Wow. Venocchi slices and dices Obama in a piece on Kerry and deservedly so. But I think she may also subconsciously be displacing some residual resentment against Kerry onto Obama here. After years of dithering, Kerry’s got a lot of make-up work to do.
The Democrat in the White House has backed down, in the name of pragmatism and reelection. President Obama is holding anti-bullying conferences, much the way President Clinton embraced non-controversial causes like V-chips. He’s cutting programs for poor people to show he’s no bleeding heart liberal. After Democrats like Kerry stood with him on health care reform, he’s letting Republicans like Brown water it down. When it comes to Libya, Obama doesn’t want to look like George W. Bush when he invaded Iraq; he would rather look like George H.W. Bush, who in 1991 encouraged the Iraqi people to stand up to Saddam Hussein and then watched while they were slaughtered.
Obama is afraid of making a mistake or even coloring outside the lines. Fearing he’ll become Bush II, he’s ending up like Bush I letting the Kurds eat chemical weapons.
<
p>It’s no fun holding your nose to support a mediocre President. It’s better than hero-worship or reality denial, I suppose, but it’s not much fun.
Our best hope was always that American democracy and solidarity would attract the developing world to us. We couldn’t and weren’t competing with China on money, so our best hope was that people would like us. Well, we’ve blown that as we twiddle our fingers on no-fly zones and look the other way as Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain.
<
p>So go with the US and you’re on your own, or go with China and you’ll have a business partner. Not a tough choice.
After all, I think they’re really the people who are supposed to decide stuff like this.
What, exactly, you want the President to do? Do you want to see U.S. troops on the ground in Libya?
So I assume the U.S. is on board- seems like a reasonable first step.
…and urged the Security Council to take this action. The vote was 10-0-5. The abstainers were Russia, China, India, Germany, and Brazil, the first two of which could have unilaterally killed the motion by voting no. Italy has offered air bases and apparently France is most anxious to move on this.
<
p>This is definitely a heart vs. head issue for me. Heart says go for it and help those fighting for democracy. Head is a little more hesitant, wondering about consequences for us and the potential for mission creep.
It will do wonders if Quadafi gets to put a win vs “The West” in his cap. It is also worrisome that some of the reasons set forth for engaging here amount to proving that we, the US, still have “it.”
<
p>Having the West use force against the government, operating from air bases in Italy, the former brutal colonial power, and then lose would be a dreadful development, and so once we are in, it is in for a penny, in for a pound. If the no-fly zone doesn’t work, which it may very well not (because it took so long) then what?
Imposition of a no-fly zone without any US troops on the ground is a specific step often discussed, to offer one answer to your question.
<
p>President of the American University in Cairo and former Dean of the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs Anderson:
<
p>
Better said, a “useless first step.” Imposing order on Libya implies boots on the ground. Is that what you want?
Why stop there? Why not finally punish the Chinese for their brutal crackdown on Tiannamen and their 1,000+dissidents executed every year after being tortured? Why not push the incumbent thug in the Ivory Coast out of power instead of letting him run his country in another civil war and using his gangs of child soldiers to rape and pillage (quite literally) the opposition? Why not force Fidel to finally free his jail cells or go after Qaddaffi enabler Hugo Chavez? Why not free the Iranian people from their theocracy and stabilize proliferation in the region? Why not punish Pakistan and its intelligence service for continued sectarian violence in Kashmir that kills thousands a year? Why not overthrow the torturers and butchers in Central Asia? Belarus? Why Qadaffi and not Mugabe? Or Bashir? Or Assad? Why not the US backed regimes in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain which are also cracking down nearly as violently?
