SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Libya Question Is Only About Libya

JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 18, 2011

The Libya Question Is Only About Libya

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

There's an argument against intervention in Libya that I keep seeing over and over. Here, for instance, is Andrew Sullivan:

There are, it appears, only two reasons the US is going to war, without any Congressional vote, or any real public debate. The first is that the US cannot stand idly by while atrocities take place. Yet we have done nothing in Burma or the Congo and are actively supporting governments in Yemen and Bahrain that are doing almost exactly - if less noisily - what Qaddafi is doing. Obama made no attempt to reconcile these inconsistencies because, one suspects, there is no rational reconciliation to be made. 

And here's Ezra Klein:

[C]onsider Obama’s remarks. “Left unchecked,” he said, “we have every reason to believe that Gaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die.” Every year, one million people die from malaria. About three million children die, either directly or indirectly, due to hunger. There is much we could due to help the world if we were willing. The question that needs to be asked is: Why this?

Why intervene in Libya and not elsewhere is a question that needs to be asked. But it's not a question that needs to be asked to determine the wisdom of intervening in Libya. Should we also spend more money to prevent malaria? Yes, we should. But I see zero reason to believe that not intervening in Libya would lead to an increase in in American assistance to prevent malaria.

Why not intervene in Burma or Yemen or elsewhere? I would say the answer is prudential: for various political, geographic, and military reasons, the United States has the chance to prevent slaughter in Libya at reasonable cost, and does not have the chance to do so in Burma.

But suppose there's no answer whatsoever. Does it matter? If it were the 1990s, and the Clinton administration were contemplating an expansion of children's health insurance, would it be important to determine exactly why we're covering uninsured children but not uninsured adults? No. The question is whether this particular policy intervention is likely to succeed or fail.

Now, I think there are very reasonable arguments to suggest that the operation in Libya could devolve into a quagmire, fail to achieve its objections, or achieve them at unacceptable cost. And, of course, some people -- not Sullivan or Klein -- think the U.S. has no right to intervene in places like Libya. But that's the question. The question of whether or not we ought to intervene in some other country, or in some other way, is an important foreign policy issue, but not an argument against intervention in Libya.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 172 comments

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

172 comments

Not sure I buy this argument. If the cost of intervening in Libya is not being able to intervene elsewhere (which sounds plausible to me) then intervening in Libya should be weighed against other interventions. If it's not the best intervention then we shouldn't do pursue it until we've already taken advantage of the better opportunities. If you think Libya is the best opportunity because it's the most politically possible one then you should use that argument instead of trying to just wave away counter arguments.

- Simon Greenwood

March 18, 2011 at 5:57pm

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

"[T]he United States has the chance to prevent slaughter in Libya at reasonable cost . . ." How many arms, legs, eyes, brains, and lives lost is "reasonable" to save Lybians from themselves?

- rayward

March 18, 2011 at 6:00pm

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

We wouldn't be saving Libyans "from themselves," we'd be saving them from each other. It's a civil war, not an AA meeting.

- Simon Greenwood

March 18, 2011 at 6:02pm

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

I have to agree with Chait. I don't see how it is a factor of deciding where our intervention capital is spent; it's already deficit spending, and the chances are slim to none that if we don't increase our deficit rescuing Lybia that we're going to up our humanitarian contributions to fighting malaria in Africa instead. And, to my understanding, the traditional approach to these issues, used by the people who matter, has been do decide the merits of intervention on their own grounds. If money is involved in the decision to any extent, it's a question of which is more important, lives or deficits.

- GSpinks

March 18, 2011 at 6:19pm

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

There are times when Obama's coolness and caution and analytical prowess are at a premium, and this is one of those times. Despite the teeth-gnashing of the neoconservatives, in which group I would certainly include MP and LW, Obama waited until an international consensus made intervention and a no-fly zone not part of one more American war on yet another Islamic nation. We will be part of the team, part of the international effort to save civilian lives and keep pressure on Gaddafi. It's probably too much to ask that the people who were so quick to trash our President might admit to second thoughts about his prudence.

- JackR

March 18, 2011 at 6:40pm

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

I was pondering Andrew Sullivan's specious reasoning as I read his post over at the Dish this early afternoon. Asking why are we considering doing a, rather than b or c, is a parlor game that is potentially endless. It needs to be end-stopped somewhere. Your post is a very fine one on the question of intervention in Libya, Jonathan. And Leon Wieseltier is certainly no neoconservative. I simply cannot believe how many outrageous assertions and dubious interpretations are made out here on a daily basis. Wieseltier is a liberal interventionist. Have you ever read him on the Israeli/Palestinian imbroglio and on Israel, in general? The necons are Likudniks and LW is anything but that. He has evinced much more concern for the Palestinian people than any self-respecting neocon ever would. When it comes to certain policies and issues, there is some convergence between the Commentary crowd and between TNR staffers like Wieseltier, but to denominate W. a neoconservative is just a gross error.

- liberalref

March 18, 2011 at 7:41pm

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

3 things are necessary to intervene ¡¨(ideology, and young people revolting against a monstrous dictator fills that bill) self interest (um..Egypt being overrun with a half million desperate refugees was going to be run up on our tab as we fed, housed, and clothed them for lord knows how long, couple that with Gadhafis previous villainy against the US) and reasonable chance of success (they called for a cease fire right quick with their supply lines stretched thin in the middle of the desert). Libya easily fits all 3. In Darfur, for example, it was a case of Janjaweed militias raiding small farming villages in the bush in the middle of nowhere. Reasonable expectation of success there is non existent. You choose your fights carefully. In fact, every war since WW2 has been ad hoc. Outside of Empire building or isolationism every war and crisis can be examined with a critical eye towards motives and motivations, that is fine, but outside of strict isolationism it is all on a sliding scale. Take each as they come seems a perfectly logical policy, and then work on meeting those 3 criteria.

- blackton

March 18, 2011 at 7:50pm

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

The self-interest seems rather too thin, the chances of success clouded, and nowhere is there any recognition of either international law (the regime of post-WWII law that we invented to manage the world) and of the risks of unintended consequences. Multilateral action with a significant Moslem contribution seems a more appropriate standard than whatever these three are supposed to be.

- roidubouloi

March 18, 2011 at 9:26pm

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

Mr Chait seems to be saying that it doesn't matter that our policy decisions are unprincipled and incoherent, as long as each one taken in isolation seems reasonable from one point of view or another. Mr Kaplan wishes we would stop making analogies. It is apparent that reasoning is damned inconvenient. In any case, once again we go to war with a rationale that even its advocates are unwilling to scrutinize too closely. Some are saying that America will supply neither warplanes nor troops to the enforcement of the UN resolution - that our support is diplomatic, not military. Perhaps we are not at war - I can't tell. Kind of like the rationale - muddy and muddled. What does this accomplish? Also unclear. Regime change is not the mission, after all. Apparently we signed up to provide diplomatic support for the protection of rebels in Benghazi. Really? For how long, I wonder? Neil

- purcellneil

March 18, 2011 at 9:38pm

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

But roid, you know as well as I do, that by your criteria, nothing will be done.

- liberalref

March 18, 2011 at 9:47pm

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

I liked Chait's conclusion, "The question of whether or not we ought to intervene in some other country, or in some other way, is an important foreign policy issue, but not an argument against intervention in Libya." However, he let Sullivan and especially Ezra Klein incoherent ravings off the hook too easily: "Every year, one million people die from malaria." Really, should we treat natural disasters in the same way as human atrocities? Is this how Klein justified our doing nothing in Rwanda? From my point of view I see little different in Klein’s argument against intervention because if we intervene here we should intervene there and Buchanan’s “we no right to intervene in places like Libya.” The end result will be the same: lots of dead bodies.

- arnon

March 18, 2011 at 10:54pm

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

“Mr Chait seems to be saying that it doesn't matter that our policy decisions are unprincipled and incoherent, as long as each one taken in isolation seems reasonable from one point of view or another.” This poster’s views are getting more hysterical each time he writes. Chait didn’t say this at all.

- Newly84

March 18, 2011 at 10:57pm

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

Arguing that we must do everything just to do one thing is essentially arguing never to do anything. There, that's pithy enough.

- frippo

March 18, 2011 at 11:34pm

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

A crucial point: "Should we also spend more money to prevent malaria? Yes, we should. But I see zero reason to believe that not intervening in Libya would lead to an increase in in American assistance to prevent malaria."

- RHSerlin

March 19, 2011 at 1:39am

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

Muslims are responsible for their own internecine wars, cruelty, and backwardness. We should seriously hesitate to throw American blood and treasure at Libya. We have enough to do with extricating ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan. What can we realistically accomplish through intervention? Do we know anything about the opposition to Kadaffy? Can they be liberal enough for us? Will they get support anyway from Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Syrians, Iranians, et al? The potential cost of intervention in Libya is no object to American neo-cons, who nevertheless assert that we must, in straitened times, cut taxes for the rich, destroy the social safety net for most other Americans, and impoverish America's public realm (no public libraries, schools, transit, parks, etc.).

- amidut

March 19, 2011 at 7:31am

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

I don't know that at all, lib. But if the result is that nothing is done, then so be it. As pointed out by this very post, nothing is done by us about a lot of things. It is not our moral responsibility to solve the problem of Qaddafi and Libya. It is our moral responsibility to share the burden of doing so with the rest of the world and to exert our diplomatic efforts in that direction, not for the sake of the Libyans in particular so much as for the sake of a world order that reduces overall the scourge of tyranny and of atrocities. Contrariwise, our unilateral intervention, sacrificing American lives and treasure, are likely not only to have bad results for ourselves but to weaken rather than strengthen the world order that is the only long-term hope for improvement. The simple fact is that the scope of these problems vastly exceeds our reach. If the world as a whole cannot organize to address tyranny and atrocities, there will always be more no matter what we do. Indeed, there may well be more because of what we do. I find it remarkable that those who so readily urge our intervention are so heedless of the likelihood of unintended and unexpected consequences. This despite the copious evidence that this is what results from war. We are bewitched by the total victory of World War II as if that has ever been the the outcome of war in almost any other case. And we didn't even win the total victory of World War II. Despite American mythology, the heaviest burden was borne by the Russians. It was they who broke the back of the Wehrmacht despite hideous losses that would have broken us.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2011 at 8:11am

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

Thank you Jon for not ridiculing the arguments AGAINST going into Libya. I think the reason people are pointing out "avoiding atrocities" is a bad reason, is because the people arguing FOR going into Libya use that as a reason. And they're quite obnoxious about it, frankly, accusing people who don't hold their opinion of being cowards, indifferent, or even incompetent. I think pointing out that using that as a reason for attacking Libya, when we ignore that reason elsewhere, IS a valid point. Now, "let's attack Libya, because we've hated Qaddafi for decades, and he supported the Lockerbie bombing, and Reagan attacked him, and just now he's got a rebellion on his hands, and we might get a Democracy out of it" -- I think those are much more VALID reasons, meaning the ones really motivating the people saying "Atrocities! Atrocities!". But I STILL don't think they're very GOOD reasons.

