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 Libya and American Responsibility

JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 17, 2011

Libya and American Responsibility

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

[Guest post by Isaac Chotiner]

In the course of a blog post discouraging American military action in Libya, Ross Douthat takes issue with those who say the United States has a responsibility to intervene.

The United States is not the government of North Africa, and Barack Obama is not the president of Libya. We have obligations in the region, certainly — treaty obligations, strategic obligations, and yes, moral obligations as well. But America’s leaders are not directly responsible for governing any country besides their own, which means that almost by definition, they/we bear less responsibility for tragedies that result from our staying out of foreign conflicts than for tragedies that flow from our attempts at intervention. By involving ourselves militarily in a given nation’s internal affairs, we effectively claim a kind of political responsibility for the nation or region or question — a small share in the case of a no-fly zone, the lion’s share in the case of an invasion or occupation — that we didn’t have before.

He adds:

Does anyone seriously think that the United States bears just as much responsibility for the horrors of the Congolese civil war (which we “let fester,” in [Peter] Feaver’s phrase) as it does for the post-invasion violence in Iraq? As much responsibility for the casualties in, say, the various India-Pakistan wars as for the casualties in our own war in Vietnam?

Douthat is surely right that no one thinks we have equal responsibility in the cases he cites above, and in that sense his point is well taken. It is worth pointing out however, that in the episodes Douthat mentions, America does have some responsibility--even by his standards. Take the biggest India-Pakistan war, in 1971, when the United States backed and armed a Pakistani military that did far more harm to civilians than America has done in Iraq. As for Congo, and even if one leaves aside the way the CIA and the other Western powers undermined any sort of democracy, and dealt with Patrice Lumumba, you are still left with a legacy of aiding and apologizing for Mobutu, which America did for decades.

None of this means that America should act militarily in Libya. But it is frustrating that everyone on the political spectrum from Pat Buchanan to Brent Scowcroft only begin to throw up their arms and curse American foreign policy when it involves engagements for which a humanitarian case can at least be made.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 55 comments

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

55 comments

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Ross Douthat makes excellent points in his blog post, it's well worth a read. Your closing sentence sounds like you think America should be enforcing a no-fly zone to help "a humanitarian case" in Libya. I've never heard an internal revolution or even civil war referred to as "a humanitiarian case". This is not an earthquake or tsunami, this is a group of tribes trying to overthrow the dictatorial rule of another group of tribes. Sure, there's going to be "humanitarian" problems when that happens, but maintaining a no-fly zone for "humanitarian" reasons is a bit of a stretch. The reasoning from several TNR writers has been very tortured on this case. I'm glad you're merely "frustrated" that Obama is not acting more like Bush-II, for humanitarian reasons, of course.

- AllanL5

March 17, 2011 at 11:19am

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

50 years ago JFK said we should pay any price, bear any burden, and RFK said if not us, who, and not now, when. It seems Vietnam has destroyed the Democratic impulse to use whatever means necessary to improve the world, and Iraq has done the same for a large number of Republicans. Now we are at the point where these people say we should bear no price nor bear any burden to advance the cause of freedom. And they are happy to be blithe and say, if not us, nobody is fine, and if not now, then never is ok as well. At least as far as FP goes we are stuck with Liberalatarianism. Spineless Democrats and cold, indifferent Republicans. The thing is with the challenges we are going to face as a species; global warming, resource depletion, etc. the time for an aggressive policy to help build as many Democratic Civil societies on earth has never been greater, in this way we can address, on equal terms amongst nations, how to address these problems. Or we can pretend that what happens everywhere else is not our problem, that violence to stop even greater violence is always worse, that we can afford to wait until these repressive societies change on their own.

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 11:30am

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

JFK and RFK said that in a world dominated by the Cold-War. I don't see any Cold-War here. And yes, Viet-Nam, and now Iraq, have exposed that at times America has an arrogant yet ignorant "we know what's best" attitude. And when this attitude is expressed by sending in the military it results in pointless expensive wars that get people killed for no good reason. You say keeping a no-fly zone in Libya would "advance the cause of freedom", but I don't see how. Our ignorance of the tribal situation in Libya matches our ignorance of the tribal situation in Iraq. "Whatever means necessary to improve the world" implies you're willing to kill Libyans to save them. I don't see how that serves "freedom", nor justifies such moral outrage or demonization of the American spirit.

- AllanL5

March 17, 2011 at 11:47am

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

There are no humanitarian issues concerning Libya? Really? The prolecommentariat out here has just been tanking lately.

- liberalref

March 17, 2011 at 11:59am

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

It is not our moral responsibility. We suffer more from a World War II syndrome than from a Vietnam syndrome. The WWII syndrome is a bizarre reconstruction of history in which we went abroad in that war for the moral purpose of slaying monsters. Nothing of the kind occurred. We were strongly disinclined to involve ourselves in the wars in Europe or the Pacific until we ourselves were attacked. And even those such as FDR who foresaw the inevitability of war given the ambitions of Hitler and Tojo and worked desperately to prepare for the inevitable were moved by strategic necessity in defense of the US, not by "the impulse to use whatever means necessary to improve the world." No such principle has ever been the dominant factor in any deployment of US forces that I can think of. Nor should it be. The purpose of the US armed forces and the sacrifices we ask of our service-people and their families is defense of the United States, including participation in collective security and peacekeeping as that too is in defense of the United States. There are international bodies that must be relied on to legitimize such collective efforts as in fact multilateral. We have neither the responsibility nor the moral right to intervene unilaterally in conflicts where our own security is not at stake, and prudence suggests that we are wise to refrain. There is very little history of successful intervention by outside powers in civil conflicts. Most of it has gone badly awry.

