We know that Washington’s motivation for intervention in any guise is self-interest framed and justified, away from the public eye, within a larger geo-political and strategic context that drives the imperial paradigm. We also know that when moral and humanitarian motives, or “American values,” are voiced, these are pretexts—unless there is a neat coincidence of self-interest and values. Iraq was about the Israel lobby, oil, Central Asia. Israel-Palestine is about the lobby. Failing to stand up for democratic values in Bahrain is about the Persian Gulf, bases, and Iran; failing to do so in Yemen is about al-Qaida in the peninsula. Hence the US search for that middle point between autocracy and reform and publicly cautioning against violent government response. Why the difference in response between Libya and Bahrain/Yemen? The rebellion against the regime in Libya has gone too far for anything short of full support of the Libyan people. For the sake of future relations, which of course always includes Israel, better to work with the Libyan people, and perhaps have some influence, however slight and remote, over a democratic Libyan government, than equivocate as in Bahrain/Yemen.
If anything defines the international system, it’s the chronic politicization of global issues and international law, such as war, human rights, international humanitarian law, occupation, environment, and inequality. The US has been a premier practitioner of the double standard, selectively choosing what it will respect and to what measure it will abide. All states do this, but the most powerful ones can violate international law, even nuclear treaties, with little consequence, while weaker states, should they cross a powerful patron or, in the US case, reject its bidding, are coerced into compliance, violently or otherwise. There is no moral or legal consistency, and those who loudly interject themselves as the champions of international organization and international law, actually undermine and paralyze these institutions and ultimately contribute to the international system’s instability.
Now, the arguments put forward by those who oppose intervention in solidarity with Libya leaves me unconvinced, certainly unsure, doubtful. It’s not Libya’s oil that’s a big deal here—its output is small, including its impact on world markets, though this doesn’t exclude the commodity traders’ hoarding and driving up the price—it’s primarily US fear of al-Qaida Africa setting up shop in a large, empty, and in some measure tribal country that, if fragmented by protracted insurgency could lead to a trans-national terrorist presence. Presenting itself as a still relevant player and leader may well be an additional reason. Europe has similar concerns, but its primary one is the fear that a state without a single, central government fully in control of its territory, opens the way for floods of migrants from Africa, Muslim and otherwise, who use Libya as a transit camp.
True, this is actually Europe’s problem, not ours. Except that Washington and the national security planners cannot countenance the thought that they are not in control of events such as this. The Europeans aren’t twisting our arms. (I would have preferred, for the good of the American people, that the US stayed out.) Still, my sense is that the last thing the US wants is a protracted, costly intervention—another war to get involved with. Its domestically, economically, and politically unaffordable, untenable, and unsustainable. If nothing else, we're virtually bankrupt. I also think that both the US and its Western allies would like to see a short campaign in which the rebels win and they can leave. This inherent hesitance may explain the confusion and apparent contradiction of Obama administration statements regarding the purpose and parameters of the mission.
I for one don’t see much US advantage in intervening, especially in light of our grave economic troubles and involvement in two wars. So no, I doubt there’s a “bad” hidden reason for US action, nor do I think it’s motivated by either regime change or dictating a post-Qadhafi government and order. I don’t see a convincing argument for this thesis. Nor do I see the will or capability for it. After all, my primary criterion for great power intervention in the affairs of weak states is whether, in fact, it’s on the side of the people or the state (though I am mindful that, even when this, rarely, happens it produces a horrible mess and a bigger humanitarian crisis). Also, we all know the lies and deception that got us into Iraq and the consequences of this on not only Iraq but also Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have been destabilized and their peoples made to suffer mightily in the single-minded pursuit of fighting “terrorism” and “fundamentalism.” Libya doesn't present the conditions or motives for the cynical self-interest intervention thesis.