- AllanL5

March 19, 2011 at 8:38am

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

The wisdom of our greatest living sage, Tom Hanks, should guide us here. Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'll get. Houston, we have a problem. We fucked up the endgame.

- Geoff G

March 19, 2011 at 9:03am

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

Liberalref is right. In any case, the argument over going in is over. We will be part of a UN sponsored coalition of forces. Those that are against it need to argue that we should go back on our vote at the UN, that we should reverse our course of action, go back on our commitments. This is the argument that’s on the table now.

- Packard

March 19, 2011 at 11:00am

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

I think the intervention is primarily about getting rid of Gaddafi and not about "preventing a slaughter"; Gaffafi's people getting slaughtered is a favourable outcome. Why the need for such grandiose rhetoric?

- IggyPop

March 19, 2011 at 11:06am

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

Packard, What do you make of the President's statement that we are providing diplomatic support, and not ground troops or warplanes? Sounds like we are not in this war, at least not directly. Also wondering what good it does to set up a no-fly zone but to let tanks enter Benghazi... I'm not arguing we need to back out of our apparently limited role, but I am asking if it makes any sense at all. Neil

- purcellneil

March 19, 2011 at 11:08am

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

purcellneil “What do you make of the President's statement that we are providing diplomatic support, and not ground troops or warplanes? Sounds like we are not in this war, at least not directly. Also wondering what good it does to set up a no-fly zone but to let tanks enter Benghazi...” I think your information is out of date: “Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=1&hp “I'm not arguing we need to back out of our apparently limited role, but I am asking if it makes any sense at all.” This is question doesn’t have any meaning anymore since we in the midst of a campaign. The questions have changed. If we succeed in helping to topple Khadafy all well and good, if we don’t then your question along with corresponding question of “did we go in too late” will have to be answered.

- Packard

March 19, 2011 at 11:39am

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

fwiw, the U.S. will be involved militarily, with naval assets for command and control, surveillance, satcom, drones, and missile strikes. just not fighter planes (yet) although we certainly have plenty of them based in Italy. Absolutely no need for any aircraft carrier in the Med - air bases in Corsica, Crete, and Italy all available. Cyprus will probably NOT be used - Turkey is already interfering with an Alcatel cable-laying ship in the Adriatic because the cable will facilitate high-speed data transmission between Israel and Greece. UK PM Cameron had to answer every conceivable question yesterday. I caught about forty of them on Q&A on C-Span at midnight. frequently, his answer was something like 'just because we can not solve all the problems does not mean we should not solve this one'. usually with a reminder of the risk of having a "festering state on our southern border" - every time he said that, his phrasing changed and Libya got metaphorically closer and closer to Cornwall and Sussex. Rousing cheer when an MP from Northern Ireland made the point about how Qaddafhi armed the IRA. There seemed to be a genuine relief that the United Nations finally authorized, legally, something that reverses the UN's slide into irrelevance - Cameron also emphasized what I had been impressed by: that all three African members of the UNSC voted yes. Nigeria, Gabon, and South Africa. Without their votes, UNRes1973 would not have passed. Cameron also expressed hope that the African Union might be able to step in at some point to encourage Qaddhafi to either step down or power share. we await the conclusion of the Paris meeting today, because that is the earliest that the action will start.

- K2K

March 19, 2011 at 11:50am

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

probably a good idea for Americans to understand that the United States is NOT credited with leading on UNSC1973, and there was certainly never a moment when military action against Qaddhafi was ever going to be a USA unilateral mission. The UK, France, and Lebanon led in the UNSC, and the U.S. is supporting what the UN has now decided. Today's WaPo has a backgrounder on what changed US reluctance on Libya last week. By Wednesday, the US was behind what UK, France, and Lebanon were pushing for, and did indeed help shape the final wording to expand beyond a NFZ to include the "all necessary means".

- K2K

March 19, 2011 at 12:01pm

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

A lot of people have made more meaningful comments than I can contribute here, but I'm just posting to say that I am about as torn over this issue as I've been about anything in recent memory. I find compelling arguments on both sides from moral, practical, and political aspects. I'd read Sullivan's post before Chait linked it here, and I found myself largely agreeing with it. David Frum has also asked some important questions of the pro-interventionists. But I also find what Chait is saying to be meaningful. I hope things work out as best as possible, and I defer to history and circumstance.

- Jonas

March 19, 2011 at 12:31pm

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

The interventionists will now proceed to take credit for UNSC1973 and claim it as vindication of their accusations, criticism, and demands. This despite the fact that awaiting UN/multilateral legitimization and action is exactly the opposite of what they have heretofore been demanding, while, as pointed out above, accusing anyone urging prudence and the importance of international law, not least President Obama, of various forms of moral failure.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2011 at 12:51pm

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

roidubouloi: "Multilateral action with a significant Moslem contribution seems a more appropriate standard than whatever these three are supposed to be." liberalref: "But roid, you know as well as I do, that by your criteria, nothing will be done." roidubouloi: "I don't know that at all, lib." Packard: "Liberalref is right." ______________ It appears not in this case.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2011 at 12:57pm

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

Packard, You're correct. The article you pointed me to is indeed new information for me. I have been following the news this morning and did not pick this up. Obviously things are moving quickly but tanks are already in Benghazi. Thanks Neil

- purcellneil

March 19, 2011 at 1:18pm

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

You've done good work on this thread, roid.

- W_Bombay

March 19, 2011 at 1:25pm

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

Roid needs to pretend to his cult folowing that he won the argument even when he lost.

- nr106646

March 19, 2011 at 1:58pm

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

Good work? Sure, in the manner that nr suggests immediately above.

- liberalref

March 19, 2011 at 2:39pm

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

More news: "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults" By STEVEN ERLANGER and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/africa/20libya.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

- Packard

March 19, 2011 at 3:09pm

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

"As Western leaders dismissed Mr. Qaddafi’s proclaimed cease-fire as a sham, Mr. Sarkozy announced that French and allied warplanes were already in the skies over Libya." So purcellneil are you on the side of Qaddafi or on the side of the French action?

- Packard

March 19, 2011 at 3:17pm

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

I agree with roid at 12:51 p.m. EDT above. Practically every "non-interventionist" on these boards over the past week is in fact a multilateralist, who did not want a lone U.S. intervention in Libya, no matter how passionately one could argue for its justification, and was suspicious of why the unilateralists were unable to say what should be done if a simple no-fly-zone failed in its mission. Unless we're all living on different planets, the administration's efforts have been aimed at getting the needed multilateral configuration and the involvement of Arab countries as well as NATO that was achieved at the Security Council on Thursday evening, and which in turn enabled exactly that deployment of military force we are looking at now.

- ironyroad

March 19, 2011 at 3:31pm

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

nr needs to think up something, anything, to say that actually constitutes an opinion on a subject rather than an insult or a slam at another poster. Thus far, his oeuvre on TNR consists entirely of the slams with nary an opinion or idea that he might himself have to defend. libref needs to get over his little fits of pique every time someone chooses to agree with me. _____________________ I am not exactly sure what constitutes winning or losing the argument in this case. But, since Wieseltier's first post on this subject, I have consistently taken the position that action must be multilateral and include a strong Moslem component if we are not to make matters worse. I have several times explained why in relationship to international law and considerations of prudence. I am very pleased to see that this is the direction in which events are unfolding. The unilateral interventionists were wrong, although supremely convinced of their own virtue and often of the lack of virtue of anyone who did not see things their way. If this means they have lost the argument, good. Their view of acceptable international behavior is a threat to peace and security. Read all about it in the UN Charter.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2011 at 3:37pm

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

"I agree with roid at 12:51 p.m. EDT above. Practically every "non-interventionist" on these boards over the past week is in fact a multilateralist..." purcell, didn't write like a multilateralist, and neither did many others. People like Roid and others started to change their minds when they saw that their position wouldn't hold. These are also dleighted to have an ironyroad to shill for them.

- nr106646

March 19, 2011 at 3:47pm

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

Hm. Clearly we have read the various contributions somewhat differently, NR, but what's with the pointless insult? Why is expressing agreement with a particular position -- one that is close to my own, that I've argued through on several threads, as have others -- being a "shill"?

- ironyroad

March 19, 2011 at 4:13pm

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

irony: and was suspicious of why the unilateralists were unable to say what should be done if a simple no-fly-zone failed in its mission. Actually, you never came close to saying why a line drawn in the sand, say east of Brega, coupled with a no fly zone over Eastern Libya, would not have worked. Essentially this is what was agreed to in the UN resolution, not just a no fly zone. It is open desert and Gadhafis supply lines are stretched and out in the open. Dropping some daisy cutters on the coast road would have left massive trenches and provided ample warning: DO NOT CROSS THIS LINE If they did, then drones or fighter planes could have lit them up, I do not imagine any significant column would dare advance. Now do not get me wrong, I am delighted in the UN resolution since it puts Gadhafi in a box, he imagined himself a Nasser, now he sees himself utterly alone. How long will the army back him up? But the problem with waiting is Gadhafis forces are now at Benghazi, we traded off a strategic advantage for a political one. I absolutely agree with it, however you can not dismiss the strategic advantage that was lost out of hand. I could not believe that Obama would allow Benghazi to fall and Egypt be overrun by refugees. My faith was sorely tested but I had no idea he could pull the UN resolution out as well as he did. Unilaterally, multilaterally, I do not care. I absolutely believe that Libya met the criteria I listed above, and so, apparently does the UN which authorized exactly what I so desperately desired.

- blackton

March 19, 2011 at 4:20pm

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

| ironyroad “Hm. Clearly we have read the various contributions somewhat differently, NR,…” Is that what you call it when you said until recently that you was undecided on the issue? What about all the insults blackton and other posters had to put up with because they were for intervention from people who are now saying they were for it all along?

- nr106646

March 19, 2011 at 4:40pm

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

"Unilaterally, multilaterally, I do not care. I absolutely believe that Libya met the criteria I listed above, and so, apparently does the UN which authorized exactly what I so desperately desired." I agree.

