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.
I remember checking out your blog years ago, and being impressed. As a SF fan who is not enamoured of the odious moral and cultural relativism rampant in (and out of) the genre community and as a Zionist Jew, I am more than chilled by the widespread 'new' anti-Semitism both within the genre community and in wider society..
Although on economics/politics I am to the left of you, I no longer care remotely for 'liberalism'. Leaves me cold. Check out my new blog http://seasonoftheredwolf.wordpress.com/
exposing base and extreme anti-Semitism and related immoral madness/relativism and hypocrisies in the science fiction genre community and I mean among writers, editors (I wouldn't waste my time on the fans).
I have unflattering tales to tell re a number of SF writers/editors (some very prominent and highly regarded, award winning writers), with all the evidence for what I claim. I am not risking libel and will certainly err on the side of caution. There will be major revelations and exposés at my blog over the coming months. My politics are very middle-of-the-road. See my 'what this blog is about' page for where I am coming from. No I am no dhimmi. I am a pro-Israel Zionist Jew, God forbid, so I am pretty much a parriah in the SF genre community overrun as you know by the same mindlessness, moral and cultural relativism and worse as the non-genre literary world.
I would have preferred to contact you via e-mail but I have some bloody problem with Outlook Express so the only way to contact you was this way. Sorry.
I am in the middle of publishing a major exposé on Holocaust Revisionism within the genre community (and I inadvertently brought it out of the woodwork)! Yes hardcore stuff, this time coming from a conservative (an editor of a SF critical review magazine) that nobody else has had anything to say about at all! Yes I present all the unambiguous evidence for this, I would never risk libel. It is all so chilling that it actually beggars belief. The first four parts have already been published, check the blog..
Although most of my forthcoming exposés are from SF writers, editors definitely on the Left end of the political spectrum. I assume you know how SF writers/editors/fans like their liberal counterparts in the academic and literary world have gotten all in a tizz over daring to offend Islam/ism (even as I admit somewhat fecklessly, crudely and clumsily), two genre personalities have been made persona non grata - disinvited from the leading feminist! SF convention (you can't make this up) and a semi-pro mag basically shut down respectively - yet base anti-Semitism including Holocaust Denial from a major genre writer recently deceased (and now an editor at a highly regarded SF review mag), and you hear very very little, if anything at all. See my very pertinent exposé of the genre community's moral relativism and hypocrisy here
http://seasonoftheredwolf.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/on-the-hue-cry-overreaction-to-the-elizabeth-moon-non-scandal-and-others-by-the-thought-police-of-the-genre-the-deafening-silence-to-late-sf-writer-james-hogans-holocaust-denial-by-sel/
Sorry once again that this is on a comment on your blog, but it was the only way of reaching you. Feel free to delete it. I won't take it personally. Please to bookmark my blog and spread the word. This is a major effort on my part and taking up so much of my time. Note I will be exposing obscene, eye-popping anti-Semitism among genre writers, editors (predominantly liberal).
If you have any queries, feel free to e-mail me.
Posted by: red wolf | Monday, April 25, 2011 at 04:15 AM