<
p>In the words of President Adams, “we ought not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy”
There are ways to put pressure on nations without resorting to war. It makes no sense to go into China now because of Tiannamen, but I’m quite upset that we did nothing at the time. Instead we pretended nothing happened and even renewed most favored nation status. We also have deliberately propped up oppressive regimes and have sometimes been responsible for creating them, thus going against everything we supposedly stand for. Locals should take the initiative, but once that initiative is taken, the US needs to make it abundantly clear that the nation on whose soil was fired the shot heard round the world, which proclaimed for all times and places that all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, will be first in line at least morally and with our words to support the democratic asperations of others. Frankly, if we can’t or won’t do at least that much, why aren’t we still a set of British colonies?
As a student of international relations, particularly the (widely diverse and contested) strain of thought known as realism, it is just impossible to be a world power and keep your hands clean. World politics requires terrible alliances with some unsavory regimes to achieve greater political objectives. It was Churchill who was happy to make an alliance “with the Devil himself” as he viewed Stalin to defeat the greater evil of Hitler and end the Second World War. We gave aid to a genocidal maniac to defeat another genocidal maniac who posed a much greater threat to human rights and the world order, and gave aid to someone who ended up using that aid to defeat and enslave other allies of ours and possibly wage war against us. But few historians would tell you that Britain and the US could have done it alone against Nazi Germany.
<
p>That said I also find realism cold and dispassionate and it lends itself to short term calculations at the risk of long term blowback (making Afghanistan into a Russian Vietnam came at the cost of creating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, backing the Shah over a Soviet sympathizer gave rise to the Ayatollah, averting a second Cuban missile crisis by taking out Allende emboldened one of the worst human rights abusers in recent history, etc.). So a new way forward, which Obama and his team should adopt, is broadly supporting human rights and supporting international action like this one to contain and even rollback the worst regimes, while also ensuring that regimes that can be cut off without endangering US interests (like Bahrain, like Egypt, but maybe not Yemen) are eased out of US sponsorship.
<
p>This broad action, supported by regional collective security agencies like the Arab League and NATO while also utilizing the UN Security Council, is a step in the right direction and can hopefully renew the collective security school of thought and embolden future multilateral humanitarian actions. I see collective security as the only way to get around the problem of international anarchy, and the only way to defeat Hobbesianism is with a Leviathan. The UN is the only legitimate Leviathan I can think of.A truly World Police is far more legitimate and effective than a solely Team American version.
As I write this, we are engaged in military operations against the government of Libya because it is violently suppressing its civilians, while studiously doing nothing about Bahrain while it does the same.
<
p>Bahrain is the headquarters of the US Navy Fifth Fleet, and is geographically and politically close to Saudi Arabia, our third largest foreign petroleum supplier (behind only Canada and Mexico). Both are governed by monarchies, both monarchies are kept in power by generous US military assistance, and both monarchies are using that generous US military assistance to violently suppress their civilian uprisings.
<
p>I grant that Moammar Khadafy is dangerously insane and needs to be removed. On the other hand, he is no more insane today than he was in 2004 when we re-established full diplomatic relations with Libya (suspended in response to his role in directing the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103).
<
p>The reality of our current response to the uprisings throughout the ME is that Egypt is in control of a military government dependent on and friendly to the US, as is Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.
<
p>My impression is that the reality of our stance towards the uprisings in the ME is to do as little as possible, while ensuring that as little change as possible actually takes place.
<
p>Our primary strategic objective appears to be, as it always has been, to preserve maximum availability of affordable petroleum to western interests — regardless of the costs to the civilian population of the region.
<
p>Whether we call it “realism” or something less euphemistic, our role in the ME is unsustainable in the long run. There are two drivers of our ME policy: (1) Our petroleum addiction, and (2) Our essentially religious support for the state of Israel.
<
p>So long as America remains in denial about our petroleum addiction, no sustainable ME presence is possible. If we ever do successfully break our petroleum habit, we will then be forced to confront the reality of how much our unwavering support for Israel is costing us, and the reality of its religious foundation here in the US.
<
p>Until that happens, our efforts in the ME are merely smearing lipstick on a pig.
<
p>
You’re kidding, right?:) I am shocked, shocked to discover that there is realpolitik going on in this establishment!