- Packard

March 19, 2011 at 4:44pm

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

I posted this by mistake on another thread. Some time ago I had an argument with a couple of posters here about the US Capability to take out Libyan air defenses. I suggested that we already knew where they were located and the reply was that we could now know and that it would be a difficult thing to do. This may change their minds. “Official: U.S. fires on Libyan air defenses (CNN) -- The U.S. military launched its first airstrikes on Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses, officials said Saturday. U.S. Tomahawk missiles landed in the area around Tripoli and Misrata, a senior military official said, adding that the action was taken after Gadhafi failed to comply with a cease-fire. "He's clearly been on the offensive," the official said of Gadhafi. "He said that he was going to do a cease-fire and he continued to move his forces into Benghazi." U.S. President Barack Obama confirmed that he had authorized "limited military action in Libya" and that "that action has now begun." The attacks on Gadhafi's forces will be part of a multiphase approach in a sequential and deliberate manner, according to the official.” http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=Official%3A+U.S.+fires+on+Libyan+air+defenses+-+CNN.com&urlID=449178577&action=cpt&partnerID=212106&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2011%2FWORLD%2Fafrica%2F03%2F19%2Flibya.us.missiles%2F

- arnon

March 19, 2011 at 4:51pm

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

I cannot claim to have kept track, as NR has, of everyone else's thinking, although it seems to me that most everyone on all sides has been quite consistent. But surely, when he says that I have changed my view he is not referring to this post on March 11 in on Wieseltier's article of that date: "Not only is there no thought about the particulars of military intervention in Libya, there is no thought in general about the springing into existence of a doctrine that it is both the right and the responsibility of the United States unilaterally to intervene in civil wars. All civil wars? Civil wars where one side is anti-Semitic? Where both sides are anti-Semitic? Where we have direct interests? Where we don't? Proximate to us? Distant? Where there are civilian casualties? What fraction of the civilian casualties we ourselves caused in Iraq is sufficient? I completely fail to understand how it became that responsibility of American children to risk their lives to save everyone in the world. There is international law on this subject and, although it would amaze all the armchair generals here, over the centuries that it took for the current system to evolve, a lot of smart people gave a lot of thought about how to maintain the boundaries between permissible and impermissible use of force. At present, the UN Charter, to which most every nation on earth has subscribed, allows for the use of force in immediate or collective self-defense and when authorized by the Security Council. That's it. There has emerged in the face of genocide a doctrine of "humanitarian" intervention when civilians are being made the primary targets or are being deprived of the means of existence by warfare. Thus far, the actions of Libya appear to be directed principally at armed rebels. We are not the cops of the world. Security is a collective responsibility as reflected in international law. When Wieseltier wrote his first piece, I said, for that reason, that any intervention had to be multilateral and include the participation of major Moslem states. We may be reaching that point for a no-fly zone, although it is questionable whether that would have much more than a symbolic impact on the fighting. If we do reach a point where collective will is such that intervention is within the bounds of international law, it will I am sure be in no small part due to Obama's diplomacy." __________________ Or what I wrote on February 25, in response to Wieseltier's first article on the subject: I find it impossible not to be moved by the plight of the Libyans trying to throw off the yoke of a brutal dictator. However, it remains the case that there are only two clearly permitted bases for military intervention under the UN Charter: immediate self-defense or UNSC authorization. There is a possible third, the evolving doctrine of "humanitarian intervention." For better or worse, if the last of these is not quickly to hollow out the limitation established by the first two, then it should be carried out multilaterally, also with the possible exception of a state immediately adjacent to the state in crisis and thus in a unique position to intervene as well as potentially threatened. We are nowhere near Libya. If intervention were to comport at all with international law, then the force should be deployed at the very least by NATO and must include Moslem countries. It IS a repeat of imperialism to have western powers policing the Moslem world and it is foolish to think there cannot be and will not be consequences to that. Moreover, the United States simply cannot be the sole and universal judge of when it is and is not permissible to intervene militarily. That will bring disaster upon us. If we arrogate that power to ourselves, then there will be others who will inevitably do likewise and will not by any means limit themselves to the cases that we think appropriate. Soon we are back in the world before the UN Charter. There is an international system. In the absence of imminent threat to ourselves, we need to work within it. It is feckless and unfair to ascribe that to a misplaced "lawyerliness." Wieseltier is wrong here, although I do not question at all that he is moved only by decency." _________________ At the risk of self-congratulation, I would say my position has been completely consistent, showing no evolution that I can see, and has held up rather well since the debate began. However, as I wrote above, I have no doubt that the unilateral interventionists will not proceed to claim that they are vindicated by UNSC1973 (and will re-write the history of their own claims to do so).

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2011 at 5:01pm

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

Oops again: "I have no doubt that the unilateral interventionists will NOW proceed to claim that they are vindicated by UNSC1973 (and will re-write the history of their own claims to do so)."

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2011 at 5:02pm

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

I made my position as clear as I could over time, NR, and never said that I was opposed to intervention per se. I asked several times, why aren't Europe and the Arab countries taking the lead on this. However, I didn't insult either you or anyone else and I don't understand the "shill" remark. And to be honest, I don't really care, as there are more important things. Blackton, I don't want to relitigate our argument but I think I conceded that I had misunderstood initially what you were asking for. I think we are in some kind of agreement that 1973 gives us a strong basis in international law for current action, and while I understand your point about strategic advantage being frittered away, I don't see how else this could have been managed. Such as it is, my beef -- and that of others -- is that some voices on these threads have tried to make it seem as if everyone who had major questions and doubts about unilateral intervention was against intervention per se, was just in favor of standing by while people got massacred. This is BS, to be blunt about it. I'm not directing this particular comment at you, however, as I don't think you have said that.

- ironyroad

March 19, 2011 at 5:16pm

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

I was, and remain, firmly against US unilateral action. I was, and remain, VERY opposed to Americans putting their boots on the ground. Having said that, I'll repeat what I said before -- the MILITARY task of blowing stuff up is easy. As part of a multi-lateral mission the US can create and maintain a no-fly zone. But it's maintaining the peace that is the really hard part. Who is going to take charge of Libya once Gaddafi falls (assuming his opposition is strong enough to do THAT even WITH a no-fly zone)? What's going to make his replacement any better than he is? Who is going to implement a new Democracy, and how will they do that? As long as the US doesn't have to keep boots on the ground because we've inserted ourselves in the middle of a tribal civil-war, as long as the US can leave in a heart-beat once we declare "Mission Accomplished", generating a no-fly zone is acceptable. But those two conditions are on a VERY slippery slope. I hope we can continue to restrict American participation. The alternative of putting American boots on the ground and Nation Building is VERY expensive, and VERY time-consuming.

- AllanL5

March 19, 2011 at 5:19pm

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

Well, Wieseltier is primus inter pares in asserting that questions about the legality and wisdom of unilateral US intervention are without moral foundation, in contrast to his own demand for unilateral intervention.

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2011 at 5:26pm

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

Packard, I am not on Qaddafi's side, but I do question the wisdom and righteousness of the use of force by the United States and France in this case. The justification that has been offered, weakly at best, is that Qaddafi's forces, unrestrained, would engage in atrocities against civilians and reprisals against captured rebels. I don't know of any evidence supporting that justification (aside from the oft-quoted, and quite possibly taken too seriously, "no mercy" statement), but I accept the power of the argument that persuasive evidence might only become available once the dirty deed had been done, when preventive actions would no longer be an option. Evidently, even the Chinese were convinced that this argument had sufficient merit that they chose not to stop the Security Council from authorizing this action. Under the circumstances, I hope the actions being taken will be prove to be timely and effective in stopping Qaddafi. Neil

- purcellneil

March 19, 2011 at 5:39pm

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

purcellneil "Packard, "I am not on Qaddafi's side, but I do question the wisdom and righteousness of the use of force by the United States and France in this case." At least you are being honest, and I thank you for that.

- Packard

March 19, 2011 at 6:15pm

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

As for “peace,” purcellneil, there was and is no peace in Libya and there won’t be until one side or the other wins. I can understand without sharing your position on US intervention, I don’t understand you objection to the intervention of a multilateral force. Without such a force Kaddafi is likely to win. Is it because you don’t want to legitimate multinational forces anywhere since if you it could be used against your own country that you are against it? What is your objection?

- Packard

March 19, 2011 at 6:24pm

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

Oppressed of the world, despair, you do not have roid, Allan, and irony on your side.

- liberalref

March 19, 2011 at 6:49pm

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

That's the first comment I've read from you, lib ref, that has ever inspired the immediate thought that it should be treated with the utter contempt it deserves.

- ironyroad

March 19, 2011 at 7:29pm

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

I'm satisfied that the president has been on the right side of the Libya issue all along. I'm satisfied that the U.S. is not wandering stupidly into its third war in a Muslim nation. I'm delighted that a true multi-national contingent is putting the screws to Ghadafi. I don't want to offend libref's delicate constitution by offering a Mother Jones link, but David Corn has a column over there that hits the nail on the bull's eye. I'm also having a chuckle at Leon W., and the other members of the heads-up-their-asses contingent who have been braying for days now at Obama's alleged fumbling of the situation. Remember just a few days ago when "the clock was ticking" on Obama's legacy? Oh, he was such a callow bumbler! Didn't know what to do -- was so frozen with fear and indecision it was like he was stuck on page 3 of 'My Pet Goat.' The swift unfolding of events in the past several hours certainly put lie to those notions, which were pretty ridiculous to begin with. But hey, those folks can now at least be happy that bombs are falling! And they can stick to their idiotic "he waited too long" meme too, still get it out there in the public square and have the sage ones nod and murmur "Oh yes, oh yes." Has Leon said yet when he wants to go into Bahrain?

- W_Bombay

March 19, 2011 at 8:59pm

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

My apologies. Tally-ho, boys of Benghazi! Hold on, help is on the way. A helmeted irony, who doesn't want his country to get involved in a potential quagmire, nevertheless is committed to your cause and has just landed on the North African littoral, somewhere west of Tobruk. Roid is in Cyprus boning up on international law and will be down shortly. Allan, bellowing as usual, is jetting east from Tunis and will be there momentarily. Muammar Gaddafi beware, the isolationist brigade from TNR is after your head. I urge you to flee while there is still time.