Yes, intervention has multiple unanticipated and uncontrollable military, political, and moral consequences. Asli U. Bali and Ziad Abu-Rish advance an articulate argument (“Solidarity and Intervention in Libya”)—written before UNSC resolution 1973 authorizing a no-fly zone for protection of civilians—against intervention. In their list of problems, they cite the reality that intervention may not tip the balance of power against the regime, that it causes lots of civilian casualties, that a no-fly zone is essentially about regime change and not humanitarian intervention, and that it usually benefits the interveners’ strategic and economic interests rather than the people. Their main concern is that a no-fly zone that would necessarily require attacks on runways, radar, command and control centers, and artillery installations will kill innocent civilians. After all, they say, Qadhafi possesses mainly helicopter gunships, armor, and artillery. And the fact that the Libyan opposition is not clearly known and whether they represent the wider demands of the Libyan people, makes intervention that much more problematic. Under the strict principle of “do no harm” they conclude that only two things can be done: provide medical supplies, food, and clean water and open up a corridor for civilian refugees to flee to Europe.
Ideally, it would be great if the supine and hypocritical Arab League is composed of democratic states that have on the ready a rapid deployment force for just such an occasion. In Libya, the country could very well end up divided between Tripoli and surroundings under Qadhafi and company and the remainder under a new government. But what to do, if not even the minimum of arming the rebels? The thing is, it seems, and one logically and intuitively adduces, that the vast majority of Libyans are for intervention, whether or not their Benghazi-located transitional leadership purporting to speak on Libyans’ behalf, is clearly differentiated or well known.
The Arab League’s complaint, after the bombings, that they were supposed to protect not harm civilians seems rather disingenuous, especially coming from member states the vast majority of whom are great violators of the rights of their people. Did not Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa know that a no-fly zone requires bombing preparations to clear the skies of hostile aircraft? It’s either this or actual military intervention on the ground. Should the coalition leave Qadhafi’s armor and artillery free to march on and mercilessly pound Benghazi? In any case, why approve intervention via a no-fly zone if you already know that Qadhafi’s “air force” is not the problem for the insurgents?
Hypothetically, I’d welcome a no fly-zone (or some military intervention) imposed on Israel to prevent its savagery in Gaza even though I know this may entail civilian Palestinian (and Israeli) casualties. It’s either this or the indiscriminate mass casualties that is Israel’s specialty, as it is Qadhafi’s. Yes, military intervention may prove more inimical to the people it’s supposedly trying to rescue, and yes, the history and motives of Western intervention is morally wretched, usually in the service of maintaining autocratic clients and pushing back “people power.” And no, the US will not consistently (actually, hardly) support democratic movements even though this is the key to its prestige and influence in the Middle East and elsewhere. But there is something different in this Libyan context. The Libyans’ need for help tips the balance towards a moral case or if not this, a utilitarian one, regardless of the motives of those intervening.
It isn’t obvious or inevitable that intervention will prevent the Libyan people from determining their future or that it will undermine the unfolding Arab democratic movements or cause anti-Western sentiment. (Nor that intervention may have prolonged Qadhafi’s stay because it precluded a negotiated exit.) The Arab democrats, including Libyans, are sophisticated enough to parse the nuances and know when enough is enough and the Western powers are keen on not being seen as imperialist aggressors of old.
(20 March 2011)
Senator Kerry was on Sunday’s Meet the Press, Secretary of State Clinton, Dr. Bryzinski, Madeline Al bright on the Diane Rehm show this morning and so many others who keep repeating that this attack is all about “protecting the population” “humanitarian” reasons. They keep referencing the Libyan situation as a “massacre” Massacre.
Who the hell do they think believes this hooey for one minute. Kerry and Clinton voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution. They were complicit with the real “massacre” in Iraq. Come on. Madeline Albright saying that the deaths of thousands of children in Iraq as a result of the UN sanctions were worth it….another “massacre”
How ironic that the day the US and the coaltion forces attacked Libya on the very day 8 years ago that the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq was implemented. Hundreds of thousands dead, injured, millions displaced and these same warmongers are calling what Gaddafi has and may do a “massacre”
When the U.S. “massacres” they call it “collateral damage” Theatre of the absurd
Asking the U.S. or Israel to bomb Arabs (for any so-called “democratic” purpose) is like asking cats to eat mice in order to save other mice.
