Stromata Blog

Libya: What Is Clear

Much may be unclear about the situation in Libya, but this is not: If the United States had announced a no-fly zone in early March, when the rebels held most of the cities and Mad Colonel Gaddhafi was clinging by his fingernails to Tripoli, the old regime would be gone by now. The proof is the recovery that the rebellion managed in the past week, after Tomahawk cruise missiles ravaged Gaddhafi’s air defenses, and NATO planes (mostly U.S.) began striking his military installations and knocking out his tanks. Unhappily, the rebels remain militarily unimpressive, so intervention on their behalf may have come too late to be decisive. The President’s speech this evening looked forward to a stalemate, to be ended by something turning up.

The President defended his dithering with the argument that Bill Clinton dithered months longer before intervening in Bosnia. Indeed, but the thousands of Libyans who have died and will die as the result of Presidential indolence won’t be comforted by the thought that it was possible to do even worse.

Another clear point is that the President had no real idea what he authorized when the intervention began. His statement on March 18th, before he jetted off to Rio, described a highly limited operation: “We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no fly zone.” That sounds much like what he now says our future course will be:

Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications.

Over the past ten days, the actual American role hasn’t consisted at all of “provid[ing] the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear” to enable others to do the enforcing. Rather, we have done most of the fighting ourselves, starting with the initial Tomahawk barrage, which was touted as “multinational” on the basis of the participation of one British submarine in an otherwise all-U.S. attack.

During the first few days, 85 percent of air sorties were by U.S. aircraft. That figure has now declined to a mere two-thirds. The President himself acknowledged that our forces did far more than lend support with “unique capabilities”:

We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighbouring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defences, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply.

One wonders, was the President deliberately misleading the world on March 18th? That’s not inconceivable, but it would have been such a pointless, quickly disproven lie. It seems more likely to me that he gave the green light to Operation Odyssey Dawn without inquiring into what it would involve. He had his own concept, conveyed in his public statements, but it didn’t reach the military commanders. A good thing, too. Had we provided nothing beyond “intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications”, the force brought to bear against Gaddhafi would have been perhaps a fifth of what was actually deployed. One has to be a super-Micawber to believe that would have been enough to preserve the rebels from disaster.

What has happened is history and can’t be altered. The situation is much worse than it should have been. What’s vital now is avoiding further aggravation. There are a number of ways that matters can deteriorate further:

• Gaddhafi could prevail, regaining control of the whole country, massacring his opponents, and renewing his world-wide terrorism (quiescent since the deposition of Saddam Hussein frightened him, by his own admission, into a less bellicose posture).

• Libya could endure a long, vicious civil war, making a farce of the President’s declared objective of protecting civilians.

• Opportunistic isolationism could infect American conservatism. To some extent, it is spreading already. Right-wingers disgruntled by the Obama Administration’s faltering course haven’t confined themselves to critiquing incompetence. They drag in purported Constitutional scruples that, if indulged, would render America powerless. If you really think that every use of our military must be authorized by Congress in advance, do you accept the corollary that 41 filibustering Senators can stymie action? Whatever the case at the present moment, there’s no general rule that the legislature is a wiser commander-in-chief than the President. If he should one day bomb London, blockade Israel or send Special Forces to help FARC overthrow the government of Colombia, Congress has adequate remedies. There are, too, solid political reasons for Presidents to seek advance approval of major operations, such as the two Gulf Wars. Libya, by contrast, is an example of where quick action was essential. It wasn’t taken, but how would matters have been improved if dithering had been built into the system?

• The only national interest that, in the President’s telling, is at stake in Libya is our humanitarian impulse. He deemed that necessary and sufficient, provided that other nations ratified our moral aperçu. The upshot is a strange contradiction. One the one hand, the President extolled the American exceptionalism that he has so often treated lightly:

  To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.

  And –

  But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.

