Well, it appears that egg is on my face after I worried about disaster in Libya last night. I genuinely hope this egg remains on my face forever. From the BBC’s constantly-updating Libya sidebar:
To recap on the events of the last few hours. Following last night’s UN resolution in favour of military intervention, Col Gaddafi’s regime announced an immediate ceasefire at about 1240 GMT. Since then we’ve had reports of continued shelling in some cities, including Misrata, but elsewhere, suggestions that the security situation may be improving. The UK, France and US have said they want to see real evidence of a ceasefire on the ground – words are not enough, they insist.
How solid this ceasefire is remains unclear; there are still doubts and reports of conflict. David writes:
Government forces continue to pound rebel-held cities, which means either that Qaddafi is just playing for time with a bogus ceasefire announcement or some of his forces are going a bit rogue. Either way, it essentially is a dare on whether the UN will follow through and launch some of those strikes on Libyan ordinance.
Nonetheless, I’d be blind not to admit that it now looks possible that, from a humanitarian and liberalization perspective, the UN action will wind up doing a lot of good. We’ll have to keep on watching, fingers crossed.
Andrew Sullivan’s readers make a lot of good points in favor of the UN action (and the US’s participation in it). (The dissents from Andrew’s readers are often my favorite things to read on his blog.)
That said, there are still legitimate reasons to worry. For those interested in the voice of caution, I’d recommend reading:
Michael Cohen on the questions not being asked:
If Assad starts massacring Syrian or the Saudi leadership starts killing pro-democracy protesters is the United States undermining the cause of freedom and liberty in the Arab world by doing nothing?[…]
What if the war ends up in stalemate do we accept a status quo or do we send troops to Tripoli to liberate the entire country (Shadi seems to think we should)? What if the rebels are successful in overthrowing Gaddafi and begin massacring those loyal to Gaddafi? Would we have to respond to this violence as well? And to this point who exactly are the rebels that we are no going to war on behalf of?
What if our military intervention creates a power vacuum in Libya leading to political instability and violence? What is our responsibility to clean up the mess i.e. the Pottery Barn rule?
Evan Levine on what we’re signing up for (and why Libya?):
While an argument can be made that to do nothing is effectively taking a side, i.e. Gaddafi has the initiative and will likely prevail without intervention, military strikes will definitely put us squarely behind the anti-Gaddafi forces. We will be responsible for their actions on the ground, now and in the future. Is anyone prepared for that? Is anyone prepared to intervene again if anti-Gaddafi forces no longer seem to be in the “right side” anymore? One can create an endless number of scenarios with “what ifs,” but just because we can agree that Gaddafi is “bad” that doesn’t necessarily mean that the other side is “good.” It’s far too easy, and extremely appealing, to turn things into black and white, good guys and bad guys, but the world, and history, just doesn’t work like that.
Daniel Larison on the moral hazard of intervention:
The more significant problem is that this has set a precedent that the states that were prepared to intervene in Libya will be expected to do the same in many more cases. An arbitrary, rather odd decision to treat the Libyan civil war as the greatest political crisis in the world will create the expectation of foreign support in other internal conflicts. That is likely to encourage rebellions and civil conflict. If a group believes it can win foreign support and political concessions by provoking a sufficiently brutal crackdown, that will make it more likely to rise up against its government, which may lead to humanitarian catastrophes that the “responsibility to protect” is supposed to prevent. As Alan Kuperman has argued (via Michael), the “responsibility to protect” creates a moral hazard:
The emerging norm, by raising hopes of diplomatic and military intervention to protect these groups, unintentionally fosters rebellion by lowering its expected cost and raising its likelihood of success. Intervention does sometimes help rebels attain their political goals, but it is usually too late or inadequate to avert retaliation against civilians. Thus, the emerging norm resembles an imperfect insurance policy against genocidal violence. It creates a moral hazard that encourages the excessively risky behavior of rebellion by members of groups that are vulnerable to genocidal retaliation, but it cannot fully protect these groups against the backlash. The emerging norm thereby causes some genocidal violence that otherwise would not occur.
