Obama and Clinton’s Libya Policy Has Been Disastrous And Is The Major Reason For Being Unhappy That Clinton Could Be The Next President

clinton-in-libya

In an earlier thread, responding to me calling US policy in Libya under Obama and Clinton disastrous, Crissa wrote:

What ‘disastrous’ Libya policies? Honestly, are we counting as a disaster that thousands of people weren’t murdered by an army?

There’s no evidence – other than the propaganda of anti-Qaddafi rebels – that the Qaddafi regime was about to murder thousands of people, and plenty of reason to believe that it wouldn’t have happened (the evidence from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty indicates that in 2011 Quaddafi was relatively restrained and avoided targeting civilians) so the benefit you’re claiming didn’t actually exist; no civilian massacre was about to occur.

That their civil war was over relatively quickly, and it’s just down to trying to disarmed the rebels and get everyone under one government – which woud’ve been the same problem no matter what the US did?

“Relatively quickly”? The war probably would have ended much sooner without the NATO intervention, with a tenth as many deaths.

The biggest misconception about NATO’s intervention is that it saved lives and benefited Libya and its neighbors. In reality, when NATO intervened in mid-March 2011, Qaddafi already had regained control of most of Libya, while the rebels were retreating rapidly toward Egypt. Thus, the conflict was about to end, barely six weeks after it started, at a toll of about 1,000 dead, including soldiers, rebels, and civilians caught in the crossfire. By intervening, NATO enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7,000 more deaths.

A more recent article by the same author in Foreign Affairs updates the figures:

All told, the intervention extended Libya’s civil war from less than six weeks to more than eight months….

Before NATO’s intervention, Libya’s civil war was on the verge of ending, at the cost of barely 1,000 lives. Since then, however, Libya has suffered at least 10,000 additional deaths from conflict. In other words, NATO’s intervention appears to have increased the violent death toll more than tenfold.

How many additional deaths have to occur before Democrats admit the intervention was a disaster?

We shouldn’t intervene in other nations’ affairs militarily – either not at all, or not unless there’s a truly crucial situation and it’s within our ability to make an immediate and positive difference at a reasonable cost. This was not the case in Libya, and the result has been many more deaths, and making the US (and, really, almost everyone) less secure by empowering and arming terrorists, and destabilizing the region (not just Libya but also Mali). Not to mention the ten thousand of Qaddafi’s anti-aircraft missiles that still haven’t been recovered, and the loss of an ally against al Qaeda.

Plus, we shot the credibility of our anti-nuclear program. Qaddafi gave up his nukes, after long negotiations, and less than a decade later he was subject to a NATO regime change campaign and then tortured and shot. I doubt the lesson was not lost on other nations.

Finally, Qaddafi was in poor health, and his son and successor – while not a saint – was a voice for more reasonable policies in Libya.

So, yes, it’s fair to call Obama’s Libya policy “disastrous.” Libya is a textbook example of a case in which intervention caused far more death and damage than non-intervention would have.

It is also yet another example of a Presidential administration being duplicitous about their justifications for the war (does anyone buy that regime change was not a goal from the start?), and of Congress’ rights under the War Powers Resolution being ignored. Insofar as it’s reasonable to assume that Clinton will be at least as (or more) hawkish than Obama, both of these suggest that Clinton will not only pursue bad policies, but will do so without being honest with the public or deferring to Congress’ legal role in choosing when the US goes to war.

Crissa says that Clinton has learned and grown and become less hawkish. I see no evidence of this. It’s notable that the major mistake of Iraq – the idea that we could just change over a regime without an enormous amount of chaos, death and destabilization as a result – is exactly the mistake Clinton (and Obama) made in Libya. So what justifies a claim that Clinton has changed?

If past patterns prevail, then just as Clinton supported the Iraq disaster during Bush and was significantly responsible for the Libya disaster during Obama, there’s every chance of a large-scale foreign policy disaster during a Hillary Clinton administration. The US will intervene somewhere it shouldn’t, vastly underestimating our ability to control the outcome once we create a regime change or regional shake-up, and as a result thousands of people will die and the US’s international security will be made worse.

And Democrats won’t criticize it, because it happened when the President is a Democrat. And the Democrats, not receiving any pushback from their base, will continue supporting terrible policies. And future Democratic candidates will not have any incentive to be better on these issues.

And despite it all, I will vote for Clinton (or, I suppose, Sanders, but that seems unlikely) in the 2016 election, because whoever wins the Republicans primary will be even worse.

