RSS Feed MenuGeorge Will posed some questions for Libya interventionists the other day. Here are some questions for non-interventionists:
* If Muammar Qaddafi violently suppresses the Libya uprising while America stands by, will Arab and Muslim opinion really believe that we were “neutral”? Or will they believe that we tacitly support Qaddafi – as they believed through the 1990s that we tacitly supported Saddam Hussein?
* What behavior can we expect from a Muammar Qaddafi who survives this uprising? Qaddafi turned to the West after 2003 because he was frightened by the overthrow of Saddam. Having crushed an uprising – and successfully defied an American president – which way will Qaddafi turn next? How confident are you that he won’t revert to terrorism, if not against Europe then against a newly volatile Egypt right next door?
* Iran crushed its uprising in 2009, with impunity. Hezbollah has seized power in Beirut. Hamas holds Gaza. The Muslim Brotherhood is rising in Egypt. Who looks like the ascendant power in the Middle East today? Iran or the United States?
* How many Libyans will flee the country after the rebellion is crushed? Where will they go?
* If you are the king of Saudi Arabia, what conclusions do you draw from the fall of American ally Mubarak and the survival of American enemy Qaddafi?
* If you are the prime minister of Iraq, what conclusions do you draw from the apparent regional ascendency of Iran and the apparent decline of the United States?
* If you are the president of Syria, what conclusions do you draw from the success of Qaddafi’s brutal suppression of revolt?
* If you are the president of Venezuela and you lose an election, how will you react when President Obama tells you that you “must” honor the election results?
* If you are a Libyan insurgent and you are offered arms by international Islamist groups, do you say yes or no?
Primrose // Mar 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm
It am not opposed to a no-fly zone but I think Obama was correct to wait until it was a United Nations plan and or asked for by the Arab League or Organization of African states. It is a culture where concepts of humiliation and honor/face are very strong and a too obvious hand makes it all go bluey (as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven).
As to an earlier post not thinking Rwanda worth it… If preventing genocide (and Rwanda was easily preventable) is not in America’s interests, we have lost our way as a people.
Primrose // Mar 13, 2011 at 5:25 pm
This event highlights the stupidity and ignorance of President Obama. He is shallow and simple minded and cannot be relied upon for decisive action in defense of vital American interests.
Actually, Kurlis, it is shallow and simple-minded to think that decisive action must be obvious, muscle flexing. Some of the most decisive, EFFECTIVE action will never see the light of day. Did Tallyrand and Bismark make their every move known? No. How Machivelli would have laughed at your statement Kurlis. I’m not a chess player but it is my understanding that you don’t make your winning strategy known at the outset. Even in football, are there not feints and deceptions? Even villains in B-movies understand this.
Waiting for the world to come to us and demand we put a no-fly zone into effect, is far wiser, far less simple-minded than wandering in shouting America is a superpower, do as we say.
Foreign policy is not entertainment. We should use effective strategies regardless of their emotional satisfaction or their film-ability.
Tempest in a Frumpot // Mar 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm
“What is the ideology justification you speak of AND what is the ideology of the rebels?”
One, as Primrose pointed out preventing an massive humanitarian nightmare which will overwhelm Egypt is a nice start. This is likely a once in a generation opportunity to bring about a Arab spring, where the people take it upon themselves to take control of their own political process. From Tunisia to Egypt we might have pluralistic functioning Democracies. The justification of Al Qaeda (whose leadership and ideology came from Egypt) was that westerners were in control of their political process via proxy. This would fundamentally ruin Al Qaeda.
Now you might believe that Muslims or Arabs are incapable of Democracy and liberal self government. If you believe so, say so. Is there risk involved in backing the rebels, certainly. But look at the makeup of the leadership in Benghazi, they are mostly Lawyers, Doctors, many who speak English fluently, this is what the people in Benghazi have already designated as their leaders, this in the midst of a civil war (they could have selected a charismatic military figure)
Look, the world is facing unprecedented environmental challenges in the coming decades. To leave (or allow to happen because we will not LIFT one finger) a whole region repressed, with an undercurrent of seething resentful people is insane.
