UN authorizes `all necessary measures' in Libya

[Zevico]

It isn't an American thing, and I would imagine that it's more thought out than you know.

Perhaps; I am no expert.

This is a 'multilateral' intervention (as if American interests were better served by obtaining the abstention of China and Russia at the UNSC). Not that it really matters, but the proponents of intervention consisted of the Europeans first, and only later the Americans (Asher imagines it to be the other way around, I notice).

Additionally, I certainly don't buy into the 'war machine' rhetoric Asher delights in using.

But Andrew McCarthy, in the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262377/nro-libya-editorial-i-respectfully-dissent-andrew-c-mccarthy), has made a number of interesting points on the intervention--
1. What is the purpose? A no fly zone, or attacks on Libyan targets, or bringing down Ghaddaffi? This hasn't been articulated by the Administration. The UN Resolution doesn't articulate it past "protecting cvilians"--but air strikes have a tendency to kill civilians and a prolonged civil war will do the same, unfortunately, so this is not a tenable rationale for the intervention.
2. Why support the rebels? They seem to consist of Islamists, communists and a few secular (possibly democratic, possibly not) persons, with the latter group a small minority in comparison to the other two. In other words it may be that supporting the rebels won't lead to a positive outcome for the Libyan people, because the rebels may act quite similarly (if not as flamboyantly) as Gaddafi.
3. How does this war serve American (or broader Western) interests, in light of point (2) above? Replacing one dictator with another dictatorial regime, whose interests will, on the foreign policy scene, actually be quite similar, seems counter-productive. Islamists and communists will not be waving American flags any time soon even if we bomb Gaddafi to oblivion.

This is a summary, but it seems a reasonably well put argument. Not all of the article is about this issue however, so don't take me as endorsing everything there--just these 3 points.

Additional thoughts--

4. "Compromising" by only intervening to ensure a continuing civil war may divert both the rebels' and gaddafi's attention from other issues (and lower the terrorism threat elsewhere as a result), albeit at the cost of Libyan lives. However, once the war is over, jihadists (foreign or not) will once again focus on the West, or Western targets, or their enemies in the region. How much time will this buy us? I don't know. But it may also buy us a 'mujahadeen effect'--because at the end of it Libyan and foreign radicals will turn their sights elsewhere. It will certainly weaken Gaddafis various terror projects, but what will they be replaced with?

Perhaps this is the reason for the intervention--I doubt it.

5. What some of the commentariat are worried about, however, is that there is no end plan--that this is just a jump into the dark. Perhaps, as you argue, this is an unduly dim view to take of the strategy in Libya. For my part I'm not so sure.

(For a pro-war view, the NRO editorial in support of the war is linked to in the first words of the article)

(For a similar analysis to Andrew McCarthy's from a Democrat [James Fallows, an excellent analyst imo], see http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/on-libya-what-happens-then/72741/)


And the major point, by the way--that American intervention is wrong in principle--is frankly proven wrong by the positive effect of the American presence in Europe.

[Dinner]

It isn't an American thing, and I would imagine that it's more thought out than you know. Everything else, I agree with you.

Yeah, the French and Italians were pushing for this mostly because they feared a flood of refugees.

[Zevico]

Yeah, the French and Italians were pushing for this mostly because they feared a flood of refugees.

Promote a civil war to prevent a flood of refugees? Assuming that is their motive (and I wouldn't know enough to say whether that is correct or not) then I hope they've got a very good plan...

[BeBMan]

The French have classic interests in North Africa and Sarkozy also takes this to improve his standing in domestic politics. As for refugees - Gaddafi was actually treated well by the west not only because of his "new" "anti-terror" stance after 2001 but also (from the Euro perspective) cuz he hindered illegal immigration to southern Europe, so bombing him creates not only more refugees but also removes the control he had over people moving around.

[germanos]

The French have classic interests in North Africa and Sarkozy also takes this to improve his standing in domestic politics. As for refugees - Gaddafi was actually treated well by the west not only because of his "new" "anti-terror" stance after 2001 but also (from the Euro perspective) cuz he hindered illegal immigration to southern Europe, so bombing him creates not only more refugees but also removes the control he had over people moving around.

I understood it was nothing more then an extortion scheme:
- Gaddaffy: Hey, European Infidel Dogs! All these immigrants I have here! Pay up or I'll send them over to Lampedusa!
- Berlusconi: Hey, fellow Europeans! Let's pay this business partner of mine some money so he'll stop sending these lousy brown guys over. There's to few brown gals among them
x EU pays
- 'Daffy[whisper mode]Get me some more of these kaffirs from subsahara to put the pressure on, I need more money[/whispermode] HEY, Silvio!
- 'Sconi: Hèhè, I made Europe pay last time, got me some good contracts for Fiat... HEY, EU!!!

[MOBIUS]

This begs several question and contains several flimsy assumptions.