- liberalref

March 19, 2011 at 9:01pm

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

Dr. Bombay, again your dart didn't even hit the board. I love reading Kevin Drum of The Nation. He is mandatory. I have read David Corn for decades. But overall, TN is an amusing publication. The subpar John Nichols is their Washington correspondent. About six years ago, he wrote an unintentionally hilarious piece about how the pwogs were winning at the municipal level, even though W. was in the saddle in DC. The article was widely derided on the intertubes, to use Michael Berube's amusing term. Jonathan Chait is so superior to Nichols that there isn't even a metric to capture it. The liberal columnist Froma Harrop, had a great column a few weeks back on this less-than-august publication, concerning racial improvements across the decades. She noted that you don't have to read this periodical that often because their line never really changes. Regarding the great gains of African-Americans, she inquired "hasn't The Nation heard?" The is just an interrogative form of my years-old line, "The Nation hasn't got the news yet." I recall reading their commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education in 2004. To read through that pathetic issue, you would think nothing had changed since the time of Brown. As regards US military intervention, you wouldn't need to change TN's editorial line one whit, you would just need to know the decade and the particular country to see what TN has to say against intervention. This isn't thought, it is called "knee-jerk." If TN had its way, we might be speaking Soviet now. Sympathy for the late, unlamented Soviet Union was a strong presence for decades there. On the matter of Soviet espionage, they have been drug kicking and screaming into the 21 century. Victor Navasky, a former editor and former publisher, is still flakking for Alger Hiss. Actually, TN hasn't even always been against military intervention across the board. They just have uniformly been opposed to US military intervention. I have long suspected that there is a contingent of Nation people here, who aren't allowed online comments over at the Tribune of the People.

- liberalref

March 19, 2011 at 9:31pm

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

My objection is simple enough. It takes a lot for me to be willing to make war. I know that's quite un-American, but that's it. Neil

- purcellneil

March 19, 2011 at 9:46pm

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

"My apologies." No problem, lib ref. Water under the bridge.

- ironyroad

March 19, 2011 at 9:53pm

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

“My objection is simple enough. It takes a lot for me to be willing to make war. I know that's quite un-American, but that's it.” I guess, Neil, stopping the murder of innocent citizens is not a strong enough reason to use force for you. I am glad your side lost the debate.

- Packard

March 19, 2011 at 10:07pm

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

Thanks for that long-windedness on The Nation, libref. I'm sure you put a lot of thought into it. But, uh, Corn (and Drumm, for that matter) are at Mother Jones now, which is the publication I mentioned in my earlier post. Maybe I'll file your explainer on The Nation away for a time when I actually reference The Nation. That sound good? See, when you get all catty and say something like "your dart didn't even hit the board," that shit often blows up in your face in an embarrassing fashion. You're throwing darts from a glass house, or something like that. Anyway, here after all is the Corn piece I mentioned -- it's a nice little piece of sublime reasonableness that is more sound than anything you've read here at our beloved TNR on the issue of Libya. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/libya-obama-anti-bush-doctrine

- W_Bombay

March 19, 2011 at 10:13pm

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

To W_Bombay Why do your subscribe to TNR and not to The Nation or Mother Jones? Give us a break and stop reading this magazine and posting your here. You can be refunded any amount do.

- GillGavin

March 19, 2011 at 10:38pm

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

To GillGavin I think W_Bombay can reads what he like and his are welcome as are those of other but it's alway good to proot-read a two-line comment before hitting 'save.' What you think?

- ironyroad

March 19, 2011 at 11:29pm

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

"Oppressed of the world, despair, you do not have roid, Allan, and irony on your side." I think it would be far more accurate, lib, to counsel despair because you purport to be on their side. From the Mother Jones piece linked above: "Noting that "our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League" will take a lead role in enforcing the resolution, Obama declared, "This is precisely how the international community should work, as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law." That is precisely the opposite of how the neocons of the Bush-Cheney crowd viewed the world. They were not interested in tying their strategic desires to international law or in developing a global order in which the United States would not be the top-dog decider and enforcer. Obama went further to distance himself from his predecessor: I want to be clear: the change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power; ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab world. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny. That was not the operating premise of the Iraq war." ________________ And here is libref, who purports to be on the side of freedom, complaining that the action is being taken in conformity with, rather than in defiance of, international law and institutions. With friends like these . . .

- roidubouloi

March 19, 2011 at 11:41pm

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

"Now, I think there are very reasonable arguments to suggest that the operation in Libya could devolve into a quagmire, fail to achieve its objections, or achieve them at unacceptable cost." Reasonable arguments, huh; all of them on the comment threads and not one - not a single one, exploring these reasonable arguments - in the main pages. All we got is a former admitted cokehead lamenting, in one purple essay after another, why Obama is a pussy. And now that we have had 112 Tomahawks raining down on Tripoli, and French bombers strafing Gadhafi's tank, and Denmark and Canada and the UK and Qatar sending warplanes to the theatre - not a word, nothing. Really pathetic performance for this magazine.

- icarusr

March 19, 2011 at 11:53pm

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

icarus, It should be obvious that what TNR and its various authors and editors are about is not the prevention of atrocities in Libya but trying retroactively to justify their own support for the war in Iraq. They undertake to do this by invoking humanitarian claims to undermine the principles of international law that Bush trampled upon. Hence, not a word on what has actually been achieved. Why? Because the course that Obama has taken simultaneously responds to the humanitarian need AND rejects the Bush doctrines of unilateralism and preemptive war to which these people subscribe, shaming them and completely undoing their efforts to legitimize the Bush doctrines through shaming. That they care far more about justifying themselves and their pernicious doctrines than they do about the Libyans grows clearer by the moment.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 12:05am

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

One comparison between intervention in Libya versus intervention in Burma or Yemen: if we refrain from intervening in Burma or Yemen NOW, would that make things significantly harder to intervene later? Refraining from intervening in Libya now WOULD erase a lot of what we could accomplish by intervention by allowing Ghaddafi to eliminate the rebel forces we're depending on to make the intervention a worthwhile act, and delay to now has already substantially reduced what we could accomplish.

- sighthnd

March 20, 2011 at 12:10am

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

What Roi said, "Thus far, the actions of Libya appear to be directed principally at armed rebels," may not be true. Doctors have reported injuries and deaths among all ages and population groups. Anyway, it has begun. May this end quickly and as bloodlessly as possible. Is it too much to hope for an open, progressive government in Libya? Pro-western would nice too! Meanwhile, G*d help Gaddafi if we posters descend on him:) We'll talk him to death:) PS I always feel sick when I see anti-aircraft fire streaking into the sky, with reports of casualties and apologia following, "Well, the smart missiles aren't always 100% accurate, but, we don't aim for women and children!" G*d help us all.

- Sophia

March 20, 2011 at 12:45am

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

Roid: Totally agree. At least, Frum had the grace to admit that he does not have credibility on the subject of military intervention. And of course you have Packard saying that our side - the side of liberal multilateralists - has "lost". The 22 heads of government and foreign ministers that gathered in Paris evidently did not get Packard's memo. Or Chait's. Or LW's. Here is Fred Kaplan on the far reaching effects of the resolution: http://www.slate.com/id/2288758 This is how analysis should done: by people who write cogently and knowledgeably, and with minimum of unverifiable assertions. The bizarre campaign to get the US involved in another unilateral military adventure has failed, and Chait and the gang are pretending, ever more bizarrely, that they were right. The mind boggles. Two more weeks, and I am out.

- icarusr

March 20, 2011 at 1:13am

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

I was quoting something I wrote more than a week ago, Sophia. I think it was accurate at the time as a description of the news accounts to that point. And that is all that it purported to be. Also, as you yourself note, modern warfare produces civilian casualties. That by itself is not proof that civilians are being targeted in violation of the law of war. If that accusation is to be made, it should be made based on facts, not speculation.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 1:50am

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

True, everything we know so far is speculation. Anyway, I am glad we didn't go into this Dubya style. I admit I was hoping the UN resolution and the support of the Arab League, plus the threat of force, would cause Gaddafi to back off and reconsider his options, such as moving.

- Sophia

March 20, 2011 at 3:03am

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

This invasion of Libya is supported by Turkey's Islamist President Erdogan. Can he be up to any good? He has a powerful army and air force. Why didn't he do the job?

- amidut

March 20, 2011 at 7:57am

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

Arwa Damon and CNN just confirmed that US Harrier attack jets from the USS Kearsarge (a Marine Expeditionary Force assault amphibious ship slightly smaller than a USN aircraft carrier - which are NOT deployed anywhere near Libya despite msnbc's map, although France has deployed their carrier the "Charles deGaulle") just destroyed Qaddhafi's armed convoy on the road outside Benghazi. I admit being surprised that US used direct air strikes so soon - I knew we would use the Tomahawk missiles to destroy Q's missile defense nodes, but thought the US really wanted to avoid direct use of fighter jets. I guess the Marine Harriers were the best option to remove the direct threat on the ground. (Blackton - no need for daisy cutters!) amidut: Turkey has been very clear that they oppose the "invasion of Libya" - not sure anyone should use the word "invasion"so far. In fact, Erdogan has not even been able to insert Turkey as a mediator, although Qaddafhi DID ask for UN monitors from Turkey, Malta, China, and Germany. from Reuters: Asked by reporters during a visit to Saudi Arabia whether Gaddafi should step down, Erdogan said: "He has already passed that period, he is contradicting himself. Gaddafi's first words were important when he said he does not have an official position. If he does not have an official position then he should hand the country over to whoever does have legitimacy." Bahrain, and Yemen, are totally different situations. Anyone who brings up Bahrain should consider how many times Iran has tried to claim sovereignty over Bahrain with words, and more.

- K2K

March 20, 2011 at 8:54am

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

I realized before I came back here that I erred in referring to Kevin Drum. I meant Calvin Trillin, who for years has contributed humorous verse on an issue or person of the week. I well know that Drum is at Mother Jones. And David Corn, too. I get The Nation, and their line-up of columnists is pretty bad. Katha Pollitt can be excellent, but the Diary of a Mad Law Professor (Patricia Williams) is wasted space. Eric Alterman way overemphasizes the power of the media and the impact of money on politics, which should make him very popular to quite a number of people here. Gary Younge's columns are an inferior product, as are Melissa Harris-Perry's. And then there is Naomi Klein - all that needs to be said about her was contained in Dead Left on July 30, 2008, Jonathan Chait's demolition job of her book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. I wasn't feeling well yesterday and it showed in my previous post.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 10:41am

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

"I admit being surprised that US used direct air strikes so soon" Is that your admission of how wrong you've been in constantly telling us how feckless and weak-kneed the president is, k2k? My suggestion: when the next Mideast crisis rolls around, take a deep breath and count to ten before declaring that Obama is a dithering leader. Suggesting that you wait a few days and get the facts before the regular knee-jerk condemnation of the man would be asking for too much, hence my deep-breath and count-to-ten idea.