Glenn Greenwald reminds us that there’s still this thing called the Constitution.
And finally, Mark Lynch discusses some possible outcomes:
The intervention is a high-stakes gamble. If it succeeds quickly, and Qaddafi’s regime crumbles as key figures jump ship in the face of its certain demise, then it could reverse the flagging fortunes of the Arab uprisings. Like the first Security Council resolution on Libya, it could send a powerful message that the use of brutal repression makes regime survival less rather than more likely. It would put real meat on the bones of the “Responsibility to Protect” and help create a new international norm. And it could align the U.S. and the international community with al-Jazeera and the aspirations of the Arab protest movement. I have heard from many protest leaders from other Arab countries that success in Libya would galvanize their efforts, and failure might crush their hopes.
But if it does not succeed quickly, and the intervention degenerates into a long quagmire of air strikes, grinding street battles, and growing pressure for the introduction of outside ground forces, then the impact could be quite different. Despite the bracing scenes of Benghazi erupting into cheers at the news of the Resolution, Arab support for the intervention is not nearly as deep as it seems and will not likely survive an extended war. If Libyan civilians are killed in airstrikes, and especially if foreign troops enter Libyan territory, and images of Arabs killed by U.S. forces replace images of brave protestors battered by Qaddafi’s forces on al-Jazeera, the narrative could change quickly into an Iraq-like rage against Western imperialism. What began as an indigenous peaceful Arab uprising against authoritarian rule could collapse into a spectacle of war and intervention.
And on another subject, some interesting information on how the decision was made within the Obama administration.
I give you a lot, and I mean a lot, of credit for writing this post.
I’m with you on hoping that I’m completely wrong about the intervention. What it has on its side that I wasn’t expecting was a resolution to use air strikes rather than just impose a no-fly zone. Not that I would have been in favor of that, either, at this point, but that has, imo, made it far likelier that the objective will be achieved.
As you note, there are still a lot of questions and issues to be resolved before we can call it an unqualified success, but the threat of air strikes appears to have been effective.
I’m not sure why you have egg on your face. Your fears were legitimate. You had no reason to expect Gaddaffi, who has made any number of extreme “to the death” statements and actions, would back down in the face of military pressure. Pride can be a dangerous thing, and Gaddaffi has lots of it.
All the same, good to see there is some reprieve from the violence, if not total. As Mr. Squid points out, history is still being written on all of this. CNN just reported on the strategy-behind-the strategy, which speaks to more uncertainties:
Edited to add a link to this Gaurdian article on the uncertainties of Gaddaffi’s cease-fire.
Heh. Just saw this from Benjy Sarlin on twitter:
That’s good. Didn’t Jen Sorensen do a cartoon along those lines?
I think anyone who isn’t deeply ambivalent about either action or inaction in Libya is lying. I don’t know that military action will help. But I don’t know that not acting will be any better. I will at least say that I appreciate that the Obama administration appears to be as hesitant and conflicted about this as I am; there’s no sneering here, no “bring it on.” The threat of force is a last resort here, as it should be; it’s just a question of whether the use of force, even as a last resort, is wise. And that I don’t know.
It’s a messy situation – and like many real-life situations, there IS no clear cut moral choice for anyone to make (other than for Gaddafi to step down).
The rebels are a murky bunch right now – they have formed a coalition of sorts, but they are made up of many different factions. We simply don’t really know what they want other than for Gaddafi to go.
Say the US/France/UK, NATO, other Arab Nations help the Rebels via air-strikes – they can stop military attacks on the Rebel Cities, but that won’t over-throw the Gaddafi government since they don’t have the moral mandate to bomb cities (which would result in a huge civilian toll – laser guided bombs can fall accurately, but the resulting explosion is never ‘accurate’ – explosions tend to, ya know, EXPLODE everywhere, hence the name). At best, this action will result in a divided Libya. Maybe negotiations could follow after that could result in a partitioned state, but since most of the oil would be in Rebel hands, peace would not last.