<
p>I keep saying if we get this whole freedom thing down consistently, we will be a whole lot more respected and ultimately safer. Sounds like a win-win to me.
<
p>If monarchy is important to some of these countries I’d be OK with pushing them toward European style constitutional monarchies. I’m also perfectly fine with being friends with Israel, by far the most free country in the region, while speaking the truth, as real friends do, about their occupied territories, which rank quite a bit lower.
I note in your second link that Arab residents of Jerusalem are allowed to vote in municipal elections, but not national.
<
p>Our founding fathers chose a similar approach with Washington DC. I think most of us who have lived in the vicinity would agree that the approach has had, um, somewhat limited success. Perhaps Marion Barry has a political future in Jerusalem đŸ™‚
<
p>
Prospective Mayor of Jerusalem?
…which I’m going to resist going off on. I have opinions on both of those cities.
…that for all our chest-thumping about the evils of communism, often leading us to support regimes at least as tyrannical even if in a different way, that the one Soviet dictator with whom we were allied was probably also the most tyrannical.
I agree with both of you that it definitely smacks of hypocrisy for the US to oppose Qaddaffi, who as recently as six months ago who were in an uneasy friendship, while also supporting the tyrannies in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen. It is all very complicated and again I prefer a President that takes his time and gets international consensus on these issues than one who leads with his gut and supports disastrous democratization too soon as Bush did in Gaza and Lebanon. The US, either out of continued anger of the hostage crisis, had done little to embolden moderate Iranians like Khatami or Moussavi and we could have more actively backed those revolutions, not with force, but with the power of our example and pledged support. Similarly, in Bahrain we could have and should have used our coziness with the regime to ease Bahrain, the Saudi’s, and Jordanians into constitutional monarchies that allowed multi-party free elections. I am convinced that had we sided with the Shia majority in Bahrain up front and center to demand the end to their subjugation in Bahrain they would not have been so cozy with Iran. Just as Trujillo and Zse Seko used the spectre of communism to their advantage the regimes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are also doing the same with Iran as the scapegoat. There is no doubt in my mind that a democratic Iran would rebuild its economy and give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for investment in a heartbeat, no doubt in my mind a democratic Bahrain and Syria would be less receptive to Islamic extremism. But getting from point A to point B is a lot easier than simply stating point B is how it should be, and so far I have seen few scenarios to get us there that would protect both our principles and our interests. Also what people tend to forget is that we are dying for Europe and Japan’s oil, not our own, and perhaps its time the world do some more of the heavy lifting.
I only hear passing references on the news to protests in Bahrain and Yemen, so I feel I don’t know the whole story. I think the difference between Egypt and Libya is instructive. As I recall, with the exception of one day of Mubarak supporters throwing rocks back, the regime didn’t really crack down. The military has now taken over and arrangements are being made for elections, hence no need for intervention. Libya, on the other hand threatened to bring down the full force of the government on the protesters and was, if not still is, on the verge of civil war. So I guess my question is whether the situations in Yemen and Bahrain are closer to Egypt or Libya. If the former, I’m happy to stay out of the way; if the latter we need to be applying more pressure. I’m not the biggest fan of the Saudi monarchy, but I haven’t heard of protests in Riyadh, so I don’t see need for intervention there.
The equivalency game being played by some on the far left is misleading, the sheer number of deaths and brutality employed by agents of the state against protesters is at its worst in Libya, where there is also an organized and legitimate mass resistance. In Yemen and Bahrain the resistance is scattered and divided, and both are full of more extremist elements. I think Bahrain, if handled properly, can be coaxed into a constitutional monarchy that gradually surrenders more and more of its power to the people a la Bhutan. Jordan should also voluntarily follow the same path, and the cosmopolitan King Abdullah and Queen Rania seem like the people to do it. Yemen was tougher but with today’s military defections it seems like the easiest thing to do is back one of the populist generals and let them ease the transition to democracy, that way the people can claim they removed the President while also ensuring leaders that favor democracy as opposed to theocracy, can maintain power.