What was the consequence of doing nothing? Why did the Americans think their support for Saddam was better than doing nothing? They did so because, in their view, an Iraq controlled by Iran--a possibility--was worse than helping the Iraqis. Helping the Iraqis preserved the desirable stalemate between the two countries which led to a cessation of hostilities. Not helping them involved the risk of losing Iraq to Iran, or a weaker Iraq. Iraq was a necessary counterbalance to Iran's power. If Iran has too much influence, it will begin to throw money towards 'revolutionary' causes everywhere, much as the Soviets did, and engage in a proxy war against American interests everywhere. It has done precisely this, incidentally, effectively lighting every tinderbox in the Middle East. Its 'ability' to do so, however, would pale in comparison to an Iran in control of Iraqi oil fields (or much stronger influence in Iraq--e.g. a religious Shia Iraqi regime, assisting Iran in its revolutionary aims) with its eyes cast on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

That was the outcome the Americans feared. Was it a reasonable fear? Well, in the scheme of things oil is pretty damn important to the global economy, and lighting a tinderbox in the oil-filled Middle East (not to mention attacking Western targets with impunity) would be a consequence of a strengthened Iran. Which is precisely what it is doing today.

So as between doing nothing and helping Saddam, helping Saddam was a reasonable decision. There was no other method of ensuring that Iran's expansionist proclivities failed.

Moreover, it is not as if the Baath Iraqi regime went to war in the hope of conquering Iran (an impossibility as Iran is much bigger). The Baath's members were being assassinated, and revolution being formented, by pro-Iranian and Iranian-funded Iraqi groups. They also funded the Kurdish militia. It was proxy war against the Baath; the Baath decided to turn things up a notch to prevent further activity. My point in saying this is not that the Baath was morally justified (Baathism is akin to Nazism, Arab-style, with socialist economic policy). My point is that the decision was a reasonable one for the Ba'ath to take. No one was prepared for Saddam to strike Kuwait later; people thought the Baath were brutal dictators, but not as grossly incompetent as Saddam proved to be. (Even if they knew this, however, it would still be better to risk a 'greater Iraq' than a much more powerful 'greater Iran.')



I made no such claim and do not claim as much now.


America is safer for having siding with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, as explained above.
Moreover, its decision to invade Iraq was based on the view that Saddam (1) would shortly possess nuclear weapons [as most intelligence agencies affirmed--presumably they were the 'liars' in your fantasy]; (2) that Saddam was grossly incompetent and likely to make for Kuwait given the opportunity (and he tried again in 1994, incidentally); (3) if and when Saddam would obtain nukes, the US could not credibly deter Iraq from invading Kuwait, absent perhaps the positioning of a permanent and sizable military force in Iraq and Iran (whose continued presence would always be subject to very big question marks). To me it is point (3) which is perhaps the weakest in the argument, but the argument is not that bad on balance. Point (2) was made out and as to point (1), well, it was the best info they had and they had to go on it.
All this is not to say that the occupation was a resounding success of course.

Pablum. I for one think the Libyan intervention is poorly thought out. There are serious questions to be raised about the outcome the Americans seek here and I don't see them being answered.

It's been conclusively proved that anyone who thinks the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a good this is a moron. Get over it and move on, thanks.

[Arrian]

Amusing, given that you've lined up in favor of yet another adventure in regime change.

-Arrian

[Asher]

Proportionately, it is. As far as "thinking we're the only one", I said, and you quoted, credit to Great Britain. I'm not going to debate you about the action. If you think Gadaffy is the good guy, that's your right. You also disagree with even the Arab League, but again, that's your right.

Seems the US/Britain/France have angered the Arab League now with their bombardment. Couldn't see that one coming.

[MOBIUS]

Amusing, given that you've lined up in favor of yet another adventure in regime change.

-Arrian

Actually, last I saw, I was in favour of preventing Gaddafi from murdering huge numbers of innocent civilians. Whereas, apparently you don't care.

It's an interesting conundrum:

Half of me actually thinks that Gadaffi should be allowed to crush the rebellion, because up until a month ago, the world saw him as the legitimate leader of Libya. It's not as if he's suddenly changed character, or anything...

[Asher]

I'm more concerned about the alleged links to Al Qaeda the rebels have.

The fact that they keep shouting "Allah Akbar" as the Libyan forces get killed concerns me as well.

[MOBIUS]

So you're swallowing Gaddafi's propaganda then...?

[Asher]

I've heard that there were cables leaked from WikiLeaks which show the US also suspects links to Al Qaeda. Dunno if that's accurate.

Like I said, we shouldn't be involved with Libya's civil war.

[dannubis]

Lybia is not Tunesia or Egypt. This is de facto a tribal war and we should never have gotten involved.

These people should realise that when you go on an armed offensive to topple the leadership you'd better be stronger than the one you want to take out. Otherwise you will get stomped upon. Tough luck.

In stead of spending all these millions in Lybia, we should be helping the Japanese in their rebuilding effort. Less sexy but so much more useful.

[Asher]

[Whoha]

Promote a civil war to prevent a flood of refugees? Assuming that is their motive (and I wouldn't know enough to say whether that is correct or not) then I hope they've got a very good plan...

Gadaffi has been allowing increased immigration from sub-saharan africa in libya, and these are the "refugees" that europe is concerned with.