  Yet we are apparently not to fulfill “our responsibilities to our fellow human beings” without the approval of other nations. Why not? The reason for constructing coalitions is to fight wars more effectively; they aren’t a transcendental imperative. In the first week of March, American action in Libya might have been backed only by Britain and France, but that would have been all that the circumstances required. Or let us imagine that the demonstrations in Syria bring the Assad regime to the verge of collapse. It’s easy to conceive a situation in which a few hours would make the difference between the deposition or survival of one of our bitterest enemies. Yet the Secretary of State, doubtless reflecting Presidential doctrine, has declared unequivocally that we would not act in such a case without the whole world’s prior consent.

  The contradiction between “America as moral leader” and “America as humble servant” is bound to lead to trouble – and not just because of delays. Not only do some nations “turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries”. They also fantasize atrocities that aren’t there. Already, one of the parties in the Norwegian government has declared that the intervention in Libya should be a precedent for multinational military action against Israel.

I hope that this web untangles soon, but I can’t say that my hope is backed by much confidence.

Libyan Footnotes

1. Some usual suspects, like Ron Paul and Richard Lugar, and some unusual, like Andrew McCarthy, are moaning that President Obama’s intervention in Libya is unconstitutional. The complaint, meritorious or not, seems rather premature. Our forces have yet to fire a shot, and the President’s statement yesterday (see the post below) more than hints that they never will:

We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no fly zone. [emphasis added]

But suppose that we do something more forceful than jam Iraqi radar and share satellite photos. If the Constitution requires Congressional authorization of this use of military force, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the President is to obtain it: He is to notify Congress with 48 hours after initiating action, and fighting can continue for up to 90 days while he waits for Congressional concurrence.

Assuming that the War Powers Resolution is constitutional, the President has yet to take a half-step toward violating its requirements. If it’s unconstitutional, as every President from Richard Nixon through at least George W. Bush (including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) insisted, there’s even less of an issue.

2. Not that legal conundrums seem likely to matter. Yesterday, Qaddhafi’s troops were 30 miles from Benghazi. Today:

Shooting erupted in central Benghazi Saturday morning, and rebel gunmen said they were fighting an advance by Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces into the heart of the rebel capital from the university on the southern approaches.

Grad missiles pounded the city and a fighter jet went down in flames in central Benghazi, sending up thick plumes of smoke.

Rebels mounted makeshift street barricades, but the advance of Col Gadhafi’s forces sent many of them fleeing. A reporter witnessed heavy exchanges of gunfire just one kilometer away from the city’s Ouzo hotel.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton will hold an urgent meeting with allied foreign ministers, and President Obama flies to Brazil.

3. A friend who works for a Congressman had dinner last week with Libya’s former ambassador to the U.S., the one who resigned and cast his lot with the rebels. The name of Sayyid Muhammad Idris bin Muhammad al-Mahdi as-Senussi (or at least part of it) came up, the man who was once King of Libya (1951–1983). The ambassador says that the Libyan public despises Idris’s memory – because he didn’t fight hard enough against Gaddhafi’s insurrection. The king’s heir, my friend adds, lives in the U.S. and, while not aspiring to reestablish the monarchy, has declared his support for what he calls “the counter-revolution”.

American Followership

A couple of weeks ago, when rebels held most of Libya, sweeping Mad Colonel Qaddhafi into history’s dustbin would have been a quick and painless process. This regime is, after all, no military powerhouse – it once lost a war against Chad – and it was down to depending on hastily hired mercenaries, unlikely to sell their lives dearly if menaced by a superpower.

At that juncture, according to President Obama, speaking this afternoon, “the United States and the international community moved swiftly” – so swiftly and to such great effect that by yesterday Qaddhafi’s thugs had reoccupied virtually the entire country. As they advanced, the President declared, “We are slowly tightening the noose.” Slowly even in geological time.

Then came yesterday’s abrupt turnaround. The noose will no longer be braided out of paper. With the best will in the world, the decision to go to (sort of) war may have come too late, after the rebels have suffered too many deaths and too much demoralization to carry on against what looks like the “strong horse”. Still, there might be a chance. Western air power can certainly pulverize the Libyan air force, and well-placed strikes might make it possible for the rebels to regain the offensive. In a war like this, between amateur, undependable forces, momentum can shift dizzily. Recall how rapidly the Taliban regime disintegrated in Afghanistan in 2001.