At best, the U.S. is trying to establish its right to bomb Arabs at will. Now, there’s no need to say “terrorism” is the excuse. Now you ca say “human rights” is the excuse.
If the U.S. cared about human rights, it would show the same harsh angry language (and no money!) to its kleptomaniac puppets (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, the Egyptian military) that it’s always shown to Gaddafi.
Nothing stopped the Arab League from rescuing those Libyans instead of asking the US and the Europeans to do the job.
If you don’t want any of the mice to be saved, you can count on the Arab League to not save them.
jeepers, but your comment is not well thought-out.
Let’s remember we are in two wars that seemed like cake walks when we got into them ALMOST TEN YEARS AGO. It’s a lot easier to get into wars than it is to get out of them. I know everyone loves us because we have proved to be such honest brokers in the Israel/Palestine conflict, but maybe we should start pulling back from the Mideast a little. Getting rid of Khadaffi is the easy part. But I don’t want our guys patrolling Tripoli while they’re getting a new government set up and/or fighting a civil war.
I don’t support US-EU military involvement in Libya for a number of reasons.
1) US involvement always leads to negative consequences. Take Somalia, the UN passed resolution 733 authorising members to deliver food and humanitarian aid to Somalia. Sounded like a simple straightforward mission except the US ended up going after the warlord Aidid after he stole some aid convoys. The result ended in a complete bloodbath where the US ended up firing on the population they were supposed to be delivering food to.
If the US can bungle such a simple mission as that they should absolutely not be taking a role in a complex situation as Libya.
2) While the US does not have interests in Libya they do have large interests in ensuring that the Arab revolutions do not go any further. The US-EU moves in Libya and the Saudi moves in Bahrain are both part of a counter-revolutionary effort to snuff out any further revolutions.
Obviously I like everyone here wants the Arab revolutionaries in Libya and beyond to succeed. Democracy breaking out in the Arab world would result in a much more independent leaders who will not bow to US-Israeli pressures like the current crew of dictators. The fact that the Arab streets voice will be heard through democracy will be a great result.
However trusting the US and EU to help this process along is madness. It is against there interests to see these revolutions flourishing and they will do whatever it takes to stomp it out.
Dr Gonzo :
1) US involvement always leads to negative consequences.
++++ Yup. They allready started that :
U.S. rescue chopper shoots six Libyan villagers as they welcome pilots of downed Air Force jet
link to dailymail.co.uk
…and this is only the first day and those villagers were welcoming our guys. What’s going to happen when our guys get directed into an ambush? That’s when things will really get ugly. And don’t forget: we don’t know how to get disentangled from conflicts in the Mideast…and also don’t forget, our soldiers don’t have any business being there.
“1) US involvement always leads to negative consequences.”
But not all the consequences have been negative. Perhaps you should rewrite that as “After WW2, US involvement has always lead to negative consequences.”
There were plenty of negative consequences in WWII.
Thousands of French were killed during the invasion, many French villages destroyed in order to save them.
link to wais.stanford.edu
Anyone who thinks this sort of thing won’t happen in EVERY military intervention is a fool.
(But not all the consequences have been negative. Perhaps you should rewrite that as “After WW2, US involvement has always lead to negative consequences.”)
Even that isn’t true, without the US all of the Korean peninsula would have been the damned hell hole that the north now is.