Related reading:

This entry posted in Elections and politics, International issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

31 Responses to Obama and Clinton’s Libya Policy Has Been Disastrous And Is The Major Reason For Being Unhappy That Clinton Could Be The Next President

  1. 1
    MJJ says:

    This is a large point that needs to be remembered when talking about Ben-Ghazi. Ben-Ghazi was the tip of the iceberg of the failed Libya policy, and if you discount the more conspiracy-minded ideas of what was going on there, what appears to have happened was that in the run-up to the 2012 elections, the administration tried to make it look as if everything was okay, and when that blew up in their faces, tried to make the attack on Ben-Ghazi look more spontaneous than it was in order to hide the fact that they were playing risks with a US diplomat’s life (and several soldiers’ lives) in order to maintain a narrative.

    On the GOP issue, something that is disturbing about current Republican criticism of Obama’s Syria policy is how many are now angry at him for not following through on the “red line” statement, when (a) the problem was that he made the statement in the first place, (b) they (other than the uber-hawks) were mostly against him attacking Syria in 2013, and (c) our attempts to undermine Assad probably helped ISIS more than hurting it.

    It’s a little like Ukraine. Our lack of response made us look weak, but we could have avoided needing a response if we hadn’t deliberately provoked a conflict in the first place.

  2. 2
    pillsy says:

    I can follow the rest of the argument (though it’s debatable), but AFAICT the War Powers Act has been a dead letter pretty much since the ink was dry on it. The issue with Clinton and Obama is they’re both subscribers into the same basic bipartisan Washington paradigm on the use of force, and Clinton is to somewhat t Obama’s right on it, if maybe not by much[1]. Overestimating the benefits of military intervention[2], and underestimating the risks, is pervasive in mainstream politics and media.

    Does this make me have some doubts about Clinton as President? Sure, I think that she’ll govern much like other moderate presidents have, which is not so good. I just don’t see much indication that anything better is available. Even if Sanders gets the nod by some long shot, I haven’t seen a lot to indicate he’d deviate so much from the kind of foreign policy philosophy that guided the Obama Administration (though if I’ve missed something, I’d love to know).

    [1] I’d say it runs from, oh, around where Obama is on the left over to Lindsay Graham and John McCain on the right.

    [2] Especially when it comes to the effectiveness of air power and special forces; I don’t give Graham credit for much, but in some ways he’s acknowledging a reality that no one else will by calling for ground troops in Iraq and Syria.

  3. 3
    nobody.really says:

    Jeez, Amp, who kicked your coffee? If you can just look past some of the gloom, you’ll see that the next time we get ourselves into a military campaign that spins out of our control, the President may draft Maddox into combat roles!

    So buck up. And Happy Holidays, guy.

    I doubt the lesson was not lost on other nations.

    Let me not suggest that I might be so insanguine as to disaver this sentiment. But pray excuse me — my not unblack dog is back at those not unsmall rabbits again….

  4. 4
    Tamme says:

    “We shouldn’t intervene in other nations’ affairs militarily – either not at all, or not unless there’s a truly crucial situation and it’s within our ability to make an immediate and positive difference at a reasonable cost”

    So you’d argue that not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide was a good idea?

  5. 5
    LTL FTC says:

    “Ben-Ghazi” sounds like one of those tics that identify the ideology of the person using it, kind of like “the Democrat party” or “black bodies.” Here, I’m at a loss as I’ve never seen it used anywhere. Is there a reason for the hyphen?

  6. 6
    Duncan says:

    pillsy: “I just don’t see much indication that anything better is available.” If you read Amp’s post, you’d see that he apparently agrees with you on this point. So do I. But what I reject, and refuse to do, is to pretend that because Clinton is arguably the best of a bad lot (except for Sanders, who isn’t perfect either), she is therefore good. And in my long experience, Democratic loyalists won’t accept that. I must not only vote for Clinton (either one) or Kerry or Obama, I must praise them fulsomely, uncritically, sycophantically. Any doubts, let alone criticism, will be met by them with vitriolic abuse and lies. I don’t particularly mind that, because I can give as good as I get. But it seems an odd way to try to win votes. And I’m less inclined to be tolerant of this move than ever before.