- scrubby

March 20, 2011 at 10:43am

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

Roid, the notion that TNR supports intervention in Libya in order to justify their backing of the Iraq War is just the vilest calumny, but one would expect that from you. Any good Wilsonian idealist would back the Libyan intervention. Once again, the bright line between actual writers and the keypeckers out here is striking; you attribute the same motivation to all the staffers at TNR and contributors, too, concerning their support of the Libyan action. I love the Pink Persian's self-description: liberal multilateralist. How about left-no-action-at all?

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 10:51am

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

Pink Persian? Very much unlike you, lib. Isn't that term bigoted?

- scrubby

March 20, 2011 at 10:58am

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

I propose the name of a new doctrine: R2A, Responsibility to Abandon. This is the doctrine of roid, irony, Allan, et al.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 11:04am

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

Lighten up, scrub. I am riffing off the Pink Panther, as well as lampooning icar's left tendencies.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 11:10am

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

Thanks for the clarification, lib.

- scrubby

March 20, 2011 at 11:18am

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

lib ref: "This is the doctrine of . . . irony." This is a lie.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2011 at 11:29am

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

“Roid, the notion that TNR supports intervention in Libya in order to justify their backing of the Iraq War is just the vilest calumny, but one would expect that from you.” Yes, one would expect this from Roid. But what is worse is that posters like Sophia who were upset by Khadafy’s killings, is now also upset because in order to take him out people are being killed. The people who do the worst damage in the world are tender hearted people who hate the sight of blood and would rather put up with some tyrant like Mugabe murder tens of thousands than allow his enemies to fight back. Defending oneself can cause bloodshed. Tyrants should build monuments to Sophia and Roid people like them keep them in power.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 11:31am

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

Irony has no doctrine, he just asks leading questions meant to accuse someone of not being ironic and detached.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 11:32am

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

scrubby: Obama dithered after his stern call for Qaddhafi to step down on March 3. From the beginning, I have written that it was better he said nothing, and that the EU and Libya's Arab neighbors should lead. perhaps you have me confused with blackton because I agreed in theory with what he wrote, although never that it should be the USA doing it. I have no problem with the Obama doctrine, except that Obama should repeatedly say 'Let me be perfectly clear that the United States is no longer the sole leader of the free world, but one country in a multi-polar world'. It is because I spend more time researching facts instead of opinions that I was surprised by the use of American fighter jets so early. Everything Obama and military sources said until today was very clear that US air resources would be mostly for refuelling of others, surveillance, but not direct target strikes by fighter jets. I do not see leadership in anything except campaign contributions, and I suspect that he is now going to find that a whole lot harder.

- K2K

March 20, 2011 at 11:36am

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

Packard, I don't think we are willing to use force in every case where innocent lives may be at stake. I doubt very much that we will intervene militarily in Bahrain or Yemen or Syria. We can both list a host of other countries where we didn't even debate taking action to stop the killing of civilians. What makes this instance different? Perhaps you would argue we have been wrong in all these other cases. I don't think Americans would be willing to go to war or to act as the world's policeman. I think our actions in Libya may in the end turn out for the best, and I might agree that it was better, after all, that your side won the debate, but I think the process by which we have arrived at this point is not constitutionally correct or politically sustainable, and certainly cannot be precedent for similar actions elsewhere. Let's hope for the best. Neil

- purcellneil

March 20, 2011 at 11:40am

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

NR: "Irony has no doctrine, he just asks leading questions meant to accuse someone of not being ironic and detached." Irony concedes a lack of doctrine, or of doctrinal rigidity at least, but requests some evidence of "leading questions" so that NR's comment might be shown to be something more than typing to fill up the blank space.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2011 at 11:50am

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

"I don't think we are willing to use force in every case where innocent lives may be at stake. I doubt very much that we will intervene militarily in Bahrain or Yemen or Syria." This has been answered many times, Neil. Just because you can't stop blooshed everywhere doesn't mean that you can't do it anywhere. Even in medicine when supplies are short of what is needed to treat all they resort to triage. What gets me is that people who want to do nothing are usually the well off who don't see themselves needing help. I still don't understand your real objection Neil. Are you a pacifist, a Quaker, or a conservative nationalist that doesn't want to see his country involved in other countries?

- Packard

March 20, 2011 at 11:51am

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

"I do not see leadership in anything except campaign contributions" Oh come on! How do you believe we achieved the actual resolution at the Security Council, K2K, including getting Russia and China to keep their veto in the drawer -- by playing tic-tac-toe or something?

- ironyroad

March 20, 2011 at 11:56am

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

"Irony concedes a lack of doctrine, or of doctrinal rigidity at least,..." Your irony is your rigid doctrine.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 12:01pm

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

Packard, you are right on the mark on your everywhere and anywhere distinction. And my R2A is an opinion, irony, and therefore not a lie. And irony who erroneously wields the word "lie" is "detached?" Sure, and I'm Errol Flynn. Besides, I was actually being semi-ironic in deploying that term; I was trying to connote an intersubjective reality, not an intentional one. But that surely would be beyond the ken of "detached" ironists.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 12:07pm

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

If history had gone differently: (In an alternate multiverse, roid was born in 1880, instead of after (?) World War II.) Senior Adviser: President Roid, the Germans are here. General Eisenhower and I and numerous others told you that you needed to be more forceful with the Nazis. But no, you said Neville Chamberlain was right, we will have peace in our time. Well, now we will have peace on their terms. Prepare to learn German. PR: I have been working on my German phrasebook all morning. Guten tag. What could we have done, anyway? The League of Nations had collapsed, so we had no controlling international legal authority. I will only do things by the book. SA: Even if it means that you will now be Heinrich Himmler's errand boy, if they let you live, that is? PR: Que sera sera.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 12:17pm

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

"This is the doctrine of X" is a statement, lib ref, which can be shown to be false by reading back through my various posts on the question. "I believe X's argument to be wrong/illogical/ill-informed/etc" is an opinion. Slept too late for Rhetoric 101 that semester? In any case, let's drop it. We disagree on the meaning of previous positions, but I have no interest in opening up a personal dispute on this issue, unless you have.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2011 at 12:24pm

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

It is you who is in need of R 101. You are supposed to be the ironist, but you don't even get irony when it rears its head. I just made the distinction between your intention and intersubjective reality, but you elided it. I could imagine you reading the playful Jacques Derrida (not the turgid theorist of Glas and the second part of La Carte Postale, rather the elfin force behind Circumfession and the first part of LCP). It would tie your brain in knots. Besides which, you are like so many of the other phonies out here. Any calumny, any hysteria, any mangling of an opponent's position will never draw your disapproval as long as it is wielded against those who are on the other side of the fence from you.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 12:40pm

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

I am more surprised that the French jets were apparently first on the scene.

- Sophia

March 20, 2011 at 1:32pm

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

Geez, lib, I really thought you had outgrown your earlier moron phase here at TNR. I mean, we all know that you are a pompous twit, but you have managed in more recent times to stick vaguely to the subject. When you are getting applause from a bit of pond scum like NR, you should realize you are in trouble. Don't be such a child. There are many people here who urged that any intervention should be multilateral for a variety of reasons all of which you dismissed out of hand. You and some others insisted that the only moral course was immediate unilateral intervention by the US or, as you also insisted, nothing would be done. Events have proven you dramatically wrong, but you are such a whiny little boy that you cannot bear it, cannot bear that your pompous pronouncements have been shown to be nothing but ignorant ranting. Hence, you now resort to mis-characterizing everyone who has turned out to be right as having resisted intervention on any terms. When you have to invent words to place in other people's mouths in order to try to make a point, it is time to withdraw gracefully. You would serve yourself better by silence. All you are doing is making yourself look like a horse's ass. You don't want to look like a horse's ass, do you lib? Or do you?

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 2:32pm

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

And here comes the back stabbing bastards... Arab League criticism The head of the Arab League appears to have criticised the severity of the bombardment. His comments are significant because the Arab League's support for the no-fly zone was a key factor in getting UN Security Council backing for the resolution authorising the move. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

- wkwami

March 20, 2011 at 2:50pm

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

03/20/2011 - 10:51am EDT | liberalref "Roid, the notion that TNR supports intervention in Libya in order to justify their backing of the Iraq War is just the vilest calumny, but one would expect that from you. Any good Wilsonian idealist would back the Libyan intervention." _________________ By the way lib, as you are in such high moral dudgeon, it seems to have escaped your notice that Wieseltier, you, and such have been busily accusing of all sorts of moral failure everyone, from Obama on down, who did not agree with your Little Cowboy Bush notions of war and diplomacy. Now, when there is a bit of push-back, you suddenly discover the word "calumny" in your dictionary? I don't point the finger at TNR and its rather thin stable of contributors on this subject because they demanded intervention, but because they demanded unilateral intervention and declined to engage seriously the many significant arguments, pragmatic, prudential, legal, diplomatic, and military, against, limiting themselves to hysterical finger-pointing. This raises plenty of questions, or should in the minds of thinking people, about the good faith of their claims of deep regard for the fate of Libyans. If the notion that this behavior is questionable so offends you, perhaps in the future you will think twice about making moral accusations against those who merely disagree with your own not terribly well thought-out or informed views.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 2:56pm

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

And we have, since Wilson's day, something called the United Nations Charter. You may want to acquaint yourself with what it says. Should save you from more ignorant blather in the future.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 3:00pm

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

"Should save you from more ignorant blather in the future." Typical gargoyle roid blather. I am smarter than you he says. He always says that the moronic swelled head. "And we have, since Wilson's day, something called the United Nations Charter" UN wasn't insituted till after 1945 but it had a charter since 1918. And that charter has worked so well that the world has been a sea of tranquility and harmony. The half dozen or so genocides just dropped from the sky.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 3:09pm

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

"And here comes the back stabbing bastards... Arab League criticism" I was thinking that myself, wkwami.