And this No-Fly zone is there to protect CIVILIANS not Rebel forces. If Rebel Forces attack another city, that would result in civilian casualties. What would the UN forces do then? Do nothing? Would they have to start bombing the Rebels?
The UN is hoping that this no-fly zone will spurr the Old Libyan government to topple Gaddafi itself – it’s hoping maybe one of it’s sons will depose of the father and reach an agreement with the Rebels. Or maybe the UN’s hoping that without the oil, Gaddafi will not be able to fund his mercs for much longer (his mercs do the vast, vast bulk of the fighting).
If the UN forces do nothing, and the Rebels fall, they will get blamed for being ineffectual and blind to Arab/North African suffering and for being racist. If they do anything else, they’ll be accused of killing civilians (and civilians WILL DIE in ANY military action taken by the UN, NATO, whoever). Damned if they do, Damned if they don’t.
Right-wingers are wrong when the justify whatever the US does but Left-wingers are also wrong, when they criticize absolutely, utterly, ANYTHING the US does. The US cannot lift a finger without being criticized. Hell, if it DOESN’T lift a finger it’s criticized.
Now, if the US does get involved, would it try to alter the situation to benefit it’s own national interests? Well, yes, of course. All nations do that/want to do that. You don’t think China is looking very closely at this situation, and is carefully deciding who gets its next weapons shipment? You don’t think Russia will come down on the side that has the oil eventually either? You don’t think France and Italy and the UK, and Israel aren’t thinking about that sort of stuff as well? All nations are scumbags who want what’s best for them. ALL nations, no exceptions. Even poorer countries can be selfish.
Frankly, I want the UN mandate to be enforced to the letter AND NO MORE. Any military action must SOLELY be based around protecting civilians. If that means firing on Rebels who commit atrocities (and there is evidence that many Rebel forces are targeting African/Black citizens, accusing them of being mercs based on the colour of their skin), then so be it. The best outcome is Gaddafi stepping down and the UN helping to set up a democracy. But that’s unlikely. The best realistic outcome is partition – Rebels creating East Libya, Gaddafi in control of West Libya.
EDIT: And no matter what happens later, remember this: It’s Gaddafi’s fault. It’s HIS fault. He didn’t step down. He was the dictator. He was the tyrant. HE could have ended this much sooner. He didn’t. If you’re going to blame anyone, blame Gaddafi. I know, I know, the UK recently supported Gaddafi after he destroyed his WMD program. The US did the same, and they shouldn’t have. But at the end of the day, Gaddafi was the one who had the most power to create a happy ending for this situation, and he didn’t. If you’re going to blame anyone, BLAME HIM FIRST. If he had stepped down, the UN wouldn’t even need to pass this no-fly zone.
The no-violence-conflict-resolution thing seems to have petered out. We’re missiling them right now. Sigh.
The paradox is that Kadhafi might have been forced to resign many years ago had the countries such as France supported the effort of the US to bombard Tripoli as a result of Kadhafi’s direct involvement the terrorist attacks.
Here is a quite definitive statement on the topic of deploying troops with or without Congressional assent made by a U.S. Senator who has heretofore been reputed by many to be an authority on the Constitution:
I’m trying to account for this. Maybe it’s that when you’re running for President it’s more important to attack your opponent any way you can regardless of whether that attack reflects your actual opinion of the Constitution. Or maybe he thinks that the authority of the U.N. supercedes that of the U.S. Congress and the Constitution. Hard to say.
Or maybe he’s a hypocrite.
I’d go with “When you are president, you realize that Richard Nixon was mostly right, it may not be constitutional, but whose going to stop you?”
Same reason for the repeated invocation of state secrets.