    Tamme: “So you’d argue that not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide was a good idea?” This is a very common rhetorical move, and thoroughly dishonest. If you read Amp’s post, you’ll see that he wrote that the US should not attack “unless there’s a truly crucial situation and it’s within our ability to make an immediate and positive difference at a reasonable cost. ” Now all you have to do is make the case that these conditions apply to Rwanda, or that they’re not acceptable conditions. From what I’ve seen, the US could have prevented or at least inhibited the Rwanda genocide without military aggression on our part, but the Clinton regime couldn’t be bothered. (Notice that the Clinton regime also refused to stop Indonesian genocide in East Timor.) And then you have to make a case that, uniquely in our history, our intervention would not have resulted in more deaths, misery, and chaos than non-intervention would have done. That should be easy, since you’re evidently sure that it is so.

  7. 7
    Sebastian H says:

    At least hypothetical President Clinton won’t get us more involved in Syria. Wait…..

  8. 8
    Ampersand says:

    Nobody Really: Don’t not unworry, I haven’t not failed to unfix that.

  9. 9
    Ampersand says:

    Pillsy: Agreed with you that the War Powers Act is dead – to a great extent, I think, because Congress prefers not having the responsibility. But I think that if the Democratic base pushed back seriously on that, things could change. (Or the GOP base. Or, better yet, both.)

    I agree that we don’t have anything better on offer – as I said in the post, I expect to vote for Clinton in the election.

    Sanders has been very disappointing to me on foreign policy. If by some shocking twist he becomes president, I’m not sure what will happen, because he is such a blank slate on the subject, and because he is someone who has in the past demonstrated a willingness to buck the Washington paradigm on other issues. But, given how little he seems to care about foreign policy, maybe he’s just go the path of least resistance. For better or worse, however, I don’t expect this will matter, because I don’t think he can beat Clinton in the primary.

  10. 10
    Ampersand says:

    Duncan:

    But what I reject, and refuse to do, is to pretend that because Clinton is arguably the best of a bad lot (except for Sanders, who isn’t perfect either), she is therefore good. And in my long experience, Democratic loyalists won’t accept that. I must not only vote for Clinton (either one) or Kerry or Obama, I must praise them fulsomely, uncritically, sycophantically. Any doubts, let alone criticism, will be met by them with vitriolic abuse and lies.

    Certainly, some Democrats are like that. But I’ve always criticized the Democratic nominee, and found that most of the Democratic loyalists I talk to are quite willing to listen to reasonable criticism. It’s very possible that we’re not hanging out in the same forums, though. (I mean, apart from this forum.)

  11. 11
    Ampersand says:

    Tamme:

    So you’d argue that not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide was a good idea?

    I was going to respond to this, but all the arguments I would have made, Duncan already covered in his response to you. (Thanks, Duncan.)

  12. 12
    pillsy says:

    @Ampersand:

    Agreed with you that the War Powers Act is dead – to a great extent, I think, because Congress prefers not having the responsibility. But I think that if the Democratic base pushed back seriously on that, things could change. (Or the GOP base. Or, better yet, both.)

    I think it’s unlikely that either party’s base is going to get exercised enough about a separation of powers issue to make a difference, and it would need to be a big push because none of the three branches want to change it, and for entirely rational reasons. If she hadn’t had that Iraq vote dogging her, President Clinton would probably be wrapping up her second term about now.

    I agree that we don’t have anything better on offer – as I said in the post, I expect to vote for Clinton in the election.

    It’s not just that there isn’t anything better on offer: it’s hard to see how we get to having something better on offer. Having a fairly aggressive foreign policy is something that’s part of what I think of as the “moderate consensus”; unlike some other elements of that consensus, like cutting Social Security and Medicare, it’s not totally toxic with voters, either.

    This is also why Sanders being a blank slate makes me think we’re unlikely to see much change from him. He’d likely recruit his advisors from the same Democratic national security veterans that advised Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the unlikely event that he’s nominated and wins the general election[1].

    [1] I support Clinton over Sanders, but unlike most Clinton supporters, and for
    that matter many Sanders supporters, I don’t think he’d be a bad general election candidate if he somehow manages to be the nominee.

  13. 13
    LapsedLawyer says:

    [1] I support Clinton over Sanders, but unlike most Clinton supporters, and for that matter many Sanders supporters, I don’t think he’d be a bad general election candidate if he somehow manages to be the nominee.

    And from what I’ve seen polling data bears this out, even painting the picture that against any Republican nominee he’d do a smidge better than Clinton. I just don’t think he has much chance in the primaries due to the ill-conceived “electability” meme which has led to many “safe” choices that go on to lose the general. And this time around that’s a damn scary prospect.

  14. 14
    Copyleft says:

    I’ll vote for the antiwar candidate. If Hillary chooses not to be that, she has only herself to blame. I don’t ‘owe’ her my support.