The problem is that the President’s statement made it obvious that he has no interest in shifting momentum or driving Qaddhafi from power. Let’s look at what he said:

Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable.

When he was doing nothing, the President declared that Qaddhafi “must go”. Now that he is willing to deploy the armed forces, all that he wants is protection for civilians (those whom Qaddhafi hasn’t already slaughtered) and unspecified “accountability”.

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Suppose that the regime complies. That outcome would be no victory, merely a de facto partition, to be followed, no doubt, by endless, fruitless negotiations. A cease-fire leaves most of Libya’s population, territory and resources in Qaddhafi’s grip, while the rebels sit in an unviable mini-state.

I have directed Secretary Gates and our military to coordinate their planning, and tomorrow Secretary Clinton will travel to Paris for a meeting with our European allies and Arab partners about the enforcement of Resolution 1973.

At the point when hours count – Qaddhafi’s spearheads are reportedly within 30 miles of Benghazi – we will coordinate and hold meetings. Once that’s all done,

We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no fly zone.

In plain English, the United States will furnish no combat forces, only our “unique capabilities”, i. e., electronic warfare assets. The actual fighting will be left up to the British, French and possibly Jordanian, Saudi, UAE or Qatari air forces. With all due respect, that amounts to putting in the junior varsity (or, in the case of the Arabs, the third string freshmen). There’s a large gap between American planes and pilots, and everybody else’s. Needless to say, the British and the French are much better than the Libyans; any dogfights will be unchallenging. But in the most difficult phase of the war – the destruction of Libyan air defenses – we need every iota of superiority. President Obama is refusing to do what is necessary and thus runs the risk that Western air power will have a mediocre impact.

[W]e are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal – specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya. In the coming weeks, we will continue to help the Libyan people with humanitarian and economic assistance so that they can fulfill their aspirations peacefully.

Again, ousting Qaddhafi is left off the table, while spending money to prop up the rebel zone is put onto it.

Now, the United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians. It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it. We are coordinating closely with them. And this is precisely how the international community should work, as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law.

And what if those other nations had not taken “a leadership role”? Would “Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians” have “driven” the Obama Administration to take any action? The implied answer is no. In the President’s eyes, the United States of America is the dutiful servant of “the international community”, a golem that sits quietly in the corner till called upon, then returns quietly to its place afterward.

Leaving aside American pride, American ideals, American exceptionalism and all those vulgar, obsolete notions, one still wonders: If the United States has no right to take the lead against a demented, hostile tyrant, why is it okay for Britain and France to do so? Is there something wrong with America that renders us unfit for any role but follower?

I hope no one asks the President that question. I don’t think I’d like his answer.

Update (3/19/11): For those who read French, Le Figaro has continuing Libyan updates. The latest news is that French Rafale and Mirage fighters attacked pro-Qaddhafi forces near Benghazi a few hours ago, “destroying several tanks”. Less encouragingly, the French foreign minister is quoted as “giving assurances that the goal of the operation is not to overthrow Qaddhafi”.

Mr. Obama, is appears, is not only timid himself but a cause of timidity in others.

From Civility to Civil War

We all knew – didn’t we? – that progressives’ enthusiasm for civility in politics would last only until they got mad about something. Came the fracas in Wisconsin, and the “Republicans are nazis” rhetoric was back in full force, along with efforts to disrupt state government and physically intimidate legislators. The Left has never liked it when the other side wins elections; by definition, that’s “undemocratic”.

There’s no point, of course, is trying to shame the progs by repeating the platitudes that they mouthed after the attempted murder of Rep. Giffords. Those sentiments were meant to apply in only one direction. Nor should we try to suppress left-wing incivility if we could. As long as they do nothing more than yell, the best response is to buy earplugs and engage in idiot-spotting.

