Does The U.S. Now Have A War In Libya?

It now appears that we will be engaged in at least some level of military activity in Libya.

Too bad.  I think it's a mistake.  True, as time has passed, we found allies to join us, an Arab League call for intervention, and a UN Security Council resolution permitting action against Qaddafi.  I suspect we may also have engineered with some of the participating Allies (particularly France) that they will take the lead while we hold back.  (Early reports are suggesting that France has been the first to strike militarily against the Libyan loyalist forces.)

Interventionists in the U.S. have argued that this is a human rights issue (because Qaddafi is killing his own people), or one of political freedom (because the rebels are seeking democratic change).  Both arguments seem weak to me.   We've never really taken military action just because a deranged dictator was murdering his own people.  We fought Hitler mainly for other reasons (and found out about the killing later); we did nothing about Stalin, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or a host of others.   As for democracy, I don't think we really know what the Libyan rebels stand for politically.  Being against Qaddafi doesn't necessarily make them democrats.

Ultimately, it seems to me, Obama has given in to political pressures, some international but the more pressing ones home-grown.  He felt he couldn't afford to be seen as a do-nothing while Qaddafi snuffs out "democracy" in Libya.   In U.S. domestic politics, it's always the out-of-power party that shouts loudest about supporting human rights and democracy in other countries but when they're in power, they seem content to accept the status quo and the stability it offers.  In this case, I really wonder if the Republicans could use inaction effectively as a political blunt instrument.  I don't believe most Americans care that deeply.

So, we have established a new, potentially costly and dangerous precedent for intervention.  It may also turn out that we're supporting a lost cause.  One justification offered for intervening today was that the rebel forces were being defeated more quickly than anticipated.  To me, that's an argument for remaining on the sidelines - that kind of weakness only suggests they may not triumph even with foreign intervention.  Or that our intervention could lead to back to the status quo ante, with Qaddafi basically still in charge but perhaps chastened enough to be wary of too vicious a crackdown on his opponents.

It's axiomatic in diplomacy that when unexpected events occur - especially if we can't immediately be certain they run in our favor - politicians start demanding that we "do something about it."   As if we could!  And if we could, it wouldn't necessarily be in our interest to do so.   If Libya's rebels do succeed in toppling Qaddafi and taking the reins of power, does that benefit us?  Will the new government thank us, or might they become just another radical thorn in our side?  I have my doubts.  Will radical muslim governments elsewhere think better of us, or cooperate more willingly, because of our support for this Libyan movement?  Dream on.

Earlier, I pointed out that among the various uprisings of popular anti-government sentiment across the Middle East and North Africa, some would fail, some succeed.  Events to this point suggest that Libya would, if left to its own devices, be one of the former.  For the long term, our best option may have been to allow them to do so.  Democracy-building is a slow process; would-be democrats will be stronger in the long run if they make, and learn from, their own mistakes.  They won't learn from ours. 

Some say even we don't learn from ours.

 

Comments

[Gabbygeezer]

Well, yes, basically. However, the fact that the young (and most are) rebels in the Muslim states now can communicate introduces a new dimension. No doubt, traditional governments in the Middle East won't give us much credit for anything we do or don't do. But those millions of disgruntled youths probably will. I think Obama made the right call here, even though it is a bit iffy.

[JHawk23]

Well, I wrote a reply to this but it doesn't seem to be here. Don't know where it went. Don't you hate it when "technology" wastes your time and forces re-dos?

Anyway, thanks for your comment. The gist of mine was that I sincerely hope you're right, since we're now committed. It's nice to think that we can strike out in a new foreign policy direction that would have us "doing the right thing" and help gruntle some of those youths.

But I do still have reservations, mainly of the "what happens if" variety: i.e., if air power alone can't bring about the regime change we want? Having basically committed to removing Gaddafi/Qaddafi, wouldn't we have to take the next step toward deeper involvement? Let's hope for the best.

[Gabbygeezer]

If there is deeper involvement, we once again will be in serious trouble. I think everything depends upon whether we will keep our word (yep, that too often doesn't happen in foreign relations) and refuse to participate in anything other than air strikes.