For decades after Mao took power they fed their people a steady diet of anti American propaganda, but when Mao died the leadership took a look at their country and realized they were doomed unless they were to change. Mao did not have children who were capable of leading the country so no dynasty took hold. This is not true in Libya. It will remain a kleptocratic and rogue state that has in its own interests to see to it that the rest of the Middle East remains as they are.
I have already shown that you were wrong that after the bombing Libya went quiet, how much greater the possibility that they will do far worse next time? I don’t know. I see no reason to take that chance.
Anyway, a no conflict zone will not push him to any wall, he will and still can maintain power in Western Libya as he assesses his own chances for long term survival. If he did try anything nuts then how much easier would it be to fully take him out instead of starting at worse than scratch, a beaten down, traumatized population who will resent the hell out of us for not doing anything when we had the chance.
pnumi2 // Mar 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Tempest
I certainly understand your point of view, but obviously I don’t agree with it. I’m sure it is not true in your case, but to me and those like-minded, the ideology your refer to is analogous to WMD. A rallying cry to achieve something you don’t want to admit to.
To your credit you admitted to it.
“So if there were no self interest involved and this was purely done as a humanitarian operation to save hundreds of thousands of Libyans, you would support it then? I take it the answer is STILL no.”
Look at the facts: How many innocents are dead as a result of the war we brought to Iraq? What is the quality of like there absent the full return of the utilities and the qualitities of life that existed before we invaded? How long will life be this way?
How is it possible for one human being to make a decision like Iraq, which will mean the deaths of so many people and disruption of the lives of a hundred times many more?
No, I can not say here from the comfort of Southern California: “General, go in with Shock & Awe and rid this country of it’s ruler. Try not to hurt the innocent but if you have to, so be it.”
And now 8 years later the road side bomb and the suicide vest are in their 3rd or 4th improvement and suicide volunteers are lining up to get work.
I am not an isolationist. I supported or involvement in Bosnia because we were there purely for ideology. There was no mistake about that.
I’m not sure if God created America to be the headmaster of the rest of the nations, but I don’t think the Founders saw it that way.
@Tempest in a Frumpot: “There is self interest involved in this as well. We can and do pick and choose our fights based on part ideology and part naked self interest. This fulfills both.”
Okay. I’ll give you and your ideology 3%.
Tempest in a Frumpot // Mar 13, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Look at the facts: How many innocents are dead as a result of the war we brought to Iraq?
This is what precisely infuriated me about Bush, that his incompetence would petrify Americans for a generation that the next war will be precisely the same as the last one.
Again you have not answered my question. How is a demarcation line and a no fly zone in Eastern Libya analogous to Bush’s invasion of Iraq? Hell the government in Benghazi can even pay for that no fly zone long term with oil revenues.
A demarcation line has prevented war between North and South Korea. Shall we tear that apart and pull our troops away now?
After the first tank convoy gets blown apart I can not see them doing that again. At worst you will get a large convoy stop short of the line and all of the soldiers defect leaving the equipment behind instead of getting blown to bits.
We are talking about open desert here, not city streets, far from radar sites. If they shoot down a drone we take out their SAM site (hell, we also have satellite, how the hell are they going to shoot that down?)
pickup trucks from Tripoli are not going to take down Benghazi. No artillery, no planes, and no tanks means peace.
Tell me where this is wrong?
Tempest in a Frumpot // Mar 13, 2011 at 6:33 pm
pnumi: Okay. I’ll give you and your ideology 3%.
So if pnumi were Patrick Henry it would have been “give me 3% Liberty, I am cool with just that.”
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
For myself, sincerely, this is mostly ideology but I understand the limits to which we can go in support of liberty (no, I don’t have proof it will be a liberal democracy, but I have faith it can be and as such is worth the risk) so I am not averse to arguing for self interest when need be.
pnumi2 // Mar 13, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Of course, a no-fly zone and a line of demarcation are not the invasion of Iraq. Do we take them down if the rebels and Qaddafi make peace? Will there be resistance to doing so?
Unintended consequence speaks for itself.
But worst of all, would be the deliberate sabotage causing American casualties perpetrated by Qaddafi, the rebels OR an unknown third party blaming one of the first two parties and interested in creating a hot war.