- roidubouloi

March 17, 2011 at 12:05pm

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

Allan states: "Our ignorance of the tribal situation in Libya matches our ignorance of the tribal situation in Iraq." Exactly. We will be greeted as liberators. Iraq is a modern society that will quickly adapt to democracy. Oh, and they will to quickly recognize Israel. 4,000 Americans died to bring "freedom" to Iraq. "Let Freedom Reign" George Bush wrote. And what did the Iraqis do with that freedom? First loot anything that wasn't nailed down, then kidnap, torture, murder, bomb mosques, bomb market places in a spiraling tit-for-tat. The relative calm has been achieved only by separating the Sunnis and the Shiites. And 8 years after "Mission Accomplished" Iraq is still a weak US protectorate We should expect the same from Libya, on a greater scale. And who will be the policeman in the middle - Uncle Sam. Who will bear the cost?> Not the Air Marshals, Fleet Admirals, and Generals of the Army who populate these pages, but an already stretched thin, over-deployed military. Our tactical aircraft fleet, such as the F-18, is already reaching the end of its service life much more quickly than planned with the non-stop demands of the past decade. It's a little more than "the price of jet fuel". If not us, who? How about the French, the Italians - how many Americans have to die cleaning up their colonial messes? The Arab League, perhaps. For chissakes, aside from hosting conferences, what have the Scandavians done for the cause of peace in the last 70 years? 1941 - 2011. 70 years of non-stop hot and cold war for the Indispensible Nation. Call me a weak-kneed Democrat but I did my turn as a Cold War sailor. Enough already

- dubyadoubte

March 17, 2011 at 12:28pm

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

I've started reading Daniel Larison a lot recently and have been very impressed. As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal with strong "realist" tendencies in foreign policy I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with someone writing in the American Conservative, but Larison is the type of conservative I can deal with. At least I know he won't ever counsel Americans to discard thousands of lives and a trillion dollars on a hunch that bombing the crap out of Iraq/Iran/Syra/Libya/Whomever will make the Palestinians "see sense" and decide they really don't need half of Jerusalem as a future capital. With almost all the dominant [not necessarily most informed] voices on the Right regularly making cynical use of humanitarian arguments to justify invading countries they don't understand at all, I'm glad there are other voices on the right that are a bit more clear-eyed and hard-headed. It used to be that conservatism was all about skepticism that government could be used to fix America, much less fix another country. Now it is all about how there is no problem in the world that cannot and should not be solved with the liberal use of daisy-cutters and the U.S. Marine Corps.That's a pity. America very much needs a sane and sober conservative movement -- in foreign policy no less than domestic policy.

- DC Spence

March 17, 2011 at 1:14pm

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

"50 years ago JFK said we should pay any price, bear any burden" Well, you keep saying that - as a rhetorical flourish, certainly this is wonderful. As a statement of strategic purpose, it is daft and dangerous nonsense. Truman did not start a nuclear war against China over Korea, and Ike did not start a nuclear war over Hungary, and it meant a lot of suffering for a lot of people, but a damned sight better than a nuclear holocaust. Neither the United States nor any other country should or in fact ever does "pay any price" or "bear any burden" for the "cause of freedom". So whatever your desires about Libya, reciting Kennedy's blather - whatever the context - is pointless. Any way, Cuba remained enslaved, and so it was not the case that Kennedy was willing to pay any price, etc. He was as cold a realist as any President of the United States has to be, and he knew that letting Cuba be enslaved to avoid war with the Soviets was, in fact, a pretty good price to pay.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 1:15pm

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

"The thing is with the challenges we are going to face as a species; global warming, resource depletion," Ah - so it is not the citizens of Benghazi, or not just. Let's bomb Libya for climate change and our Mathusian fear of food shortages. This is fast spinning out of control.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 1:18pm

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

Here is more entertainment from the Pink Persian. The Libyan events are spinning out of control because of a commenter by a TNR reader that will never come within light-years of being brought to the attention of the head denizen of the Oval Office. Priceless. And dub, you imply that every y is like x. Sure: we had another Vietnam in Grenada 1983 and also, in Haiti 1994. not to mention, Bosnia 1995 and Kosovo 2000. The prolecommetariat out here just needs to quit. Pace Bertolt Brecht, I wish to dissolve the TNR readership and elect another.

- liberalref

March 17, 2011 at 1:34pm

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

Liberalref: Who cares what you wish to do? You and approximately no one else on this planet. If you don't like TNR readership, please feel free to omit comment-reading from your routine or spend your time at an online magazine more to your liking, such as The Daily liberalref. Not much of a subscriber base, but I think you'll find it just to your liking. Also, is there some cash award for behaving like the most pompous ass on the TNR website or is this just your actual personality?

- DC Spence

March 17, 2011 at 1:39pm

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

Well, it looks as though Leon W., blackton, libref, Eliot Spitzer, Hitchens and the rest of the World Police crowd is going to get its way: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014522700_usunlibya18.html Hey, let's all meet back here in 10 years -- when we're still in Libya, and Afghanistan, and Iraq -- and assess. And Bahrain. We're going to Bahrain, right? Hello ...?