Today, however, James Taranto calls attention to something more ominous than the vociferous and incoherent exercise of free speech. Seven Wisconsin labor union leaders have sent letters to local businesses demanding that they “publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin”, with a one week deadline for responses.

In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.

Five of the signatories head police or firemen’s unions. Quite simply and nakedly, public servants whose duty is to protect everyone’s life, liberty and property are threatening retaliation against citizens who do not publicly endorse the unions’ political stands and promising “public celebration” of those who do. This tactic goes far beyond endorsing candidates for office or other legitimate political activity. It aims to coerce agreement. The overt sanction is “only” an economic boycott, but when the police and fire departments put people on a blacklist, more ominous inferences naturally arise. Can the boycotted and the celebrated really expect to receive impartial treatment? Will public safety resources be equitably allocated to both groups? Will customers who defy the boycott be protected against violence by its supporters? What about businesses that just want to stay out of the controversy? (One of those has already been struck by vandals.) Most fundamentally, by what right do policemen and firemen impose penalties on men and women who are breaking no laws, whose only offense is to disagree with union leaders about the merits of public policy?

If, God forbid, the Left’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the democratic process degenerates into civil war, future historians will cite this incident as one of the first symptoms of the incipient conflict.

Learning from Japan

We don’t know at this point how badly the disasters in Japan – earthquake, tsunami, volcano, nuclear meltdowns – will end, but people are already starting to draw lessons, mostly the lessons that they know a priori are true and want the events to confirm. In particular, those who have consistently opposed nuclear power are shouting Danger! Danger! At an early stage, John Podhoretz (admittedly, not a natural optimist) gloomily forecast:

If the “nuclear emergency” at the power plant that is failing to cool its core gets worse, it will be the end of the renewed talk in the United States and elsewhere about the use of nuclear power, just as Three Mile Island ended the new construction of nuclear plants in the United States and Chernobyl slowed the progress worldwide.

Since he wrote that, the emergency has indeed gotten worse, and the legions of green progressives aren’t letting the crisis go to waste.

Not surprisingly, the defenders of the Atom are speaking up, too. William Tucker argues persuasively in Monday’s Wall Street Journal that “Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl”, while the Journal’s editors ask for more perspective and fewer “Nuclear Overreactions”:

Part of the problem is the lack of media proportion about the disaster itself. The quake and tsunami have killed hundreds, and probably thousands, with tens of billions of dollars in damage. The energy released by the quake off Sendei is equivalent to about 336 megatons of TNT, or 100 more megatons than last year's quake in Chile and thousands of times the yield of the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima. The scale of the tragedy is epic.

Yet the bulk of U.S. media coverage has focused on a nuclear accident whose damage has so far been limited and contained to the plant sites. In simple human terms, the natural destruction of Earth and sea have far surpassed any errors committed by man.

Within a few days, we’ll know for sure whether Mr. Tucker is an expert or a Pollyanna, but I suspect that many minds on the Left are already 100 percent made up. Whether the reactor containments hold or collapse, whether radiation releases are a blip against the background radioactivity or a devastating health hazard, the conclusions will be the same: Nuclear power plants are just oh so horrible.

The Sendei quake is the severest test ever of the safety of nuclear energy. If the Japanese plants don’t pass it, future energy policy needs to take that failure into account. On the other hand, if the only noticeable damage is to the plants themselves, won’t that suggest that the nuclear industry knows what it’s doing and that its precautions against catastrophe really work?

The Cunning Plan?

Lately I haven’t been blogging. Meanwhile, Barack Obama hasn’t been Presidenting – and he gets paid for that.

A possible explanation is that he’s read Dickens and recalls that Mr. Micawber ended his days quite happily and prosperously in Australia. Something did turn up after all. Maybe the same good fortune will follow President Wilkins Obama: The budget deficit will miraculously shrink. Businessmen will shrug off taxes and regulations to create goods, services and jobs. Peace will envelop the world, and Islamofascists will lie down with the Jews. A kind of worldwide National Siblinghood Week.