Without any insight at all into who the Libyan rebels are and what they represent, it’s foolhardy, in a realpolitik sort of way, to lend them arms. Israeli encouragement of Islamist opposition to the PLO and Carter’s and Reagan’s encouragement of the Afghan opposition should make us, at least, hesitant.
<
p>It’s pretty clear right now that Qaddafi is about to end the rebellion very soon. It’s unclear that a no fly zone will have any effect militarily. It’s unlikely that enforcers of a no-fly zone are going to just shrug their shoulders, say “oh well,” and walk away defeated.
<
p>After 8 years of someone making decisions “from the gut” we’re going to do what again?
Frankly, it would have been akin to Afghanistan 2001. Now, I can’t imagine that a no-fly will freeze Gaddafi’s advance. At the very least, some bombing campaigns would be necessary.
<
p>The Libyan rebels are the usual two camps — Islamists of questionable commitment to secular democracy, and secular middle/upper class folks. Remember, the rebellion was started by Benghazi lawyers, and the rebellion’s headquarters remains that main city courthouse. The Islamists in Egypt seem to be real team players, so that is hopeful (not necessarily accurate) precedent.
<
p>What I don’t quite understand is why the US has to be in on this. This resolution was a French baby, and it’s not as if the Libyan Air Force has the latest vehicles. Can’t France and the Arab League enforce it themselves?
He waited to assemble a multinational coalition, he got UN approval, and we will be going in with a light footprint and a massive amount of international cooperation. Make no mistake about it, many diplomats were working behind the scenes to make sure this resolution passed, with unusual Russian and Chinese cooperation I might add, probably for weeks. Publicly pronouncing that they would happen would’ve been a terrible move, given Qaddafi warning to make a diplomatic push on his fellow autocrats. I would rather we not get involved in other peoples civil wars, we have no idea what kind of government will take over or if it will respect human rights, civil liberties, or women and minorities. We have no idea if it will be friendly to the US. We have no idea if we aren’t just removing a Tito and Balkanizing a trible country. The heart feels and it always clouds the judgment of the mind, no matter how sound. But if we are to govern with our hearts, after all this is America a beacon of liberty to the world, let us lead by the power of our example and do this the right way. I’d rather a President smart enough to go in the right way a little too late, than a President go in the wrong way and way too early.
<
p>The President promised to lead a more humble, more multilateral, more humane, and more realistic foreign policy. He has superbly proven himself throughout these crises and history will judge his actions prudent. Isn’t this what progressives wanted?
But I didn’t buy the behind-the-scenes action meme when it came to the Bush Administration, and I won’t take it on faith because Obama has 40 or so more IQ points.
<
p>I’m sure the Department of State, etc. was working on the issue, but lacking evidence, I’m not going buy the Administration’s tardiness on Libya as some sort of 3-dimensional chess that Obama and friends couldn’t share with the rest of the class.
<
p>As far as the idea that “we ought not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” Adams may have been right. On the other hand, we haven’t gone looking for this monster. That was the Bush Administration, if I recall. Libyan rebels have driven Qadaffi out of his cave; we have the opportunity to help them; it’s convenience, not doctrine, that compels us.
You flatter Bush.
I know that there’s a lot of precedent for this broad view of the Commander-in-Chief, but I don’t really like it. I like the idea of Congress being the body that declares war, and I always thought the Constitution was pretty clear about that.
is pretty much War.
That depends on your view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Act of 1973. If your a a strict textualist than nothing short of the War Powers Clause (the clause directly in Article II relegating war powers to the Congress) is required for any military action. Though such declarations were not made against the Shay, Whiskey or Southern rebellions. Similarly the Quasi War and Barbary Wars were not declared wars, so arguably its not. That said, if after 30 days of military action, this Congress does not authorize force against Libya, in my view, that does violate the War Powers Act of 1973. David or another legal expert will chime in with much better information.