  15. 15
    Tamme says:

    “From what I’ve seen, the US could have prevented or at least inhibited the Rwanda genocide without military aggression on our part, but the Clinton regime couldn’t be bothered. (Notice that the Clinton regime also refused to stop Indonesian genocide in East Timor.) And then you have to make a case that, uniquely in our history, our intervention would not have resulted in more deaths, misery, and chaos than non-intervention would have done. That should be easy, since you’re evidently sure that it is so.”

    What makes you think that I believe this is the case? I haven’t said anything about my views. I would go into further detail about them but this thread isn’t about my opinions, and I’m sure nobody here cares about them.

    But if you think that American intervention always causes more deaths than non-intervention, then isn’t it kind of pointless to posit the test that Amp did – specifically the part about ‘mak(ing) an immediate and positive difference at a reasonable cost’? Like, if you think that that will literally never happen, why bother proposing a metric that can’t be met?

    (I’ll leave aside the question of whether you think it’s only US intervention or all international intervention that inevitably leads to disaster, although it is an interesting one)

  16. 16
    Ampersand says:

    Speaking for myself, I don’t believe that US military intervention always makes things worse, on balance – think of WW2, for an obvious example. (Although Pearl Harbor makes that example different, obviously. But even if PH hadn’t happened, but the US had entered the war anyway and things played out more or less as they did, I’d call that worth it).

    Regarding Rwanda, I honestly don’t remember enough about the particulars to answer your question. But the way to answer your question, imo, is to ask not just “is this a crisis?” – obviously it was – but “is there a non-military intervention to take that would be effective?” and “if not, and if we we intervene with a military response, how likely is that to make the situation better?” and “if we intervene with a military response, and it goes badly, could we wind up making the situation much worse?”

    So I’m not saying that, in a Rwanda-type situation, military responses should not be considered. But we also shouldn’t automatically assume a military response is appropriate because of the magnitude of the crisis. There are other factors to be considered.

  17. 17
    Ampersand says:

    Copyleft – What if there isn’t an antiwar candidate to vote for? (Which is likely for the general election.)

  18. 18
    pillsy says:

    @Copyleft:

    I’ll vote for the antiwar candidate. If Hillary chooses not to be that, she has only herself to blame. I don’t ‘owe’ her my support.

    There won’t be an antiwar candidate. There will be a more pro-war candidate and a less pro-war candidate. All signs currently suggest that Hillary Clinton will be the less pro-war candidate.

  19. 19
    pillsy says:

    @Tamme:

    I just don’t think he has much chance in the primaries due to the ill-conceived “electability” meme which has led to many “safe” choices that go on to lose the general.

    Maybe. I think Hillary Clinton has a lot of advantages in the Democratic Primary that previous “safe” major party nominees (like John Kerry and Mitt Romney) have lacked. And I don’t mean that she isn’t just some rich jerk from Massachusetts, either.

    Nonetheless, I mostly support her because I think she’ll do a better job of governing than Sanders. I like some of Sanders’ domestic policy proposals better, sure, but they really aren’t going to matter that much in the face of a GOP House majority that isn’t going away any time soon, and I am somewhat more comfortable with Hillary’s foreign policy, flawed as it is, than Sanders’ blank slate. It’s a “devil you know” thing.

  20. 20
    Sebastian H says:

    “All signs currently suggest that Hillary Clinton will be the less pro-war candidate.”. If Cruz is the opponent yes. If Trump is, probably. If the others, not necessarily. Clinton is more pro war on Syria than at least half the Republcan field. We probably need to vote for Clinton for all sorts of reasons, but pretending that she isn’t very pro war is just straight up lying to ourselves.

  21. 21
    RonF says:

    “Obama and Clinton’s Libya Policy Has Been Disastrous”

    I’m not clear on why the modifier “Libya” is in that sentence.

    “something that is disturbing about current Republican criticism of Obama’s Syria policy is how many are now angry at him for not following through on the “red line” statement, when (a) the problem was that he made the statement in the first place, ….”

    When you make a commitment, you keep it. Obama doesn’t keep commitments. That’s causing untold problems.

  22. 22
    Copyleft says:

    “What if there isn’t an antiwar candidate to vote for?”

    There is. You just have to notice that there are more than two candidates in an election. For example, I usually vote for Green Party candidates.

  23. 23
    pillsy says:

    If Cruz is the opponent yes. If Trump is, probably.

    Trump definitely. Trump’s idea of “too politically correct” is not committing war crimes on a mass scale.