So, no, you and your idealism are not wrong. But Realpolitik is still at work on this planet and the road to hell is paved with it.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 13, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Tempest: “Do you really think when Benghazi is razed to the ground casualty figure will remain low? And the 1,000 casualty figure is pure fantasy. Are you being paid by Gadhafi?”
Do you have any evidence the death toll of 1,000 is pure fantasy? If so, please provide a link that disputes the observations of professional journalists.
http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=7015
As for a no-conflict zone, you seem to have an almost fairy-tell like belief in the power of the statements of the President of the U.S. Who cares if Obama called for a no-conflict zone? That is essentially what Obama and every other world leader have been doing since the violence erupted. These leaders have deplored the use of violence on both sides and they’ve asked for a cessation of violence. Gaddafi has ignored these calls and so have the rebels.
It’s a civil war in a country that is of no vital interest to the U.S. So far, roughly 1,000 people have died, a number which pales in comparison to many of the other civil conflicts in the world. There is no good reason for the U.S. to expend any money or lives to influence the outcome of a Libyan civil war, and neither you nor any of the others supporting intervention have offered any good reasons for doing so.
Traveler // Mar 13, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Spartacus,
Your own link states that as of March 8:
“The official death toll in the Libyan conflict has officially surpassed 1,000. While the actual death toll is likely much higher, these numbers come from the numbers of confirmed deaths. It has been very difficult for outside journalists to verify and [sic} of these figures.
But they are getting worse. There are more reports of crimes by the Qaddafi regime and there is now word that the regime is killing soldiers that will not fire on protesters…”
That was posted 5 days ago. So you still think its still only a 1000, after verified reports of mercenaries snatching up and burning bodies on the beach, wholesale torture witnessed by BBC crews and two more towns retaken since that post? Boy I would love to get a hold of what you are smoking. I too like to escape reality myself from time to time.
But it is really unbelievable you rate rebels that have taken up arms against far superior odds in a key geopolitical arena as being no more important than farmers in Darfur. As humans, you are absolutely right, but as opponents of a regime that bombed us long before we responded with direct action on military targets, and then retaliated with Lockerbie, you make me puke. The more I write, the more I get pissed at that attitude. Why not just bend over?
Tempest in a Frumpot // Mar 13, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Do we take them down if the rebels and Qaddafi make peace? Will there be resistance to doing so?
Sure, why not? And resistance from whom?
“Unintended consequence speaks for itself.” So the intended consequences of doing nothing is better how?
And what sabotage is this you are speaking of? How are they going to get onto an Italian airbase? There will be no US troops on the ground. Drones, SAMs will take care of the rest. If a Gadhafi jet managed to run the gauntlet we can intercept it with one of our planes, but this is unlikely. These are old Russian and Chinese planes and are no match for us. Far more likely random equipment failure might happen, but that happens anyhow and a US pilot bailing out over Benghazi is not likely to come to harm.
“But Realpolitik is still at work on this planet and the road to hell is paved with it.” That I agree with, but that is what you are arguing for. I am more motivated by good intentions, not realpolitik.
by the way thanks to pnumi and llbroo49 for not engaging in cheap insult saying I am “hysterical” and such crap.
I am no general but I am a student of history. I know how Rommel was defeated and he was a superior General. He was stretched too far, the same logistical nightmare would face Gadhafi if we place a line in the sand for him not to cross. He would have no method to get to Benghazi or parts east.
pnumi2 // Mar 13, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Why wouldn’t Patrick Henry have taken 3% death? Doesn’t it sound like a better deal?
I too am an idealist and liberty is my ideology. But I’m beginning to think that mankind has recently passed from one paradigm into another. I think it’s only a coincidence that this passage happened at the turn of the millennium and the Mayan Calendar.
Having said that, everything you and I are used to, hang in the balance. They’ll certainly be gone for future generations but will we see them gone in our lifetimes? I always thought the ‘future’ would bring either ‘1984′ or ‘Brave New World’. It’s looking a lot like it’s the former. The other day I was ranting about ‘peak oil’ and what it meant. I’m not sure everyone considers it’s impact on our existence. I’m not sure they want to. It’s the prototype of the “game changer.”
Sorry to end on a depressing note.