- Packard

March 20, 2011 at 3:11pm

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

Hey, moron, you think the UN Charter existed before the UN? You plumb new depths of stupidity. And just when it seemed you had hit bottom. Am I smarter than you? Of course I am. Everyone is smarter than you. No exceptions.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 3:14pm

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

"Obama dithered after his stern call for Qaddhafi to step down on March 3." What should he have done, k2k? Step up and start bombing right away? Even if Obama wanted a unilateral US military campaign against Khadafy, which, thank God, he never wanted, it would still take a few days to line up the needed forces and logistics. He was already being thrashed by the usual suspects way before any of that was even possible. What you call dithering, I call working the UNSC and international coalition. Considering that the head of the Arab league, who wanted a no-fly zone, is already complaining this morning about the coalition bombings, you can imagine the fallout if Obama went it alone. I mean, seriously, the Arab league is already wavering just a few hours after the international coalition bombing. What Marty, Leon and those that agree with them were advocating is not good leadership, it is anything but. I call it arrogant recklessness. Knowing what we know about Khadafy and given what had transpired before Obama's call for him to go, I suspected strongly that Obama wouldn't let Khadafy survive. I just don't believe any American president would. So I was willing to wait and see how he achieves that. You should have a little more patience, k2k. I suspect that you won't, since you, Marty, Leon and others deeply believe the president is naive, weak, and badly informed on foreign policy in general and the Mideast in particular.

- scrubby

March 20, 2011 at 3:15pm

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

Ok ok, lib ref, you can read Derrida but I fall at the first conceptual fence. Fine. I said, let's drop it.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2011 at 3:23pm

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

I must say that I support the US intervention in Libya with trepidation. And as a severe critic of the presidential overreach of George W. Bush, I do think that Barack Obama should have gone before Congress to get authorization for US action. I feel lonely out here; I am not like the know-it-alls of either side.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 3:27pm

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

"Am I smarter than you? Of course I am. Everyone is smarter than you. No exceptions." Icarus and some other members of the forum Gestapo would agree with you. But why then do you have to keep proving how smart you are moron? And if you are so smart why do you have to bully your opponents? You also can’t seem to win an argument. Which is why you resort to insults everywhere.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 3:28pm

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

Scrubby: Is that your admission of how wrong you've been in constantly telling us how feckless and weak-kneed the president is, k2k? K2K was right, that was me, and I have already admitted I was dead wrong because I had no idea he could get that UN resolution through authorizing the precise type of use of force I most wanted. Whether the US was dragged kicking and screaming into this, or Obama played his hand brilliantly (or maybe it was both, since appearing to be dragged kicking and screaming got the exact same results as we now see, a world community that turned to America and not one that was dictated to by America) I do not know nor care, history will determine that answer. As I said, unilaterally, bilaterally, multilaterally, quadrilaterally, or even octilaterally whatever means got us to this end is fine by me. I accept it is not by others but that is debating history.

- blackton

March 20, 2011 at 3:35pm

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

I wouldn't worry yet by what the Arab League says publicly, liberalref. They tend to say one thing in public and something else in private. Also I believe they are led by an Egyptian politician who is running for President and he needs to show that he is not controlled by the US.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 3:35pm

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

Blackton, I give you mad respect for admitting you were wrong and clarifying your position. Even though we may disagree on some things, my respect for you has only grown. It is rare to find one so open minded and committed to discussing the issues on the merits rather than wanting to be right or being infelxibly partisan. RESPECT!

- wkwami

March 20, 2011 at 3:46pm

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

"And if you are so smart why do you have to bully your opponents? You also can’t seem to win an argument. Which is why you resort to insults everywhere." More inverted reality (oh, should I have said pathetic lying?) from the ignoranus, NR106646. The abuse and insults in lieu of thought run all the other way, moron. Lib? He just gets cranky when he is wrong because he thinks he knows a lot more than he does. But you are the single greatest practitioner at TNR since, uniquely among all these posters, you have nothing whatever to say other than insults. There is literally no one else here of whom that can be said. Eventually it gets tiresome and it becomes time to smack that lot of you around a bit. And then, inevitably, you go into your whining poor little victim act. You're a putz.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 3:47pm

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

I leave the pomposity and the twitiness to you, roid. Talk about projection. And no, everyone doesn't "know" x about any person y out here. There is a huge division of opinion, so the battle lines are drawn and the view that someone has of someone else is very likely to be colored by what side he or she is on. I thought that even you were not fatuous enough to miss this. Further, there is no honest disagreement with you. You are always imparting malign motives to your opponents. And you call names constantly, moron being one of your very favorites. Then you have the temerity to call someone else a child. You are just unconscious; there is no self-reflection at all inside the eccentric entity known as roid. You denominating someone a child is like Paul Ryan or Jim DeMint accusing Democrats of not being serious about the deficit. Yet again, observe the vast separation between the keypeckers and those who know something, like Jonathan Chait. Chait tries to take the best arguments of his opponents and then engage them. The kps distort their opponents' arguments and knock down straw men. JC attempts to understand his opposite numbers, the kps demonize them. JC has a rich and textured of the world, the kps are Manichaeans, par excellence. The sad thing is that no amount of reading Jonathan Chait will turn a roid into even a subpar JC. Unfortunately, it is roid all of the way down, folks.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 3:54pm

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

wkwami, thanks, but you can also call me a bellicose jackass, I know I am, I let my emotions get the better of me, but only online. This is a problem with online posting, I can say what I really think unfiltered but I am not like this at all in real life. As a teacher I can never say what I really think, so I can vent online or go home and kick the cat.

- blackton

March 20, 2011 at 4:03pm

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

Fuck off, lib. You are full of shit and, as ever, the pompous twit. You said a bunch of stupid and accusatory things here. When events overtook your stupidity, no one was rude enough to make a point of that. But you insisted on compounding your errors with a long string of insulting and irrelevant posts. You cannot hide behind Chait on this, as if you and he are one and the same. As for impugning motives, you have done little but. Yet, like all whiny children, you get all wounded and such when any of it comes back in the other direction. You have made no attempt to understand anything at all beyond your own bloviating and there is no point pretending otherwise at this late date. Grow up.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 4:04pm

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

I get cranky when I am wrong? Spoken by the original crank. Initially, I was against the no-fly zone and then I migrated to supporting it, with caution. I have written that here but you wouldn't be able to comprehend this nuanced position. It would blow you brain circuitry out, even more than is already the case, that is. I am Isaiah Berlin in my approach to the world, you are Lenin in yours. Dogmatists of the world unite, you have ... well, you people know the rest of the parody of this famous trope from Marx.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 4:05pm

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

If you can bother to read your own bullshit lib, you will note long series of to the point posts, sticking to the arguments, free of any personal anything, from a lot of people, including me. All met with sneering insults from you that only got more obnoxious as you failed to get a rise out of anyone. I invite you, go and read this thread. Then come back and sin no more. The simplest rule to observe is that posters are not the proper subject of posts. The subject is the subject. Stick to that and you can avoid a lot of trouble.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 4:08pm

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

Ummm, lib. Do go and read your own stuff here. Then come back and tell us if you really do want to characterize that as a "nuanced position." None of it was nuanced and very little of it was what could be called a position, unless by that you mean to include all your opinions about other posters.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 4:11pm

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

Projection yet again, r, projection. And now you are swearing at people, which has been one of your signatures in the past. Notice, readers, that this is the person who called me a child. Unfortunately, we will be hearing more from the ubermature statesman of TNR Online. Nota bene, people: These volcanic explosions do not emanate from a twenty-something.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 4:11pm

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

Taking on the mad hatters with intensity and passion does not exclude one from having a nuanced position on issue x. Did you fail Logic 101 or did you even take such a course?

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 4:13pm

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

Roid is still at it, the bully. He is the dumbest poster here. Easy to play with. He is good for a laugh, though. It's fun to wind him up and see him unwind like a Rottweiler.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 4:25pm

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

"Strikes me as playing right into Gaddafi's propaganda that the (so far all Western) intervention and establishment of a no-fly zone is "crusader aggression"." You may be rigth, but it's too early to say that, malahat.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 4:27pm

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

"Taking on the mad hatters with intensity and passion does not exclude one from having a nuanced position on issue x. Did you fail Logic 101 or did you even take such a course?" No, but neither does that mean that you expressed what could possibly be characterized as a nuanced position. Nor does it justify your attacks on other posters who for the most part didn't even bother to disagree with you directly as there was little there there with which to disagree. You seem to be infuriated by the fact that you were mostly ignored and now pompously (as ever) characterize yourself as "taking on the mad hatters with intensity and passion." Nonsense. You took on a lot of sober, thoughtful people by spewing juvenilia at them. Invoking Logic 101 or even your time spent in joyful finger painting cannot obscure that reality.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 4:28pm

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

roidubouloi, the justifier of murder wants nuance. This is a sick joke. He is a sick joke.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 4:37pm

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

Again he wants to prove to us that he is the smartest most logical poster here. This the biggest joke here.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 4:40pm

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

You are a straight shooter and have a good liberal heart, blackie. It takes a very secure man to admit being wrong. I had the same impulse on Libya as you did, except I was willing to wait and see what and how the president went about it. I, also, have the same impulse on the Congo, Sudan, etc., but have come to realize nobody, including the UN, will do anything about it. However, my post you referenced was rightly directed at k2k - and the neocons in general. (Not that I think she's neocon, she's not) But, like the neocons, she never - and I mean never - sees a foreign policy issue with which she wouldn't knock the president as feckless, no matter what. You, on the other hand, knock or defend the president depending on his performance, and you are willing to admit error when proven wrong. Not her. Even now on the Libyan no-fly zone, she, in one of her posts, gave credit to France, Britain, and Hillary. Nothing to the president. Yeah, Obama must be a potted plant.

- scrubby

March 20, 2011 at 4:45pm

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

Good gosh, NR. Your inability to read even the simplest of things and understand them astonishes. See what a good buddy you have found, lib? Aren't you ashamed that the only thing you can draw to your side at this point is this slimy slug?

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 4:47pm

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

A blinding image just came to me: Picture Chairman Roid, the head of the International Law Tribunal, which in the future will possess plenipotentiary power. Chairman Roid: You will act lawfully, people, and respect international law or I will have you all shot. Or at the very least I will blank you up. On an infinitely lower level, roid reminds me of Karl Raimund Popper, he of The Open Society and Its Enemies (two volumes). Popper loved pluralism and dissent in the abstract, but he would go apoplectic if anyone disagreed with him.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 4:49pm

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

Not that you noticed, but "slimy slug" is a pleonasm. And projection, again, r, projection. Wash your mouth out with soap and then make another attempt.