- W_Bombay

March 17, 2011 at 1:39pm

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

W_Bombay, Colum Lynch at FP is emphasizing two things: First, that the US wants the res to be for land and sea as well as air; and, second, any action has to include Arab participation. The broader authority seems to me just to make it clear what intervention means. The NFZ will not be sufficient. Just so people know that up front. The second point seems to me the important one. If there would be a NATO led NFZ, we would want Arab states to be on the hook for whatever ground forces are needed. It seems to me basically a put-up-or-shut-up message to the Arab League. For those of us whose deepest concerns go to US responsibility for the aftermath of any action, Arab state engagement on the ground would be the answer. The responsibility would shift to them, acting through the SC, and rightly so

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 2:02pm

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

W_Bombay And if Obama does go much beyond what I advocated just a few days ago, then would you be willing to admit my idea of nothing more than a no fly zone and a DMZ over Eastern Libya will look damn fine in comparison? At this point doing anything is far, far worse than having done something when there was hundreds of miles of open desert between the 2 sides. We would have to actively seek out and destroy Gaddhafi forces that will be attacking Benghazi. It will be a complete mess. For this reason I doubt Obama will do anything at all and will be willing to take the loss of support from many Jews, Liberal Internationalists, etc. and hope Republicans nominate someone nuts. But if he acts, he will look like a complete, feckless fool.

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 2:11pm

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

The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone. [...] The United States is insisting that any military action would have to be carried out by an international coalition, including Libya’s Arab neighbors. “The turning point was really the Arab League statement on Saturday,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday to reporters traveling with her in Cairo. “That was an extraordinary statement in which the Arab League asked for Security Council action against one of its own members.”
I will be the first to applaud Arab and French boots on the ground in defence of Benghazi, backed by the full might of the US Navy and Air Force.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 2:30pm

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

Credit where credit is due department: Above we have a substantive post from PP, instead of the usual grotesque caricatures of other peoples' opinions, sub-basement satire, etc. As for you, DC, I notice that those from the leftariat never have a critical word to say of someone on their side if he goes over-the-top. If I wielded my slashing attacks on behalf of your agenda, I predict you would be cheering me on. You are an absolute fraud. To Dr. Bombay: You are definitely one of the more intelligent people out here, but can you not read? I have stated here that I migrated from being against a no-fly zone to being for one, but cautiously. To bracket me with Hitch, whom I talked with twice in the 1990s by phone (1993, 1995), is to court inanity. I am precisely not like y'all - I don't know all of the answers. The leftariat does, Andrew Sullivan does, the neconservatives do, many of the interventionists here do, I don't.

- liberalref

March 17, 2011 at 2:50pm

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

I will be the first to applaud Arab and French boots on the ground in defence of Benghazi, backed by the full might of the US Navy and Air Force. Absolute bullshit since you know full well it will never happen. Besides, there are Arab boots on the ground right now, they are called the Libyan citizens of Benghazi, but I guess those Arabs don't count we must depend on...Syrians?? Jordanians?? China will veto any call for action, the Arab league will then shrug their soldiers and now know that in the future they can kill all Civil society in their own countries and Obama will do nothing Besides Ick, you are not even an American. Why the hell do you care? Do you fundamentally hate America so much that somehow now French soldiers hold a higher standard than Americans? Worry about Canada, no one is asking Canada to do shit. If you are so opposed to American involvement, write a letter to the Canadian PM and ask him to ask Obama to do nothing which is exactly what you want. But yeah, pretend that waiting for China to give the go ahead is your solution... At this point you will get your wish, Benghazi will be razed, there will be a massacre but you can say...hey, international law has been upheld, countries have the absolute right to slaughter their own residents. It makes perfect sense to allow authoritarian dictators to write the laws that govern international relations. I don't know why I bother, all that I will get in response is snark and sarcasm. As I said before, I have lost fundamental faith in Obama, Democrats now have to hope Republicans nominate someone nuts because if he loses Liberal Internationalists and much of the Jewish vote (does Obama imagine Jewish people somehow like and trust Gadhafi?) it will be a rough ride next year.

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 2:56pm

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

I think he is from the Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei Blame-America-First-Brigade.