    If the others, not necessarily. Clinton is more pro war on Syria than at least half the Republcan field.

    She’s also less pro-war than Rubio and Jeb Bush[1]. The only candidate who springs to mind as less pro-war is Rand Paul, who’s pulling George Pataki levels of support ATM. Also, unlike Rubio, Cruz and Trump, she rejects the “clash of civilization” framing of the our ongoing campaign against jihadist groups, which is, IMO, a pretty critical distinction.

    We probably need to vote for Clinton for all sorts of reasons, but pretending that she isn’t very pro war is just straight up lying to ourselves.

    I’m not pretending she isn’t pro-war. I’m arguing that she’s part of a political establishment that is overall very pro-war, and that I don’t see a realistic path to the nomination for a Republican candidate who’s less bellicose than she is.

    [1] And Lindsay Graham. But Graham is even less relevant than Bush at this point.

  24. 24
    pillsy says:

    @Copyleft:

    There is. You just have to notice that there are more than two candidates in an election.

    You also have to be cool with voting in a way that will in no way advance your political interests, but if you are, knock yourself out.

  25. 25
    Copyleft says:

    Depends how you define ‘advancing my interests,’ doesn’t it? *grin*

  26. 26
    pillsy says:

    @Copyleft:

    Depends how you define ‘advancing my interests,’ doesn’t it? *grin*

    Well, yes, I am making the assumption that your political interests involve making sure the government enacts the policies you prefer. If there’s some other sense in which you want to advance your interests by voting, I’d be interested in a description of it.

    (Edited to remove some unwarranted snark.)

  27. 27
    Ben Lehman says:

    Clinton is not “pro-war” as some sort of general, across the board statement. Clinton is in favor of military intervention into existing conflicts in MENA (middle east and north africa, which is to say, the arab world.) She’s not in other contexts, and other parts of the world. MENA policy gets conflated with “foreign policy” a lot in the US, because it makes the news, but it’s not the bulk of US foreign policy.

    Just to be clear: this is wildly different from the Clash of Civilizations crowd, who are pro- killing any muslim they can get their hands on. This is different from Bush and Cheney, who are pro aggressive war (rather than intervening in existing conflicts) to further nebulous policy goals. This is different from McCain and Graham, who are in favor of intervening in pretty much every fight, with every government, everywhere in the world.

    Now, this MENA policy has been pretty disastrous, particularly in Libya and in Syria (although nowhere near the level of disaster of the Iraq invasion — you conflate the two in your post). But of the current set of MENA policies in Washington (which might roughly be: isolationism, intervention into existing wars, Bush Doctrine, Greater Israel, Clash of Civilizations) it is the least radical and probably the least disastrous. You’ll note that I’m not offering my own solution here, because I have no idea what such a solution would be. US MENA policy has been a disaster at pretty much every moment post-WWII and it’s not getting fixed any time soon, certainly not by the next president.

    To complain that Hillary has made poor decisions in MENA policy is to say “Hillary Clinton has been involved in US MENA policy.” Which, yes, she has. The metric basically dismisses anyone who has ever made MENA policy decisions in the US.

    yrs–
    –Ben

  28. 28
    pillsy says:

    @Ben Lehman:

    To complain that Hillary has made poor decisions in MENA policy is to say “Hillary Clinton has been involved in US MENA policy.” Which, yes, she has. The metric basically dismisses anyone who has ever made MENA policy decisions in the US.

    I think this is essentially right. In some sense you could argue, if she were running against Barack Obama, that there are enough differences between the two on MENA policy that one is better than the other is a reasonable subject for debate[1], but she isn’t. You’re left, then, with her so-far non-existent debate over the matter with Sanders, and debate where one or two Republicans who are polling below 5% are offering substantially similar policy proposals[2].

    Of course, pretty much everybody, Hillary included, has somehow latched onto the idea that we should be enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria, which is a bad, dangerous plan.

    Of course, given the contours of the debate, very little consideration is given to foreign policy outside the Middle East. :sigh:

    [1] Even this would be pretty weak tea, because so much of it would be relying on second- and third-hand reports of internal Administration debates, and the rest would be re-litigating the Iraq War.

    [2] Kasich, for instance, seems to have a pretty similar take, except for his cretinous pandering about a Department of Judeo-Christian Values.

  29. 29
    MJJ says:

    “something that is disturbing about current Republican criticism of Obama’s Syria policy is how many are now angry at him for not following through on the “red line” statement, when (a) the problem was that he made the statement in the first place, ….”