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 4:52pm

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

You remind me of nothing so much as a a kid throwing a temper tantrum after losing at checkers, lib. Lots of people advanced serious arguments here, all met by your unserious and boring, juvenile mockery. Your self-importance demands that you characterize the discussion as an effort to force you to retreat against which you gamely stood your ground with "intensity and passion." The reality is that you were largely ignored and properly so. That is what galls you, along with the fact that events have proven your pompous bloviating to have been just that. You grandiosely "dissent" only in your own imagination. Most of what you wrote here consisted of blowing spitballs. No one takes you seriously and you will not be taken seriously by retroactively pretending that you were slaying rhetorical dragons or advancing meaningful, let alone nuanced, positions at all.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 5:07pm

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

"You remind me of nothing so much as a a kid throwing a temper tantrum after losing at checkers, lib. Lots of people advanced serious arguments here, all met by your unserious and boring, juvenile mockery" roidubouloi Here he goes again insulting those who disagree with him. Is there a poster with whom he disagrees that he hasn’t attacked? There is something compulsive about his behavior. He is a sick man.

- Newly84

March 20, 2011 at 5:15pm

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

To clarify, blackie, I meant to say that, like you, I wanted for something to somehow happen in order to save Benghazi folks from being slaughtered. But I never wanted us to go it alone, even though that meant thousands could die if nothing happened. I know that sounds callous, but I believed going it alone could make it even worse, with jihadists funded by Arab oil men descending into Libya and us getting blamed, just like in Iraq. That's why I'm always knocking neocons, and also knocking their enablers, eg Marty, Leon W, and so on.

- scrubby

March 20, 2011 at 5:23pm

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

Poor, pathetic, deluded newly. Would you like to read the first insult directed on this thread by any poster at any other poster? It is right here: 03/18/2011 - 10:57pm EDT | Newly84 Not only the first insult, but your first comment. The very first time you open your mouth, it is to insult someone. And then of course you complain of insults. What a bunch of crybabies you and your buddies are.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 5:27pm

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

For good measure, newly, let's note that your very first post over on the Peretz thread is this one: 03/19/2011 - 11:58pm EDT | Newly84 Also an insult, in that case directed at me. You did not, however, have the distinction of the first insult on that thread. The honor in that case goes to NR106646 whose very two first posts were attacks on other posters (not me). You two are just a giant heap of stinking, hypocritical bullshit. Nothing but insults and personal attacks alternating with your complaints about insults and personal attacks.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 6:16pm

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

Save it Newly. You are wasting your time with psychotic Roid. Best thing is to ignore him. Leave him to me, I'll make his posting life here hell. Until he stops attacking people on any thread, I'll make sure that he never has a serene conversation with anyone. I'll make sure that people see what he is really like.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 6:39pm

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

Here is the real Roid. "You are just a giant heap of stinking, hypocritical bullshit." No wonder he spends all his time here. Who would want to talk to him in person.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 6:41pm

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

"right now it sure looks like 'bait and switch' by the Arab League." Malahat, that could be, unfortunately, but that would then suggest that the League is somehow on Ghaddafi's side and it's in their interest to make the West, the U.S., the UN, and Obama look like they are attacking Libya without cause or restraint, when in fact Arab region representatives have been publicly along for the ride. I think that is somewhat of an unlikely state of affairs. There are two connected explanations out there, and one has already been in the discussion: -- the Arab League took a huge leap of faith with the call for the No-Fly-Zone and in many respects stepped out of its political culture, which was locked into a kind of über-version of the same combo of defiance and autonomy in its public posture and cooperation and complicity in the covert zone that marks much of the the region's relationship to the West. Now the old dynamics, that are still active of course, are pulling the League back from that avant-garde step and insisting the old dance begin once more. -- the Arab League demanded the NFZ measure without listening to the U.S. defense secretary, who was pointing out that crucial elements such as taking out the air defense systems belonged to any robust NFZ. Like many often intelligent observers, they were convinced that the politics of a No-Fly-Zone were the thing, and did not grasp that it would be next to meaningless if the opponent's ability to resist the NFZ policing remained intact.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2011 at 6:59pm

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

"right now it sure looks like 'bait and switch' by the Arab League." “There are two connected explanations out there,” Ironyroad “-- the Arab League took a huge leap of faith with the call for the No-Fly-Zone and in many respects stepped out of its political culture,” “-- the Arab League demanded the NFZ measure without listening to the U.S. defense secretary, who was pointing out that crucial elements such as taking out the air defense systems belonged to any robust NFZ.” How do you know that, Ironyroad? The first reason you gave is plausible conjecture, and that’s all it is, but the second one calls for proof. Do you really think that Arab League is so naïve that it didn’t know what a NFZ meant?

- Packard

March 20, 2011 at 7:18pm

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

Oh man, I'm nervous now. Two belligerent, hypocritical, lying morons to contend with. Dumb and dumber.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 7:21pm

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

Roid “You two are just a giant heap of stinking, hypocritical bullshit.” Roid also attacks someone as if that person and some other were the only ones he hates. Above he points to NR and me. He did the same with Noga and Mokover on the Massacre in Israel thread. Here he’s attacked LibRef among others. No, it’s not just one person that crazy Roid has attacked but almost every poster has dared to question his “wisdom.”

- Newly84

March 20, 2011 at 7:23pm

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

I logged on to this thread to see if the debate had moved on, now that we know the no fly zone is being very broadly interpreted and this is causing divisions already; that the Arab allies are nowhere to be seen; that the objectives are all over the place with the Pentagon saying Gaddafi isn't a target and that it's all about protecting civilians and London/Paris saying it's all about getting rid of Gaddafi. It looks like a right mess, already. But instead it's the above nonsense with Roid against the TNR world, with some really childish nonsense from middle to late aged professional men. What a pathetic thread and total waste of time. Reminds me why I don't really post that much anymore.

- IggyPop

March 20, 2011 at 7:25pm

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

Jeffrey Goldberg on Amr Moussa (who appears to have spoken perhaps as the Amr Moussa running for the presidency of Egypt, not as the Moussa about to leave his Sec-Gen post of the Arab League): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/amr-moussa-the-arab-leagues-utterly-predictable-leader/72753/ Back to Benghazi. The more I see of opposition graffitti, and, even without a photo of this, I think Libyans have a fine sense of humor: "...At the western outskirts of Benghazi today, as many residents who had fled returned home, a celebrating group of young men had set a dog astride a donkey.“That’s Qaddafi,” says a grinning young man, pointing at the larger animal, “and that’s his owner,” he says, pointing at the dog. ..." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0320/How-French-jets-saved-Libya-s-rebels-at-the-last-minute perhaps readers need a reminder of how dogs are considered unclean by most Muslims. My longterm theory is that the final battle for world dominance will be between the dog-lovers, led by the French, and the dog-haters.

- K2K

March 20, 2011 at 7:43pm

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

malahat, yes, that's fair enough. I see enough overlap between my #1 and your #3 to concur that it's somewhere in there. However the League call for the No-Fly-Zone was itself genuinely surprising, and that may have a couple of different explanations (weird shit happens). Re my #2: It would obviously be somewhat fantastical that people in power wouldn't know what an NFZ entails, but there's a less fantastical version, which is that they made the mistaken assumption that such a concerted action would quickly call a halt to the Ghaddafi forces' advance -- that is, that the political effect of the move would be significant enough to warrant limited military operations. How do I know stuff, Packard? Well, of course it helps that I take one of those brain power pills from that new movie. Give me a break! We're all speculating here but trying to keep some link between reasonable supposition and known fact. I was offering speculative reasons, not asserting known quantities.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2011 at 7:53pm

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

Typical lies from newly, who opened on the Peretz thread with an insult as he opened on this one, then proceeds to complain of insults. Indeed, he and NR106646 have little else to say. Still dumb, still dumber.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 7:55pm

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

"We're all speculating here but trying to keep some link between reasonable supposition and known fact. I was offering speculative reasons, not asserting known quantities." And here I thought you had read some authoritative article somewhere. Thanks for being honest.

- Packard

March 20, 2011 at 8:01pm

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

Given who you are Roid I would expect no other response. I must be dumb if I spend time talking to you.

- Newly84

March 20, 2011 at 8:02pm

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

Poor, pathetic, deluded newly. Would you like to read the first insult directed on this thread by any poster at any other poster? It is right here: 03/18/2011 - 10:57pm EDT | Newly84 Not only the first insult, but your first comment. The very first time you open your mouth, it is to insult someone. And then of course you complain of insults. For good measure, newly, let's note that your very first post over on the Peretz thread is this one: 03/19/2011 - 11:58pm EDT | Newly84 Also an insult, in that case directed at me. You did not, however, have the distinction of the first insult on that thread. The honor in that case goes to NR106646 whose very two first posts were attacks on other posters (not me). You two are just a giant heap of stinking, hypocritical bullshit. Nothing but insults and personal attacks alternating with your complaints about insults and personal attacks. _______________ Some things just bear repeating, because facts are stubborn things.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 8:03pm

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

There isn't much doubt that you are dumb, newly. Your limited reading comprehension doesn't even extend to the garbage you yourself write. The only question is which of the two of you boobs is dumb and which is dumber.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 8:05pm

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

"Thanks for being honest." No problem. Almost time for another brain pill :)

- ironyroad

March 20, 2011 at 8:21pm

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

"As Western Allies Strike Libya, Where is the Arab League?" http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/20/as-western-allies-strike-libya-where-is-the-arab-league/ "It was the latest flip-flop from Moussa, who said the Arab League would reject the idea of military intervention from the West immediately after it endorsed the no-fly zone on March 12. "Maybe he doesn't understand what a no-fly zone is because what he said today and what he said last week are puzzling and contradictory statements," Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Institute in Doha, Qatar, told AOL News today."

- Packard

March 20, 2011 at 8:36pm

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

You are just beyond belief. I have never sworn at anyone here and you have frequently, I have never called anyone a moron, you do it all of the time, and yet it is you who talks about me throwing a tantrum. NR is sure correct, there is something more than a little pathological about this sort of behavior. I am surprised that you can get such huge amounts of unsupervised computer time at Bellevue. Something is amiss. Sy Hersh, can you look into this?

- liberalref

March 20, 2011 at 8:36pm

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

Go away Roid. Is anyone else as sick of him and his sparring bodies as I am?

- Packard

March 20, 2011 at 8:37pm

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

Packard: "As Western Allies Strike Libya, Where is the Arab League?" It will be interesting to see whether Obama was attempting to have the Arab league put in some sweat equity, only to give up when it became apparent that wasn't going to happen. While things have actually moved remarkably fast, it may have been a sticking point in the negotiations. A number of posters here (including Roi) stated that any action needed to include the Arab league, lest what has already transpired occur.