- liberalref

March 17, 2011 at 3:02pm

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

"At this point you will get your wish, Benghazi will be razed, there will be a massacre but you can say...hey, international law has been upheld, countries have the absolute right to slaughter their own residents. I don't know why I bother, all that I will get in response is snark and sarcasm." Blackie: It seems to me that you have been the one consistently resorting to snark and sarcasm in response to any attempt at engaging the issues. (See above, for example.) I have no wish for anyone to be killed or any city to be razed, and if I could wave a wand and get rid of all dictatorial regimes, I would do so tomorrow. There are, as has been noted, more than one areas of the globe in need of attention - Bahrain is the latest - but I simply do not think it is in anyone's interest for US soldiers to be involved in another war in the Middle East. "Absolute bullshit since you know full well it will never happen. Besides, there are Arab boots on the ground right now, they are called the Libyan citizens of Benghazi ..." Well, why won't it happen? Why don't the Saudis, who have one of the most sophisticated air forces in the world, offer help to unseat someone who has been a thorn in their side for decades? Why won't the Egyptians, with one of the largest armies in the world, offer up soldiers to free their Arab brethren? Why won't France actually lead a war that they are pushing the US to engage in? People talk about the soft bigotry of small expectations. I have big expectation of Arabs, unlike you. I expect them to behave towards the murder of their own brethren much in the same way whether the bullet is American or Muslim or Israeli or Hindu. I expect them to object as vociferously to the potential razing of a major Arab city with at least the same intensity as they call for the murder of a bunch of obscure cartoonists in northern Europe. I expect there to be throngs of jihadists lining up to fight the infidel Gadhafi, just as thousands lined up to kill other Arabs and Muslims in Iraq. I expect Palestinians - Hamas or Rafah - to strap themselves with explosives in the defence of the right of the people of Benghazi to live in peace and not under foreign (another tribe) occupation. Between the two of us, it seems to me it is you who wish the United States to Bear the White Man's Burden in liberating and democratising and, well, civilising the Barbaric Berbers and Tuaregs. I want the Muslim Umma, the Arab Nation, to behave as if it were an Umma and a Nation when it matters and not just when it is convenient for them to do so. All of this is "bullshit"?

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 3:15pm

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

And Libref, he has zero solutions as to have to prevent Gadhafi from literally killing every man woman and child in eastern Libya...maybe he will state he regrets it. And long term, well I am sure ick would be against any indictments of the Gadhafi clan, they would have broken no Libyan law. Maybe Ick can invite Gadhafi to pitch his tent outside his home in Canada. Let bygones be bygones. Gadhafi was brought back in from isolation once before, why not again? Anyway, it seems too late now. I feel I can not trust Democrats on FP nor Republicans domestically. If it were not under such ugly circumstances it would be almost liberating. I can simply focus on thinking locally and acting locally. This way I shall never be disappointed in spineless Democrats again.

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 3:17pm

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

Why won't the Saudis help? Ha ha. You are even funnier than Gilbert Gottfried. This hidebound monarchy is interested in its own security and not much else. That is why it just sent troops to Bahrain to help that other hidebound monarchy double down on dissent. The Saudis loathe MQ, but they will not lift a finger to depose him.

- liberalref

March 17, 2011 at 3:19pm

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

LibRef: you should know that calling someone of an Iranian origin who has left Iran after the Revolution as being from an Ayatollah Brigade is akin to saying that an Eastern European refugee belongs to the KGB or a Jewish-German person hails from the Brownshirts. I understand you are an ignorant boor, so I am teaching you something. And saying I don't have a sense of humor does not fix your problem. What you wrote is a despicable thing to say in any context, but especially here. In any event, you are proving yourself an illiterate moron to boot - as I have argued that the US should stay out of this because it will be blamed, by others not by me, no matter what it does. So, in the interests of humanity and decency, I suggest you find the closest woodshredder and feed yourself to it, and pay the city dump in advance for the clean up of the more than usual amount of shit.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 3:21pm

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

"This hidebound monarchy ...." Blah blah blah I know, you moron, why the Saudis don't intervene. That is the point I am making. The woodshredder beckons.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 3:24pm

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

"And long term, well I am sure ick would be against any indictments of the Gadhafi clan, they would have broken no Libyan law." Blackie: you have not read my comments on that issue, I understand. I noted, and welcomed, the passage of the UNSC reference to the ICC as one of the most significant developments in international law and international relations since the establishment of the UN. Your passion is getting the better of your senses, and your sarcasm is doing nothing to either clarify the issues or persuade those with whom you converse. It is a typical symptom of an unsound mind to see the world only in two terms: either calamity or peace; either hate or love; either war or complete subjugation. One must always be careful not to fall into that trap. Suggesting that the US should not engage in unilateral action against another Muslim Arab country is not to want to fuck Gadhafi and marry him. There are other options in between, and it is likely that something will materialise. He should and will be tried; American soldiers ought not be put in harms way because our compassion is getting ahead of our reason.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 3:30pm

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

"who wish the United States to Bear the White Man's Burden in liberating and democratising" Case if you didn't notice, the US is not all white, by mid century it will be majority minority. The US is more and more the world. Western nations sold Gadhafi terrible means of destruction far and above legitimate means of self defense from their neighbors (Tunisia is too weak and Egypt far too strong) we have also been financing him long past when we knew he was a monstrous dictator. Why we did not indict him when the evidence of the Pan Am bombing came to light I don't know. The west financed him, he is partly our creation and therefore partly our responsibility. You want America to be like Canada and that no nation act to advance the cause of freedom or democracy. I get it, you think America is an evil empire out to subjugate the world to buy Big Macs. I won't even say that argument has no validity. Personally I would love if America could be like Belgium or Canada, places no one minds or cares about, that have no expectations placed upon them and therefore engender no ill will. But for this to be so would mean the end of NATO, withdrawal from Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq and Bahrain, slash the military by 3/4s and simply deprive ourselves of the ability to act at all. In other words, be like Canada. But you are already Canadian. No Canadian money will be spent at all, nor Canadian blood shed. Act like a Canadian for once. No Mexican around here lectures me on what America should or shouldn't do, they don't care. And neither, in truth, do you. To state that you worry more about Libyan tanks drivers getting blown up on the way to killing Benghazi residents is just too absurd to dignify with a response. You want America to be Canada. Maybe Obama does too.