The Daily Telegraph is reporting that six villagers were shot during the rescue of one of the American pilots that bailed out over Libya. This is part of the price that Libyans will now have to pay given that the US military is involved. It is in the rules of engagement. Any native who could possibly risk an American life is expendable. Over and over again in Iraq and Afghanistan innocent civilians have been killed by American forces because of those rules. We all know that one American life is worth more that dozens or hundreds of native lives — that is the calculus built into the rules of engagement.
“The Daily Telegraph is reporting that six villagers were shot during the rescue of one of the American pilots that bailed out over Libya. ”
Good to see the ol’ hearts-and-minds geniuses over at the Pentagon haven’t been downsized in this economy…
Hmm, interesting:
[8:43 a.m. Tuesday ET, 2:43 p.m. Tuesday in Libya] The United Arab Emirates had been prepared to send two aircraft squadrons to participate in the international effort to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, said Maj. Gen. (Staff) Pilot Khaled Abdullah Al-Buainnain – the former commander of the Emirates’ air force and air defense. However, he said, those plans have changed due to criticism by the United States and the European Union of the Gulf Cooperation Council’s deployment of troops to help the monarchy stabilize Bahrain. The UAE has chosen not to take a military role in Libya until Washington and the European Union clarify their position on the use of troops in Bahrain, but it will contribute to the humanitarian effort in Libya, Al-Buainnain said.
America is going broke! Federal Reserve official’s fear as Libya missiles cost $100 million in just ONE day (One Tomahawk=$1M)
Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, was reported yesterday as saying that the US cost in Libya ‘could easily pass the $1 billion mark on this operation, regardless of how well things go.’
He calculates the initial cost of taking out the Libyan regime’s coastal air defences could cost coalition forces between $400 million and $800 million.
He believes that maintaining a no-fly zone in the country would cost between $30 million to $100 million a week.
The Pentagon has contingency reserves to deal with military emergencies, but critics claim they will only be ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul.’
Read more: link to dailymail.co.uk
The unanticipated war spending comes at a time when lawmakers are bickering over cuts in this year’s budget to try and slash America’s massive $1.5 trillion deficit.
I’m glad someone besides me realizes that this debate is not going on in a vacuum. We really have to think about the consequences of expanding our involvement in the Mideast-especially since once we’re in, there’s no getting out-unless it’s like we left Lebanon after the Marine barracks was attacked. To me it is sheer insanity to get involved in Libya. I felt this way about Iraq, but I was unsure of myself. Now I’m sure of myself.
RE: Preliminary remarks in support of the Libyan intervention by Issa Khalah
MY COMMENT: A truly superb analysis! I humbly concur, especially with the assertion that “If anything defines the international system, it’s the chronic politicization of global issues and international law, such as war, human rights, international humanitarian law, occupation, environment, and inequality.” For instance, take the United States’ reaction to, treatment of, and opposition to the Goldstone Report!
P.S. A RELATED FACEBOOK GROUP
Name – Richard J. Goldstone: Integrity Personified
Category – Common Interest, Beliefs & Causes
Description – A group for individuals who greatly respect Justice Goldstone and admire his very considerable integrity.
LINK – link to facebook.com
Did you hear that?
The United Arab Emirates had been prepared to send two aircraft squadrons to Libya!!
So the U.S. & Israel & the United Arab Emirates are all foaming to deliver a good dose of “democracy”, American-style, from F-15 fighter jets.
Doesn’t that ring any alarm bells?
The evident strain running throughout Dr. Khalaf’s post reflects divisions in the broad leftwing coalition. Those who find the anti-imperialist narrative more convincing than an international democratic rights narrative mainly end up siding against the intervention – as very different conceptions of the “Arab Spring” begin to emerge, too.
The UAE decided Monday, they won’t participate in the NATO’s war against Libya. But that’s not for reasonable reasons, the UAE dictators are just not content with the US critizising the GCCs crushing of Bahrain democracy movement.
So, just the Qatarian dictator is going to send two fighter jets, which – as planned now – will start bombing missions in Libya Saturday. If Qatar doesn’t decide otherwise until then, of course.