    When you make a commitment, you keep it. Obama doesn’t keep commitments. That’s causing untold problems.

    (a) A lot of the GOP was opposed to Obama intervening in Syria. It’s rather huypocritical to say “Obama is bad because he listened to us.” McCain and Graham can criticize him without hypocrisy, but not a lot of others.

    (b) Obama doesn’t keep commitments in part because he makes commitments too easily and without thinking them through beforehand. The red line commitment should not have been made in the first place, and that should always be pointed out first, even if the next statement is “nonetheless, he should have carried it out after making it.”

  30. 30
    Charles S says:

    While MJJ’s and RonF’s comments make it apparent that Obama’s ‘red line’ comment is a talking point in the Right wing noise machine, it is worth noting what actually happened. Rather than leading to pointless bombing of the Syrian government forces, Obama’s declaration that the use of chemical weapons was a red line (followed by the Syrian military using chemical weapons) led to the agreement under which the Syrian government surrendered its chemical weapons and weapon components to the US for destruction.

    If only the rest of Obama’s Syria and Libya policies (and the US policy on the Saudi war in Yemen) could be that kind of failure!

  31. 31
    Ampersand says:

    Hi, Ben. Thanks for your response.

    I agree that Clinton is significantly better than Bush, Cheney, McCain, Graham, and (as I said in my post) whoever her Republican opponent in the election will be. The Bush administration’s Iraq policy was beyond awful in every way, and I have no doubt that Clinton will do better, if she gets the chance.

    Now, this MENA policy has been pretty disastrous, particularly in Libya and in Syria (although nowhere near the level of disaster of the Iraq invasion — you conflate the two in your post).

    I don’t conflate the two in my post, nor did I suggest the level of disaster was similar. But (as I did say in my post) the Iraq disaster and the Libya disaster both stem, at least in part, from the same root problem – underestimating the chaos that follows a forcible regime change, and overestimating the ability of outside forces to prevent that chaos. And I think it’s reasonable to point out that Clinton, despite apologizing for her Iraq vote, made a substantially similar mistake with Libya.

    To complain that Hillary has made poor decisions in MENA policy is to say “Hillary Clinton has been involved in US MENA policy.” Which, yes, she has. The metric basically dismisses anyone who has ever made MENA policy decisions in the US.

    You’re exaggerating, in my opinion. In the specific case of the Libya policy – which is what my post is about – there were important decision-makers within the Obama administration who opposed a military intervention in Libya. Aalthough in the end, the pro-intervention side, led by Clinton along with Powers and Rice, prevailed, it was not at all inevitable given the composition of Obama’s advisers.

    From a Rolling Stone article about the Libya decision-making process:

    By the end of February, according to a senior administration official, Obama had begun “an incredibly intensive series of discussions in the Oval Office and the Situation Room” on how to handle Libya. From the start, insiders say, the players broke down into two distinct camps. On one side were top-level Pentagon and White House advisers who were skeptical of further military intervention, given the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. This group included Biden, who had argued strongly against Obama’s decision in 2009 to launch a military surge in Afghanistan, and Biden’s friend Tom Donilon, the president’s national security adviser. (The two men are close: Donilon’s wife is Jill Biden’s chief of staff.) Also in the skeptic camp were Donilon’s deputy, Denis McDonough, who had served on Obama’s campaign staff in 2008, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who dubbed calls for intervention “loose talk.” […]

    Despite the temptation to overthrow Qaddafi, however, the skeptics in the administration posed a set of tough questions: Would intervening on the side of the rebels make it harder to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Could it inadvertently lead us into a third ground war? Would it jeopardize cooperation from other countries in the battle against Al Qaeda? Would it undercut the rebels by putting an American footprint on what had up until now been a homegrown revolution? And did we really know who the rebels were? “There was a certain wariness to get involved militarily in a third Muslim country,” says one senior administration official who took part in the deliberations.

    For me, the point isn’t to compare Clinton to other current candidates. (As I said in my post, I assume that in the general election I’ll vote for Clinton). My point is, I think it’s possible (but a zillion miles from certain) that future Democratic presidential candidates will set the bar for military intervention higher than it was set in Libya. But that’s more likely to happen if rank-and-file Democrats push harder against the pro-military-intervention camp, and becomes more willing to harshly criticize that camp’s disasters, such as the disaster in Libya.

    * (“Pro-military-intervention camp” is shorthand; I’m not intending to imply that Clinton is in favor of military intervention in every situation.)