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 3:39pm

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

liberalref: A fraud [noun] is a person who makes deceitful pretenses. You may not like my opinions, but there is nothing deceitful about them. I do not claim to be anything I am not. I'm a liberal and a foreign policy realist. My views on this topic are exactly what one would expect from a "realist." Your "slashing attacks"? If you say so. Icarusr: Take some comfort in the knowledge that people dismissing your views on account of your nationality [present, past or future] are people who have effectively conceded the argument. They're just not decent enough to admit it.

- DC Spence

March 17, 2011 at 3:43pm

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

"You want America to be like Canada" False. "and that no nation act to advance the cause of freedom or democracy." False. Already answered above. "I get it, you think America is an evil empire out to subjugate the world to buy Big Macs. ..." You don't. Get it, I mean. I want the US to remain a beacon of freedom, and for the rest of the world to begin behaving responsibly and not expect the US to shed the blood of its citizens and then be critised for it. It does no one any good. "But you are already Canadian. ... Act like a Canadian for once." I have no idea what that means, but I guess you are suggesting that no one other than an American has a right to 1) hold an opinion; and 2) express that opinion, about US military involvement internationally? Er ... am I missing something here? Or do you mean, be quiet and shut up, like Canadians usually do, when Americans tell them to do so? Or do you mean that Canadians don't have the critical facility that Americans do, so we should not opine on world affairs? You do realise, you are fast descending past the point of parody.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 3:49pm

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

DC: totally. Reminds me of a friend of mine, a highly accomplished Afghan-Swiss gay man. Every time he got into an argument with his free-loading and uneducated brother, and the brother simply ran out of arguments, the brother would retort, "what the hell do you know, you're a fag anyway."

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 3:54pm

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

Ah, name-calling from the Pink Persian, and not in an ironic way, either. This from the person who was going to ignore me. So if you "know" what I wrote is true, why the hell are you calling on the Saudis to intervene? This is like me asking why doesn't China be decent and cut Taiwan loose? I know better than to ask that. So it comes down to you using dishonest rhetorical tropes against your opponents here. How icar that is.

- liberalref

March 17, 2011 at 3:57pm

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

You did not even respond to my point on double standards, DC. But of course not, there is nothing for you to say. And again, icar is whining once again about people here writing as if he is not entitled to an opinion, and this from someone who complains about whining not infrequently (left whiners, meet your rightist counterparts). There isn't a position that he isn't able to mangle out of all recognition. What I actually have said - and others with me - is that icar is an in-your-face aggressive know it all, and when we note that, he shrivels up like a sun-stricken Dracula and cries as if we just stripped him of his First Amendment rights.

- liberalref

March 17, 2011 at 4:03pm

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

Um...guys? I've read insightful commentary from each of you, but right now, you're going at each other like children who've gotten ahold of their parents' dictionaries. Stop pushing each others' buttons already. You're each better than this.

- janus

March 17, 2011 at 4:05pm

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

"I understand. I noted, and welcomed, the passage of the UNSC reference to the ICC as one of the most significant developments in international law and international relations since the establishment of the UN." Yes, I am sure the residents of Benghazi will take great comfort in that as the shells blast your childrens bodies to bits. And I am not saying you want to copulate with Gadhafi, if we do nothing though we have only two choices, deal with him or turn him and his family into international outcasts, outside of all restraint. At that point I truly do not myself know what is in our best self interest, to accomodate the Gadhafi clan in hopes that they do not finance terrorists or not, long term though I am sure we will. After Moammar dies of old age we will cut a deal with whichever son comes out on top, dismiss whatever indictments exist and return the 30 billion in assets. We will then state how that son learned the lessons from the past and will surely...blah blah blah. And a few years after that we can sell him advanced weaponry.

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 4:14pm

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

"Yes, I am sure the residents of Benghazi will take great comfort in that as the shells blast your childrens bodies to bits." And how would a No-Fly-Zone stop the shelling? Tanks and artillery don't fly. And therein lies the very slippery slope from NFZ to air support, to counter-battery, to ground forces.

- dubyadoubte

March 17, 2011 at 5:01pm

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

Janus - thanks. LibRef is right: I should go back to my old resolution. Blackie: "Yes, I am sure the residents of Benghazi will take great comfort in that as the shells blast your childrens bodies to bits." You made a specific point about trying Gadhafi, and I replied. Now you go back to the drama. And yes, there are thousand of children being torn to pieces all over the world, and I would not advocate unilteral US intervention in any of those areas. Looks like there may well be UNSC authorization to use force. If that is the case, then unleash the full might of the gathered Armada on the bastard. And make sure Arab armies march out in front.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 5:10pm

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

icarus, you been reading the same stuff? If true, it would seem to vindicate the Obama admin approach; you think we're going to read any back-tracking here? My prediction: They'll double down on the caricature, and see it as some sort of flip-flop.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 5:37pm