Traveler // Mar 13, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Tempest,
Nice job of fighting a tenacious battle with pretty reasonable opposing points of view. I have to admit you still have me in your corner, as I see your position being both tenable and feasible. In support of this, see what life for Qhadafi is thought to be:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12720643
This article suggests the rebellion is by no means as hopeless as I surmised. Others that know a lot more than me seem to think otherwise. In which case there is still time to assemble support for intervention. Having the Arab League already requesting a NFZ is pretty important there.
So add a little drones and NFZ to the mix, and how can that be so bad? Sometimes we as a nation have to show a little spine. Looking at all future adventures through the lens of Bush’s total incompetence is steering by looking at the wake. We need to look ahead here folks, and there is an unprecedented opportunity if the cards are played right.
To my thinking, BO may have just done so. If he can marshal the support of the Arab League and most of Europe that has the main skin in the game, how can a NFZ and selective droning be such a misplaced adventure? The upside is huge, while the downside seems pretty small The Chinks and the Russkies dont go along with a UN resolution? Come on, they are complete shills for totalitarianism. Let’s force their hand, and make them vote with the likes of Zimbabwe.
Tempest in a Frumpot // Mar 13, 2011 at 7:34 pm
As for a no-conflict zone, you seem to have an almost fairy-tell like belief in the power of the statements of the President of the U.S. Who cares if Obama called for a no-conflict zone?
Who is talking about statements? I am talking about creating a demarcation line in Eastern Libya over which neither side can cross, call it a demilitarized zone. It has worked in Korea for generations. This is open desert miles between cities. I don’t think you know just how big Libya is and how few people there are.
What Americans will die by the creation of a DMZ patrolled by drones, spy satellites, etc. There is no way in hell a major military convoy can slip past unnoticed day or night, they don’t have an extensive road system and travelling over open sand would be even more difficult (if not impossible)
As to the 1,000, read the statements of the doctors in hospitals of the number of dead and wounded. You think firing into a crowd in Tripoli will result in what exactly? Anyway, Benghazi has 700,000 people, how the hell can you imagine a major city like that can be taken with few casualties, or once taken Gadhafi not slaughter the citizens. Lets not be naive here.
“neither you nor any of the others supporting intervention have offered any good reasons for doing so.” I am sorry, but this just pisses me off, I have written dozens of posts why and because you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
A humanitarian crisis in Egypt can lead to a breakdown in their society, do you suggest that Egypt shoot refugees? Therefore it will cost us billions to house and feed the refugees (and you are naive if you think we won’t pick up the tab for a large chunk of it). In addition, Al Qaeda feeds off of the line that the US is utterly indifferent to the fate of ordinary Arabs. A free and Democratic Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt would undercut his rational immensely.
Obviously you have never lived in the third world and do not understand the toxicity of resentment of subject peoples, many who do blame the US for their condition. Don’t pretend otherwise. Give them control of their lives (or better yet, aid them to win their own freedom) and we can move towards a day when Islamic radicalism is a memory. Turn your back on them and you might personally pay the price. (guarantee me that Gadhafi will not use his oil billions to buy a nuke from North Korea and then give it to some radical outfit who will pull up to NY harbor and detonate it, seriously, I want a 100% guarantee that it won’t happen. I can offer it, you can’t.) A Gadhafi who is outside of all western restraint is capable of anything. A Gadhafi who is stuck in some Saudi palace, not so much (and a DMZ will make that prospect more and more appealing as his money dwindles financing an army he can’t use)
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 13, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Tempest: “Who is talking about statements? I am talking about creating a demarcation line in Eastern Libya over which neither side can cross, call it a demilitarized zone. It has worked in Korea for generations.”
It’s rather ironic that the DMZ on the Korean peninsula is your model for a no-conflict zone in Libya. The Korean DMZ was possible only after the two sides had fought a bloody war. Moreover, how do you think the DMZ was and is maintained? It’s through the use of troops on the ground. So, if you’re not talking about “statements”, then you have to be relying upon troops on the ground to enforce a DMZ and to do so at a time when neither of the warring sides want a DMZ – again, another significant difference between the Korean DMZ and your Libya.
Whose troops are going to enforce a DMZ? How long will they stay there? Who pays for this? What is its purpose? Most importantly, why should the U.S. get involved when it has no vital interests in Libya?
