, discusses the perils of a no-fly zone: he thinks it 'probably won't work, and if it goes ahead the West will be drawn in much deeper when it fails'. > Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, says the measures now being considered by the US at the UN should include but perhaps also go beyond a no-fly zone. (Via.) > Further to that last item, this from the New York Times registers the change in US thinking: 'The prospect of a deadly siege of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, Libya, has produced a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which is now pushing for the United Nations to authorize aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.' (See also here.) > German opposition to intervention: 'In every international body, the German government has opposed British and French proposals for military action... He [German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle] described a no-fly zone as a slippery slope, saying that no country wanted to be drug [sic] into a war.' > In the FT Roula Khalaf considers how the Iraq example could twist against the West: '[T]he shadow of Iraq does loom large over Libya. But in a profound irony, Libya could, if the US and its allies fail to act, end up reminding us of the western attitude to Iraq in 1991, when the US abandoned the fast-advancing rebels in the wake of the first Gulf war... Tragically, the ceasefire agreement reached with Baghdad allowed the dictator the use of his helicopters, which proved crucial in the brutal crackdown that followed.' > Iman Bughaigis, spokeswoman for the opposition, 'who broke down as she struggled to appear defiant. "How many must die before the rest of the world acts?" she asked. "We are asking for our freedom, that is all. The international community must stand with what they say they believe in or history will never forgive them..."' > Ali Abdullatif Ahmida, professor of political science at the University of New England, says that Gaddafi and his supporters 'might win on the battlefield, but they will lose in the end'. This is because demographic changes have urbanized Libya and created a modern economy and high literacy rate. 'No matter how much blood is shed today,' he concludes, 'the uprising will not be stopped.' (OK, but the prospect of a victory for the Libyan people in the end does not render it less urgent to try to save them from being killed in large numbers now.) > The Danish prime minister says that 'Denmark wishes to be in the vanguard of the battle for its own values, and is therefore at the forefront of efforts to curb Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.' The Danish Socialist People's Party, against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, also supports intervention. (Via.) > The UN Security Council moves closer to adopting a resolution. > Australia's foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, urges the UN Security Council 'not to let the crisis in Libya become another failure of the international community to save innocent people" _______ As of this morning, I'm with the interventionists. I heard an interview on the radio with an American -Libyan in Benghazi. He said: if Gaddafi is not stopped, Libya's population will decrease from 6 million to one million. Even if he exaggerates, it is an ominous foreboding and I don't think it is gratuitous. Already 10,000 have been exterminated, he said. The Arabs are not going to lift a finger to help those rebels. It's all just talks and posturings from the Arab league. Someone ought to have the moral determination and the will to stop that. Can we afford to ignore the threat?

- noga1

March 17, 2011 at 2:42pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close