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

Dpaup: from the first resolution, it has been clear* that the approach of the Administration has been, first, do not make this a US vs. Libya issue; second, ensure multilateral cover (preferably the UN, but at a minimum Arab League and NATO); and third, avoid committing US ground forces at any stage in any fighting. (* It has been clear, in the sense that "it has been clear to anyone who 1) does not think automatically that Obama is an idiot; 2) does not want unilateral projection of US power at will; and 3) does not consider multilateralism essentially effete, if not illegitimate.") As to the first issue, the Administration has been clear about the fact that no longer considers Gadhafi as the legitimate leader of Libya. It has not been particularly public about this, but this is Obama's style - has been on every issue - and can't change that. As to the second, we saw the remarkable first resolution (which would not have been possible had the US made "regime change" its primary demande), and this one - within two weeks, authorizing force short of occupation ... this is quite solid. We have to bear in mind that the UNSC, through the more difficult place to get a resolution out, was the appropriate one: the Arab League could not be trusted to go further than it did, and NATO is hamstrung by German and Turkish opposition. As it is, you need two abstentions (Russia and China) and only nine votes in the UNSC. And third - well, Clinton was pretty unequivocal about it. What the future brings, who knows, but for now, strategically it has been well-played.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 6:48pm

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

UNSC Resolution passed. "French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said if the resolution was approved, France would support military action against Gadhafi within hours. The U.S. said it was preparing for action. Several Arab nations were expected to provide backup. [...] "The U.N. Security Council has no mandate," Gadhafi said. "We don't acknowledge their resolutions."" Now it does, and the first Libyan plane that goes down will be the official Libyan acknowledgement of the resolutions. This is Obama's Bush I moment; Clinton's Great Baker Accomplishment.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 7:21pm

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

icarusr: "it has been clear to anyone who 1) does not think automatically that Obama is an idiot; 2) does not want unilateral projection of US power at will; and 3) does not consider multilateralism essentially effete, if not illegitimate." The one I can't understand in this is Jon Chait. He keeps protesting his lack of expertise, but the man does have the logical chops to see bs arguments for what they are (or lack of any argument at all), and the great thing about logic is that no understanding of the subject matter is needed.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 7:53pm

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

ick, why would I recant, this would just mean whatever operations we choose to do would just put greater American lives at risk then before. Declaring a no fly zone over Eastern Libya after we got the Arab league endorsement would have sent a clear message of Western resolve. At that point Gadhafi was only working on surviving, now he is on the offensive. To have bet on the Chinese not vetoing the resolution seemed to have been a huge bet, if Obama had it lined up weeks ago then I would have to say I am stunned he pulled it off. Had the Chinese vetoed the resolution (and I have to state their not vetoing the resolution goes against everyone of their public pronouncements for decades) then what could Obama have done? Anyway, why would you want to risk American lives simply to get a UN resolutions (if indeed we choose to act) after we had the Arab league endorsement it seemed we had more than enough cover. If Obama had those assurances earlier then he should have pushed up the UN meeting for days ago. And if we do choose to act, then all of those stating that we should not act under any circumstances will not be happy. Of all the many posts I read you are one of the few that seems to have relied on UN imprimatur before action, something that would have never occurred in Kosovo or Bosnia. And if we had gotten such resolutions days ago when Gadhafis forces were between cities, then a few well placed bombs before columns would have saved even those soldiers lives. Are you such a stickler for UN legal niceties that you would even sacrifice their lives? By the way, I never said I am against multilateralism or called it effete. For Christ sake we already know what those governments feel about Gadhafi. I only became very impatient after the Arab League called for action and Ras Lanuf fell. Up to then I wanted it to be primarily indigenous.

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 7:59pm

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

by the way ick, this from the NY times: there was a growing consensus in the Obama administration that imposing a no-fly zone by itself would no longer make much of a difference and that there was a need for more aggressive airstrikes that would make targets of Colonel Qaddafi’s tanks and heavy artillery — an option sometimes referred to as a no-drive zone. I recall your relentless mocking of my DMZ concept, ie a don't cross this line in the sand. But since China has seen fit to give it a go ahead, you are OK with it?

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 8:11pm

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

China has not, in fact, given a go-ahead. My opposition to what you were proposing was on three grounds. First, I do not believe it apporpriate for the United States to unilaterally determine that one side in a civil war is deserving of military intervention, and intervene for that reason alone. There are instances where unilateral intervention is not only permitted, but positively required - and I have set these out in detail above and elsewhere - but this was not one of them. I said either a UNSC resolution, or a regional/NATO effort. China was not and is not an issue, and your incessant reference to that is a sort of argument ad terrorem approach to the issue. Second, the Obama Administration thinks that a "no drive zone" is the minimum - but that does not answer the question, "what if it does not work". The problem with a unilateral approach is that a failing a no-fly and a np-drive zone, the US would have had to put men in the theatre, again unilaterally, and proceed to occupy the country and who knows what else. Right now, you will have your DMZ legally establish and enforced, but more important: the international community, including countries individually, now have the right to proceed to send ground troops. The US will not be there, but others now may; in this sense, the resolution goes much further than the Arab League Resolution. Third, I objected strongly, and I object again, to your characterisation of the terms of the debate. Policy decisions, and especially decisions that lead to war, ought not and must not be made in the heat of the passion. Your prose was florid, even to a Middle Eastern like me, and both your arguments and your attacks were based more on "Think of the Children" sort of cries than means, objectives and outcomes. And, of course, your sneering point about China further supports the point. I may not like what China does to its people, but a) it is a permanent member of the UNSC; and b) it is, in many ways, a fairly law-abiding citizen of the international community. It matters. It matters not only now, but in the long term. We do ourselves no good by fooling ourselves that we can do what we want and wherever we want, damn the consequences. The UNSC resolution has not changed one bit anything I have said, but it has demonstrated that the Obama Administration has not been sitting on its ass doing nothing while Benghazi burned. That you choose this moment to attack me on China, rather than acknowledge that at least part of your lamentations about Obama's unelectability because of the slaugher of millions in the streets of Benghazi might have been over the top and perhaps unfair, is quite telling. We are, now, not only where you wanted to be, but much farther ahead. France and the Arab League would not have moved without UNSC sanction, and now they are there. Rejoice in that: the international system worked, and Obama's "dithering" might have been instrumental in that.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 8:31pm

