That’s a pretty good summar, DSeid. One thing I would like to add, though, is FUCK the Arab League! I want to punch the next person who talks about the Arab League asking us to intervene. Oh, the Arab League, like it was some sort of princely order of Middle Eastern and North African statesmen. We’re talking lots (not all, but lots) of repressive regimes expecting the West to dance like puppets as they sit in their comfortable palaces and suck their countries dry.
What the hell has the Arab League ever done for us?
Mainly, insulated us against charges (as loose as the ones you’ve been hurling here) in “the Arab street” that this is just more American imperialism. I think you understand that, really.
So, if we do their dirty work for them, they’ll keep the huddled masses all that more huddled? That would be funny, if it were even true. The huddled masses are rebelling, across the region, against this League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Methinks the so-called Arab Street couldn’t give a camel’s fart for what those pompous overlords have to say.
Not to mention that they’ll turn on us whenever it’s expedient to do so.
I do not think that the United States dances like a puppet for the Arab League. But in terms of deciding action versus non-action a request from the Arab League is a reasonable part of the calculus. If regional actors were all against an action then the action would be a bit less likely, especially in this era when the United States is wanting cooperation against extremist elements that would target our interests at home and abroad. Our interests are more served by doing an action that is desired by other regional actors that we want cooperation from on other issues, by minimally treating them as powers worth consulting with, than by an attitude of FUCK 'em and what they want. And insofar as these popular uprisings have the potential to defang and marginalize Al Qaeda to no small degree, and many have posited that they do, avoiding playing the part of the Imperialist Power throwing its fire power around an Arab country again, is a very important thing.
It seems to me that this is a political question that the courts would never attempt to resolve. I say this in my experience in working in foreign policy, not as a lawyer.
These guys, from Somalia to Syria, are largely a Who’s Who of oppression regimes in the Middle East and North/East Africa. The folks in charge are only interested in keeping themselves in charge. They don’t represent the people of the region-- the folks on who’s side we’re supposed to be.
John, yeah they are oppressive. And what does that have to do with my point #2, “selfish national interests”? They are in power, we are better off with them cooperating with us than not, and our saying FUCK 'em will not not get them out of power and if anything could only increase the strength of their hold on it.
In terms of being on the side of “the people” - well there’s lots of people. I’m on the side of those people who want to be part of the world’s community and who can endorse a set of basic values that allows us to all live side by side. I am not on the side of the people who want to kill me and mine.
I am for democratic reforms and believe that such will bring about more and more of the people accepting that basic value set. I am not for our imposing that upon these countries by force or for doing that at any cost. The world’s protests against violent repression only has a chance at constraining actions if we are in a relationship with those who may do it. And if they take the whatever violent means needed option off the table because of that constraint, then actual moves to reforms and negotiations with the opposition becomes more likely.
The Syrian leaders are talking up real reforms now and perhaps they will indeed end up with a model similar to Turkey’s. Or not. But engagement is more likely productive than is disrespect.
That’s nice but unless you’re advising the President there is no “our” in your statement.
-What is the objective
-What is the exit strategy
-Who are be supporting
Congress got a closed door briefing after the fact. There is still disarray as to who is in charge and the basic questions have not been publicly addressed.
It’s not a function of agreeing or disagreeing with the mission objectives because they have not been laid out yet.
I’m saying I don’t want to set US policy based on what those fuckers want. The fact that they asked us to intervene int Libya doesn’t mean shit to me. If it’s in our interest to do so, I don’t need some dictator to tell me that.
Oh, I’m not saying we need to flip them off. I’m saying that I’m completely unimpressed by the fact that they asked us to intervene. I’m sick hearing “the Arab League asked us to” as if it meant anything wrt supporting reform in Arab countries.
They want Kadaffy gone for their own reasons, and those reasons aren’t ours. They didn’t like a guy who advocated a Pan Arab or Pan African unity with his truly as the guy in charge. He was a threat to their comfortable existence and this was the perfect excuse for then to get us to swat their gnat for them.