Actually, specifically, he hasn’t claimed that he has the constitutional authority, he claimed that congress had granted him the power under the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to inform congress within 2 days of starting a war, and requires further congressional approval to continue the war beyond 30 days. As a senator (as mentioned in that questionnaire), he tried to pass a bill retracting that generic authorization for an attack on Iran.
I’d also say that while the threat to the US of a huge refugee problem in Egypt is not exactly existential, it was certainly immanent. Acting in Libya was not something that could be delayed until congress got around to authorizing it. Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities is something we could do whenever (particularly since Iran is always supposedly 2 years (or 6 months if you are a serious war booster) away from getting nuclear weapons, and has been since the 1980s).
I’m not arguing the merits of what the President has done in this situation. For one thing, he’s not finished doing it yet. And it’s going to be difficult to assess what the long-term effects are. I’m personally thinking that we’ll end up with East Libya and West Libya, with Gaddafi sponsoring terroristic attacks on the population of the other Libya to destabilize it as much as possible while not giving the current coalition any large targets to bomb – and the only way to stop that is invasion and occupation.
I’m simply pointing out that what he has done as President is something that he claimed was unconstitutional when he was running for President. Recall as well that the oath he took when he put his hand on a Bible and became President was to protect, preserve and defend not the United States and not the people of the United States but the Constitution of the United States. He’s a typical Chicago politician. Promises and oaths are a very low priority. Top priority is playing just enough to his base to keep them from staying home or voting for someone else while taking care of his supporters and their friends. He has a veneer of education and an articulate speaking style, but past the surface he’s the same as anyone else down at the County building or Springfield.
This little rant is getting very tired. This has absolutely nothing to do with Libya. Please try to keep your personal obsessions to yourself.
It’s a strange day to see a Democrat invoke the War Powers Act. Weren’t they agin’ it once upon a time. Must’ve been back in the Dukakis Age.
I confess, I don’t even know what we should debate about this war. On the one hand, there is a humanitarian crisis to address. But on several other hands: deficit hawks say we’re broke when it comes to schools, kids, the poor, etc.; we have two other wars that seem nowhere near resolution; our economy sure could use some massive deployment and intervention and boots on the ground and whatever other metaphor you want.
What bothers me, beyond the obvious loss of civilian life, is that there has been so little debate running up to this at all. To the BushAdmin’s credit, they at least spent most of 2002 making an argument — one full of fabrications, disinformation, etc., that should in a saner world put them on trial for war crimes — BUT it was an appeal to public opinion. And they sought Congressional authorization, if not for war per se, but for military action. I remember listening to the debates in Congress on NPR at work. I remember Joe Biden’s hearings from that summer. There were dissenting voices from many parts of the political spectrum taking part in that debate.
Obama has side-stepped that. I know, I know — there was urgency in Libya to protect civilians from the LAF. But a month ago the Secretary of Defense was very public in his rejection of Republican arguments for intervention; now here we are, with little preparation, persuasion, appeal to public opinion, bupkis. I find that pretty disturbing.
Kevin,
A month ago, there was a belief that (a) a NFZ by itself wouldn’t work (b) the rebels seemed to be progressing successfully, so the Administration didn’t want to intervene to provide air support to one side in a revolution. The shift happened pretty quickly. Also, the security council, for all its horrors and absurdity, is not populated by anyone as divorced from reality and devoted to opposing the US president as the House of Representatives is. :p
That said, there isn’t really any excuse (and the War Powers Act is actually a red herring, as it only gives the President powers to respond to an attack, not a humanitarian crisis). Obama is basically following in the foot steps of Truman (and a bunch of others since) in usurping the congressional war declaring powers (by engaging in undeclared wars and police actions). Viewed in a more legitimate light than usurpation, the UN has authorized military action, therefore the President as commander and chief gets to make decisions relating to troop deployments.
I think it is extremely dubious practice (at best) but it has been settled American practice for 60 years. The president launches military actions, and the congress funds them and passes “sense of the senate” resolutions that really the president ought ask permission in the future.