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

" I only became very impatient after the Arab League called for action and Ras Lanuf fell. Up to then I wanted it to be primarily indigenous." Ah, well - international policy - decision to go to war - is not made on the basis of man's impatience or specific setbacks. At least, it ought not be made like that, and Obama is cool enough - you might say heartless enough - to recognise that. In a man, I admire your passion, compassion, sense or urgency, dread for the future - and if you knew me personally, you would have seen that I shared all of the above with you. In a leader, however, I admire Obama's cool, methodical approach to matters of state. He and Clinton did what Bush and Baker did in 1990, and what Bush and Powerll and Bolton could not go in 2002. This is pretty good.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 8:36pm

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

ick, Obama has not yet acted so lets hold back on his praise, and I said days ago if Obama waits until Benghazi to act the conditions on the ground would be far more difficult to affect. Nowhere do you contradict these statements. And how he got China not to veto the resolution is beyond me since it does go beyond all of China's official statements going back forever. And my statements about his electability still apply. Do you think most Americans will care about nuance? You act when forces are most propitious, not when your back is against the wall. You have also still not refuted my contention that the line in the sand in the open desert would have saved lives (if we do act) but we should not have all because of UN approval? As to my passion, good lord don't you know I am no one? Don't ascribe powers to me beyond what I have, all I have is one freaking vote, and the free time to blather on and on at TNR. I know full well everything I say here does not matter one whit in the world at large, hence I am free to speak my mind. Ignore me or hate me if you wish but don't exaggerate my importance in the scheme of things.

- blackton

March 17, 2011 at 8:57pm

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

Not a question of refutation; I disagree with your premise that the US should have moved unilaterally to enforce a demarcation zone, for all the reason I have set out. Not just a matter of legal niceties, but of international order. Obama has been acting - UNSC resolutions don't materialise out of thin air. It is not necessary that he speechify; it is important for his Administration to be active. And I think, though I cannot prove it, that American diplomatic efforts would have been instrumental in the outcome. Canada is sending aircraft to the theatre. And other countries will do the same. Without the very thing that you think pointless, the international resolve would have not have materialised.

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 9:43pm

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

blackton, you asked about possible lives lost with the loss of time. I would ask you to take a longer view. First, don't think just of the Libyans, but people the world round who might at some time be in need of similar intervention. You yourself have argued that we need to be selective. So think about those places we can't get to, but where the Organization of African States, for example, can. What we would have here, if the effort in Libya succeeds, would be precedent, not just legal, but also in terms of expectations of people for governments (not just the US) to act, in terms of diplomatic pushes, now that the machinery has been greased a bit, and in terms of the SC--those Russian and Chinese abstentions. It all means that humanitarian intervention is not a bit easier; and if effective in this case, more likely to be effective in others. Second, as to our own. Suppose you are right, and some pilots are shot down now that would not have been shot down had we acted earlier. (Of course we won't know, and I would dispute your judgment on the probabilities, but for the sake of argument...) It would still be better to have waited for the resolution. One reason is that it greatly reduces the chances that we will be stuck managing a transition as an occupying force. Another reason is that getting the international community to act in this case makes the world less dependent on US arms in future cases. That is, even if the immediate dangers were increased, we might well be avoiding the need for whole engagements this way.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 10:44pm

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

Now that the UN has passed a resolution on Libya, which is a good thing, could they now please make similar commitment to the Congolese peasants? The Congolese are dying in larger numbers than Libyan rebels, and for a far longer period. What would it take for them to merit the passionate attention of Marty, Leon, Mr Diamond etc? Why can't Obama help them? I'm sure they would appreciate any help from him, even if it is of the "dithering" kind. I'm also sure that if, say, through divine intervention, Obama helped the Congolese or Darfurians, many of his current critics would still knock him for that too. (blackie, I don't include you among those critics, though I find your banzai attitude on Libya to be very puzzling.)

- scrubby

March 17, 2011 at 10:48pm

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

scrubby, amen.

- dpaup

March 17, 2011 at 10:55pm

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

Looks like my hunch that US efforts were key in getting the UNSC resolution through might not have been not far of the mark: "The United States – which in a dramatic reversal joined the resolution's initial supporters Britain, France and Lebanon – not only helped push for a quick vote but pressed for action beyond creation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians from air, land and sea attacks by Gadhafi's fighters." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/libya-no-fly-zone-un-united-nations_n_837378.html

- icarusr

March 17, 2011 at 11:28pm

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

this is small, I know, but I have to admit I'm waiting for TNR to try to clean up some of the bullshit they've been slinging. I know it shouldn't matter, this little, dying magazine compared to gearing up for armed confrontation, the rebels trying to hold on, and so on. On the other hand, it just really pissed me off the way things had been going here. I feel like, as a reader (longtime reader, with some breaks, one over that whole Iraq thing), I am owed some sort of apology.

