So we’re now preparing to institute a no-fly zone in Libya — an act of war which Congress has not debated and apparently will not be given the chance to debate (although perhaps there’ll be a rubber-stamp vote after the fact).<\/p>\n
Hey, remember when the country was broke, and couldn’t take on major new expenses? Well, forget that. We’re getting a brand new war, baby, and our credit is always good for that! We don’t have any exit strategy, other than Ann-Marie Slaughter’s<\/a> whimsical supposition that we’ll put in a no-fly zone and maybe Qaddafi will give up immediately. We don’t have any coherent explanation of how a no-fly zone prevents Qaddafi from doing what he’s already doing, which is winning with his tanks and his heavy ground weaponry. We don’t have any conception of the national interest that explains why we’re morally compelled to save Libyans from Qaddafi while we won’t lift a finger (not even diplotmatically) to stop other dictators who are just as awful.<\/p>\n I can’t pretend to know what will happen. Maybe Slaughter is right, and a no-fly zone will put things to right and get the Arab street to see the US as a benevolent force. I certainly hope she’s right, because I suspect that Obama has already decided in favor of the no-fly zone.<\/p>\n But Slaughter’s optimistic scenario doesn’t seem likely to me. It’s unlikely that Qaddafi is going to give up based on a no-fly zone alone. It’s unlikely that, once we’ve committed to helping the rebels with a no-fly zone, we’ll refuse to help with troops on the ground once the no-fly zone fails to stop Qaddafi. It’s unlikely that we won’t have soon have a third war in the middle east. ((Unless, of course, our initial countermeasures are completely ineffectual and everyone we’re trying to rescue is slaughtered by tomorrow, making further intervention utterly pointless, a not-at-all impossible outcome, alas.)) It’s unlikely that anyone in the middle east will see the US as benevolent once we start accidentally bombing weddings.<\/p>\n Steve Clemons writes:<\/p>\n …the question really should be is whether a no-fly zone gets the Opposition to a tilting point where they can succeed. The answer is no. A no-fly zone has become an emotional touch point for many who want to help the struggling and brave Libya Opposition — but it doesn’t change facts on the ground.<\/p>\n Slaughter is right that revolutions are messy and once the intoxication of change wears off, there are huge headaches, new conflicts, different political rivalries. But she says that if we allow Gaddafi to win and chop down young protesters, we will have been on the wrong side of things. Again, supporting a no-fly zone is emotional distraction “for us” and does little to help “them.”<\/p>\n She doesn’t deal with the reality that without somehow supporting the Opposition to force a “no drive zone” on Gaddafi’s tanks and arming the rebels with intel and bullets, a no-fly zone will look in retrospect like self-indulgent impotence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What we desperately need in this country is humility. The military, contrary to what so many Americans believe, is not a magic nation-building wand. Bombing Qaddafi’s airfields won’t create democracy; it’s won’t prevent civil war; and it won’t secure admiration for us throughout the middle east. <\/p>\n When the no-fly zone fails to work, we’ll invade; our troops will be on the ground. Inevitably, mistakes will be made; weddings will be bombed, innocent children will be in the vehicle our helicopters machine-guns, our bad apples will be caught committing rape and torture. Slaughter’s claim that embroiling ourselves in a war in Libya will make us loved in the middle east is beyond cockeyed optimism. <\/p>\n As Clemons points out, we don’t actually face a choice between doing nothing and starting a war (and again, a no-fly zone is an act of war<\/em>). We can provide assistance with formal recognition, with weapons, with advice, with military intelligence, with communications; but direct military participation by the US isn’t something we should do because it’ll make us feel virtuous, or because everyone’s yelling “we have to do something,” or because we think that maybe, if things work out juuuuussst right, it’ll turn out to be the right thing to do. <\/p>\n The folks who favor war do the same trick every time; when they argue for the benefits of war, only the benefits are discussed, and the enormously probable disastrous outcomes are ignored or waved aside. Simultaneously, all alternatives to war are painted as inevitably leading to holocausts, as if no conflict in the world has ever failed to become a holocaust if the US didn’t invade. <\/p>\n A no-fly zone is a road that leads towards a fuller war, and I suspect that it’s a one-way road. We could easily end up in Libya for another ten or fifteen years, at the cost of hundreds of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Libyan civilians dead, and gain nothing in exchange; no new democracy flowering, no admiration from the Arab street, no peace. If recent history is any guide, that is the most <\/em>likely outcome. <\/p>\n War isn’t the source of democracy. We are not God, and we do not have the ability to right every wrong and prevent every evil. And war isn’t the alternative to disaster and slaughter; war itself is inherently a disaster, inherently slaughter.<\/p>\n We should go to war only when all other options are exhausted. And we’re not there yet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" So we’re now preparing to institute a no-fly zone in Libya — an act of war which Congress has not debated and apparently will not be given the chance to debate (although perhaps there’ll be a rubber-stamp vote after the … Continue reading