Presidential drifting seems to puzzle many people. They devise theories to unriddle it: He’s allergic to making decisions. He’s a puppet of the government labor unions. He’s lying low till last November’s election results wear off. He’s smarter than any of us, and masterful inactivity is really a cunning plan. I’d like to suggest a simpler, Ockhamite hypothesis: Barack Obama lets the winds carry him along, because he likes the direction they’re blowing.

Sure, conservatives see disaster looming, but don’t we always? From a progressive point of view, are matters all that dire?

Take the federal budget, for instance. The President’s latest proposal aims eventually to equalize revenues (at a level about 25 percent above the historical average) with outflows, disregarding interest on the National Debt. Anybody who’s ever had a credit card recognizes that practice as the gateway to bankruptcy. But bankruptcy isn’t the same for sovereign nations as for you and me. If/when the United States defaults, creditors won’t repossess the Great Plains. Instead, whoever is then in power will decide which obligations get paid and which get stiffed. It will be a moment for rearranging wealth and restructuring the entire American economy. If one believes that central planning by experts is the key to fairness and prosperity, while free markets are a barbarous relic, a crisis for U.S. bonds is not to be wasted.

There’s a risk, admittedly, that the “wrong” sorts will be charge when interest payments overwhelm the fisc, but the President’s strategy maximizes progressive political prospects. As the budgetary situation grows worse, the steps needed to forestall default will become more and more drastic and thus harder and harder to sell to the electorate. If Paul Ryan’s roadmap makes politicians nervous today, imagine what the equivalent will look like ten or fifteen years from now. I imagine we’ll all be Micawbers then.

The President’s passivity abroad is even more readily comprehensible. It’s conventional wisdom among progressives that America is widely and rightly hated by the rest of the world, and that our only proper stance is to sink humbly to our knees and beg forgiveness. The Obama White House reportedly is quite open about the joys of guiding a shrinking superpower.

There could, in fact, be intention rather than sheer incompetence behind the Administration’s most egregious misstep: declaring that the buffoonish tyrant Qaddafi “must go”, then making only the feeblest efforts to push him out the door. When you shoot at a king, you must kill him. If the President had no intention of acting, he should have kept silent. Now, if Qaddafi survives, as the Administration’s top intelligence official foresees, America will be not just a “weak horse” but, in the eyes of much of the world, a dead mule. On the other hand, if the rebels somehow topple the tyrant, they will have not a scintilla of reason to feel grateful to America.

That sounds bad, but isn’t there more than a sliver of sunshine if one shares the progressive daydream? America is powerful, because it has, by a huge margin, the world’s largest economy and strongest armed forces. What makes that power usable, though, is credibility and prestige. If no one believes that American forces will be deployed, the only way to win an unresolvable conflict will be to deploy them, no matter how small the objective. Once we reach the point where our choice is between perpetual wars and retreat into an isolationist shell, there will be no more hawks. In short, by being ineffectual today, Mr. Obama can render his successors ineffectual tomorrow.

He can also foster a trend that seems dear to progressive hearts: the reemergence of Islam. The alliance between Islamic supremacists and the Western Left is bizarre but understandable. Once America has withdrawn from the world, political and social arrangements elsewhere won’t be a progressive concern. What matters is that Islamic supremacism is an ideology that can rally the Third World and enable it to maintain its independence against any future resurgence of Western imperialism. A future George W. Bush won’t be able to pick off an isolated Saddam Hussein, nor will America be able to find allies in the dar-al-Islam. As for that imperial outpost in Tel-Aviv, it will fall before the united Moslem peoples.

That Barack Obama is, in reality, so foresighted and devious may seem improbable, but the worst of this speculation is that his state of mind doesn’t matter. Whether he is shrewd or inept, the consequences are the same. Today’s progressives are too bitter and misanthropic to feel happy, but, if they could see clearly through their anger, they would be smiling broadly nowadays instead of working themselves into a paranoid lather about Scott Walker and the Koch brothers.