- dpaup

March 18, 2011 at 12:00am

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

Am pleased to see that events have helped to defuse the tension between blackton and icraus. I would certainly miss their contributions. Now if terms like "pink persian" could also disappear from the comments, serious and hearty debate can be resumed.

- kras

March 18, 2011 at 9:52am

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

dpaup: apology? Chait is actually gloating that the hawks had it right all along. Why? Because, don't you know, we were opposing the use of force in all circumstances, whereas hawks talk about the usefulness of military force in certain circumstances. Dishonest, to say the least.

- icarusr

March 18, 2011 at 10:35am

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

Krasmussen: I don't know where the "pink" comes from or why my ethnica background (which is actually quite diverse) matters at all. But DC had it right: by the time my citizenship or ethnic origin or favourite colour comes along as an argument, it means that they have conceded the main point.

- icarusr

March 18, 2011 at 10:36am

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

Lib ref: "To bracket me with Hitch, whom I talked with twice in the 1990s by phone (1993, 1995), is to court inanity." I, too, made phone calls to various people in the 1990s (in fact in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and also 2000 which might be considered part of the 1990s, although 1990 might be then on similar grounds bracketed with the 1980s) and I'd like to state for the record that none of them were to "Hitch."

- ironyroad

March 18, 2011 at 12:09pm

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

"Do you think most Americans will care about nuance? You act when forces are most propitious, not when your back is against the wall." I've been following this ongoing debate between posters on the Libyan issue the last few days and I have found, as scrubby put it, the "bonzai" attitude a bit disconcerting. With regards to the previous reference to Kosovo. Clinton received a lot of criticism within the US politically for "wagging the dog" by going into Kosovo because it wasn't our fight and the GOP were using the "it's not our problem" approach to that crisis. The U.N. was, at that point, completely ineffectual with regards to the situation on the ground and the surrounding countries, most notably Russia, wanted no U.S. intervention. Clinton did what he did because there were no remaining options and the moral action of using air strikes was right. Even under the cover of NATO the air strikes were criticized, most notably those performed by the U.S. that resulted in accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy. An even that, I suspect, has informed the decades long Chinese position of blocking U.S. / UNSC resolutions for intervention actions. The situation in Libya presented the worst-case scenario for the U.S. Mid East policy positions and the tenuous relationships it has with ALL of the countries in the Mid-East. I have/had no issues with U.S. involvement in Libya but I supported a multilateral approach because I also thought a unilateral approach would be counterproductive and could be used as a means to criticize, wrongly, the U.S. for having colonial interests in Arab nations. A position it already is accused of by the Arab street and Al Queda. That the UNSC and the Arab League pushed and got out in front on the issue, makes it, sadly but realistically, more politically possible for the U.S. to intervene with all necessary resources to oust Ghadaffi as part of an international effort. Americans consistently complain about being called in for every conceivable international crisis and being the world's police and then conversely are ready to jump off the cliff with patriotic blood boiling to go in to situations with no regard to the long term consequences either to ourselves, U.S. foreign relations or "chickens coming home to roost". This isn't a new phenomenon or character trait of the U.S. but we also need to realize that in the 21st century, as projectors of Democracy, the U.S. must also understand that we are part of a bigger international community and can't, as someone posted earlier, do what we want, when we want, the world be damned. We're not Team America - World Police.

- singlspeed

March 18, 2011 at 12:14pm

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

because I also thought a unilateral approach would be counterproductive and could be used as a means to criticize, wrongly, the U.S. for having colonial interests in Arab nations. But no one suggested the US act alone, at least I never did. The British, French, Arab League, the Benghazi residents themselves, all begged for a no fly zone. When Benghazi was moving forward no one suggested US involvement that I know of, far better it be an indigenous revolution. After Ras Lanuf fell and we had the Arab league endorsement I did not see the wisdom of ceding ground to institute a policy later on that is the exact same thing, the UN resolution, of course, changes that, but no one here was privy to that. This means Gadhafi truly is on his own and will affect his and the calculation of his family as to their long term survival Now it is simply a matter of time, Gadhafi can not advance, and he can not continually dip into his reserves to pay for all the mercenaries and his army since the oil spigot has stopped. Now Gadhafi and his brood have to weigh their own long term chances of survival versus palace living in Saudi Arabia. IN the meantime the Benghazi government can organize, win international recognition, sell oil on the open market, arm themselves with western military equipment, etc. etc. and Gadhafi will have no choice but to watch, does he keep his supply lines extended at considerable cost? I doubt for long, and when he pulls back the Benghazi government will step forward. For a while we might have a stalemate but the money war will wear Gadhafi down. My prediction, he will either be killed by his palace guard or take exile and a broad ranging unity government, with regional autonomy in the East, will occur. Only one troubling aspect remains, and that is Misrata. We must supply them with food aid under international auspices. It is a port city and I can not see Gadhafi shelling Red Crescent aid ships. If we can get a ceasefire in Misrata, many women and children can be evacuated to the east.

- blackton

March 18, 2011 at 7:28pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close