- Nari224

March 20, 2011 at 9:12pm

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

Packard, I guess I'm not a pacifist - I supported the war in Afghanistan. I think a country with great military power needs to have some scruples about its use. I agree that we don't need to be absolutely consistent in our decisions in such matters - that there are going to be factors that differentiate what seem to be similar cases. But I've seen us go to war on some very sloppy reasoning, and some poorly considered intelligence -- in short, I'd like to see some sign that we are thinking things through before we commit to the use of force. I felt that this Libyan case was one of emotion and rhetoric leading, rather than principle and reason. You may think I am wrong (I am sure you do) but if you still don't understand my objections, I'm not sure I can do more to explain them. In any case, it has been good to discuss the subject with you. Neil

- purcellneil

March 20, 2011 at 9:22pm

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

"As Western Allies Strike Libya, Where is the Arab League?" http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-arabs-20110321,0,4707165.story "The Arab League urged the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. Now, with French warplanes and U.S. Tomahawk missiles streaking across the North African sky, the league is criticizing the air assault as Arab kings and presidents confront decades-old ironies, religious animosities and fears they will be blamed for siding with Western imperialism." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiliJpH26Vs&feature=player_embedded#at=24 One wonders how the Arabs imagined the NFZ would be enforced?

- noga1

March 20, 2011 at 9:38pm

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

Poor lib. Go back and read this thread you pompous ass where you will find serious discussion by serious people who are constantly being mocked and insulted by you with nothing to say. Which is why at some point it becomes necessary to tell you to fuck off, go suck your thumb for a while, and come back when your little hissy fit is over.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 9:57pm

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

"A number of posters here (including Roi) stated that any action needed to include the Arab league, lest what has already transpired occur." It is unfortunate that, urged on by the zealots, there was no longer perceived to be time and opportunity to assure that Moslem nations were committed to this action. But at least there is a UNSC resolution.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 10:11pm

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

Liberalref, Roid is going to stay up all night to make sure he gets the last word, the psychopath.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 10:13pm

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

Btw: I wouldn't answer he posts, since they are meaningless just type "Roid is a psychopath who need medical help" and let it go at that.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 10:15pm

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

What a farce you are, nr, as if you are not still dumber than dumb because you address yourself to a third party. Lest you feel that newly is getting all the acclaim for being a stinking heap of hypocritical bullshit, let us also note that your first entry onto this thread, here: 03/19/2011 - 1:58pm EDT | nr106646 is also a personal attack. So, wherever we look, on whatever thread we look, we find the same pattern. You initiate the exchange of personal insults and then complain of them. What you are quite obviously trying to do is to derail any conversation that appears to be headed in a direction you don't like. But you too can take pride in being a stinking heap of hypocritical bullshit in your own right. No need for you just to envy the stench of newly. It is always thus. Dumb and dumber.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 10:26pm

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

Roid is back, for one last nasty word, the sick Rottweiler.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 10:33pm

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

Yup, this is fun. I have a dumb, fat fuck like you on the hook and can just keep jerking the line. It's free and it's easy.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 10:37pm

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

Roid is back, for one last nasty word, the sick Rottweiler.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 10:41pm

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

Yup, this is fun. I have a dumb, fat fuck like you on the hook and can just keep jerking the line. It's free and it's easy. Gee, I already said that. Well, it bears repeating. Not too often one gets such a skeevy miscreant as you to smack around. The world is a better place for it. The decent can breathe a little easier because a snarling, snapping beast nr is trapped here even for a little while with no room for maneuver. It is nauseating to think what havoc you wreak out in the real world.

- roidubouloi

March 20, 2011 at 11:15pm

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

Roid is back, for one last nasty word, the psycho Rottweiler.

- nr106646

March 20, 2011 at 11:30pm

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

Blackie: second scrubby, on both his points. Malahat and irony: I think, frankly, that the real "bait and switch" was by the US. The Arab League was pushing for a no-fly zone, which would not have actually dealt with tanks outside Benghazi. France, the UK and Lebanon were also pushing for a no-fly zone initially. It looks like the US inserted humanitarian intervention before the vote. This is in line with the US push for reference to the ICC. This is muscular multilateralism at its best. In this sense, I am not at all surprised about the Arab League's "shock and horror" as soon as they saw charred soldiers in burnt out tanks. This is what humanitarian intervention means - should, rightly, send a shudder down every despot's spine.

- icarusr

March 20, 2011 at 11:41pm

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

Thank you, Malahat, for being so reasonable. I'm furious over the Arab League reversal, though I shouldn't be. In fact, it should have come as no surprise. They were listening, alright, and they figured that they'd just let us do the dirty work. They weren't even thinking of getting into the fight. This is what is known as a contractual agreement in the middle East. Promise everything, then do what suits you best. I just can't believe nobody else here is shuddering at their own naivete. Why, oh why, did we not insist that they send in their planes first? And first what it's worth, going in at all was stupid. Furthermore, not only has Obama failed to confer with congress, the great communicator has managed not to communicate with the citizens of the US. Why, Obama, are we there? Care to fill us in? Or are we too stupid for your subtleties. Tell, sir, what is the endgame? At what point do we get out? How many of our troops, versus those of France and England, are being committed? Has anybody here, while arguing over the "rightness" of all this multi-lateralism, asked this question? Or are we just too busy congratulating ourselves over not going in alone, like Bush did--never mind that pretty much everything else is straight from the Bush playbook. But I'm glad you all feel so good about those bombs dropping. I suppose it makes you feel better.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 12:16am

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

Icarus: How do you impose a no-fly zone, then, pray tell us? Do you wait for one of Khaddafi's jets to take off, then hope your missiles make it on time?

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 12:17am

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

I'm with scubby on blackmon too. These guys, Icarusr, malahat, irony and others demonstrate an adult level of discourse. Those bickering and insulting each other are just wasting pixels and boring everyone else. Don't let it deter you Iggy--just skip over it as I do. If we had waited for more Arabs, or less ambiguity from the consistently appalling Amr Mousa and his "League", there would be piles of bodies in Bengazi today. In the end it makes very little difference what kind of statements come from these hot-air balloons. We got the Resolution, and material support from sources that actually have some capabilities. It will be up to us and our current allies to make the most of it.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 5:29am

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

With the latest Arab League's cowardice, this campaign to save Muslim lives from the wrath of despots is shaping up to be chronicled by the Arab street's historians as another colonial reach from the West. They completely obliterated NATO's intervention on behalf of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and it looks like they are preparing to re-write this current chapter in their own way, again. That is why we did not see any mass rallies in the Arab capitals or in Europe's capitals calling for Ghaddafi to stop his atrocities. The history of this intervention has been pre-written by them and they are not going to get caught cheering for the rescue of fellow-Muslims if the rescue is being done by Western powers. It's quite irrational ans counter-intuitive, but then, what else is new? At least those saved by the allies will remember.

- noga1

March 21, 2011 at 7:39am

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

For a lurker, the possibility of a blog with just libref, nr, packard, k2k and mr. rationale is enough to make me cancel, too. I can't imagine that J.Chait could be pleased to see some of the best minds (even if they disagree with him) and interested lurkers like myself just take off. Doesn't sound to me like a fellow Wolverine.

- kras

March 21, 2011 at 8:29am

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

Go Blue!

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 9:20am

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

So, so far our excuses for the Arab league are as follows: They'll sneak in later, so as not to be noticed; the US "baited and switched." Icarus, you still haven't explained how, exactly. Hillary was quite clear of our intentions and plans--and the league had plenty of time to speak up. And then this from Powell: of course we shouldn't bother waiting for the Arabs, who can count on them? This one is a real beaut: And, I'm afraid to say, completely backs up Noga's opinion that we infantilize the Arabs. Maybe one of these days we can take away their TV privileges. The thing is, Powell, these are their brothers' bodies. Not ours. My babysitter's boyfriend is a marine, a tough guy who'd never compmlain, give a personal opinion about our actions, but you can best believe I really don't care to see him off the coast of Libya, possibly getting his boots dusty on their soil. And you know why? Because it's thinking like this: "It will be up to us and our current allies to make the most of it." The most of it? That's the best we can expect from this action? We're already doing this, "the most of it," on two other fronts, and they really don't seem to be appreciating our "best." But again, as some of you think, they're just children. They don't know what's good for them.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 11:41am

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

Oh, and Chait? You couldn't wait for us to get into Iraq. Didn't you apologize about that, or something? How do you look at yourself in the mirror? Are you not the least bit embarrassed or, say, UNCERTAIN?

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 11:47am

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

Molly: with a no-fly zone, you attack air defences, but are neutral about ground forces pursing other objectives than shooting down your warplanes. The "civilian protection" paragraph allows the Allies to actually attack ground forces that have nothing to do with threatening Allied aircraft. There is, in this sense, a fundamentally different objective and therefore choice of means and targets.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 12:01pm

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

You even cruise in under roid's intelligence level, kr. To group me with rationale is beyond preposterous; I have taken on the r entity dozens of times here and very sharply, at that. I have also refuted K2K. It is sad and perplexing that a highly literate, intellectual publication attracts so many fatuous commenters, such as yourself. Roid, you reveal yourself to be more of a fool as time goes on. You cite my posts as evidence against me, even as you swear at readers out here and call them morons. When I point this out, you just change the subject, and you have never addressed this oddity once. Well, why would you? There is nothing much you can say. And your reveling in name-calling and swearing at posters and your dirty exchanges with them says even more about you. This is a sad exercise for me, but for you, it is great fun. This reason that the human race has gotten as far as it has is because there are more people like me than there are like you, fortunately.

- liberalref

March 21, 2011 at 12:39pm

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

I hope none in the Arab Street reads icarus's theory of the US pulling a "bait and switch" trick on the Arabs. That's all they need, to complete the already forming narrative that the Arabs were being deliberately duped by Obama and his minions into getting them embroiled in a war against their own blood brothers. I tell you, there are no winning tactics where the Arab League is concerned, like a bad slot machine, no matter how much you put in, nothing ever pays off.

- noga1

March 21, 2011 at 12:45pm

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

Icarus, I just responded to your point on another thread. Sorry, but I'm going to sound awfully nasty there b/c I'm rather furious about this latest Arab turn-around. But I'll say it here really quickly: The Arabs heard and read what what the rest of the world heard and read. They had plenty of time to object; they were in on everything. You are giving them far more credit than they deserve. Guess saying two-facedness would just be too loaded, so I'll leave that one out. Noga, this line is brilliant: "I tell you, there are no winning tactics where the Arab League is concerned, like a bad slot machine, no matter how much you put in, nothing ever pays off." As you can tell, I'm seeeeething.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 8:47pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close