It provided us with a cover to intervene in Libya. Without it, we would have been sending troops into a 3rd Middle East country in the last decade. The people of the M.E. may have been sensing a pattern. They would have claimed it was the US going after another oil rich country. It of course is just coincidence.
That’s all in the UN resolution or common sense.
The objective is to stop Quadaffi from slaughtering his people. The exit strategy is to simply stop flying jets there. It’s not like we’re committing grounds troops to an occupation. We’re supporting the civilians of Libya.
I’m real a bit puzzled by the confusion, tbh. For instance, what sort of exit strategy do you think would be required if we decided that Quadaffi was no longer a threat to his people, other than just stopping doing whatever we were doing? What do you read as the mandate for intervention set out by the UNSC if not to protect Libyan civilians? Why do you believe we’re supporting anybody in particular?
The problem is how to continue to achieve the objective after you stop flying the jets. Other than by Qadaffi’s exit (one way or the other) how will the no-fly forces ever become convinced that he is no longer a threat to his people? We already know we can’t believe him when he says it.
The bet is placed that the no-fly eventually results in a coup against him by elements within his own top brass, or that the opposition can somehow “win”, or that a negotiated cease fire with a division of the country (and its oil revenues) occurs. But if none of those things do occur, when does it stop?
My guess is that’s why Obama was wanting to commit much muscle up front and then hand over the ongoing open ended process … hey we did our part!
Loyalty of the army is the key question, isn’t it? Ghadaffi’s troops appear plenty loyal up to now, ready to face a rag-tag bunch of untrained, poorly armed civilians behind the meager cover of an armored column. Bravely facing insurmountable odds in their favor, with the prospect of a free hand in sacking an “enemy” city, with all the economic and recreational prospects that offers.
The prospect of being broiled alive in a tank in the Godforsaken Desert by an armor busting missile might very well move his loyal soldiers to re-evaluate their priorities.
They’re all that, yes. But they’re also Arabs and Muslims and Middle Easterners/North Africans. Which, if you’ll drop the RO and think for a moment, is what matters here.
And they didn’t really ask for US/NATO intervention, they were asked to ask, so to speak.
The expectation is that he bails - and there are stories flying already about his looking for a way to do so. We then do what we’re doing in all the other places where democratic revolts have overthrown dictators recently, or are in the process - support the creation of new democracies, hopefully while helping prevent them from being hijacked by new dictators.
Now, can you tell us where you got the idea that we should not help prevent people from being massacred when we have the ability to do so? Or that our national principles do not entail supporting the establishment and development of democracies anywhere else? Surely not from any notion of our common humanity, or any moral principles or history based thereon. Is it merely reflexive anti-Bushism? Is that common accusation actually applicable to some individuals here?
Let’s take a Muslim/Arab country that had no history of even being a country prior to 1952, that has been ruled by an oppressive dictator since the 1960s, that has a goodly amount of oil, and is comprised of any number of competing tribes. A country that is held together by an army made up of lots of mercenaries who aren’t even Libyans. Let’s knock out the government from the air and let’s not send in any ground troops to ensure some sort of order is maintained. Add to the mix that this country borders an even larger country that is going through its own revolution of unknown outcome and with a history of generating Islamic radicalism.
What could possibly go wrong?
OK. scratch that. Only a crazy person would do that. Let’s send in troops to maintain order. We’ll have to set up our own guy to run things for awhile. I hear that Ahmed Chalibi is available… We can even airlift some flowers in so they can toss them in the paths of the tanks as they roll in. That’ll be just dandy.
Oh, but these won’t be US troops, and I’ll give Obama credit for not doing that (I hope). The Europeans have shown themselves to be unwilling to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan even when they played a minor role.
These guys are going to have their civil war whether we participate or not. If the Europeans want to join in, I wish them luck. If it’s the Arab League that’s running things, then all bets are off.