And, of course, you have yet to provide any link for your claim that the 1,000 death toll is pure fantasy.
Your references to a humanitarian crisis in Egypt and Al Qaeda are nothing more than pure speculation.
Traveler // Mar 13, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Spartacus,
Are you brain dead? TIAF has been talking all along about the effective use of our standoff capabilities to provide a NFZ and then cooked up the idea of an “armistice” line, supported by similar capabilities that we already have in place.
This “DMZ” is in the middle of the fucking desert, not within artillery range of the capital of South Korea with a million plus troops amassed behind it. Yet you think TIAF and I are talking about the same thing. Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Please just read TIAFs post. You are way off base here, and you dig yourself ever deeper into lalaland with each new post. Are you trying to take over Willy’s job?
Your own link clearly stated the opposite of what you contend, and your false equivalency approaches that of the teabaggers.
Come on, get some mojo if you want to be taken seriously.
pnumi2 // Mar 13, 2011 at 8:01 pm
tiaf
Resistance from whom? The covert War Party.
The unintended consequences of doing nothing will not lead to the deaths of American service men.
The IC of doing something may lead to American deaths.
Sabotage. If I knew what kind to expect, I’d be working in the Pentagon. Let’s just say “expect anything at any time.” That’s what a good army does.
When you’re motivated by good intentions, eventually you will be hit over the head with Realpolitik.
Tempest in a Frumpot // Mar 14, 2011 at 10:49 am
The unintended consequences of doing nothing will not lead to the deaths of American service men.
Yes, but it can lead to a mushroom cloud over Manhattan. The way to get rid of Muslim fundamentalism is to allow the people to have control over their lives in a direct fashion, now perhaps that can’t work in a hellish backwater like Afghanistan but in a very rich oil state that sits on the Med., well it could be a God send. For the first time in recorded history nearly all of the countries that ring the Med. could be democracies, with 4 of them being Muslim ones.
We are fast running out of time for this though.
In 1946 the US left the Philippines, sadly we did not pressure the French to leave Indochina, the result was 30 years of war and millions of deaths. Not doing something can have devastating effects.
You are relying on the goodness of Gadhafi to behave himself after he is victorious. I foresee a decade of mayhem from him in his funding every crackpot jihadist group there is, and they all see us as the enemy.
pnumi2 // Mar 14, 2011 at 4:07 pm
tiaf
” For the first time in recorded history nearly all of the countries that ring the Med. could be democracies, with 4 of them being Muslim ones.”
You see fostering revolution. I see trying diplomacy. You would spill blood for what might become a dummy democracy. I would try to avoid bloodshed. You know Qaddafi to be a madman bent on destruction. I know he hasn’t caused any trouble in a number of years.
We could install someone to take Qaddafi’s place and he could turn on us. Better the devil you know than the one you don’t.
“Yes, but it can lead to a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.”
Isn’t this fear mongering?
“In 1946 the US left the Philippines…”
Bad example. What were we doing in the Philippines in the first place? After we fought a war with Spain to confiscate her coaling stations to increase the range of our war ships, we then had to slaughter the Philippines who rebelled against us, because they didn’t want us in their country. When oil became the preferred fuel for ships, we got out like we were never there. Perhaps if we hadn’t confiscated all the coaling stations from Spain (Manila, Guam, etc), Japan wouldn’t have felt threatened and entered WWII on the side of Germany. Just saying.
The problem for America is that when you increase what you have through Manifest Destiny, you never know when Manifest Destiny is going to begin taking back what it gave you and decreasing what you have.
What I am for in Libya is the fewest casualties; the fewest number of dead. The fewest destroyed homes and factories. The fewest maimed. The fewest crippled.
Whatever gets me that, that’s what I want.
Steve D // Mar 15, 2011 at 9:14 pm
If ever there’s a time for black ops, this is it. This government can be decapitated. Figuratively would be nice, but literally works for me, too.
Steve D // Mar 15, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Pnumi2, read your history. We gave the Philippines Commonwealth status in 1935 with transition to independence set for within the next decade. That was interrupted by World War II but the Philippines became independent in 1946, right after the war ended.