Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Though this turns out not to be Pottery Barn's policy after all, it has been received wisdom that "if you break it, you buy it." In other words, if the US topples a regime, we are responsible for the welfare and stability of that country going forward. And therefore, that any military action involves a long-term slippery slope of open-ended commitment.Why? I thought Colin Powell bailed in 2004. Why do we impose this artificial construct of a handicap on ourselves?
One reason seen on these pages and elsewhere is "you never know if the next regime will be worse". Well, you never know, and I suppose the next ruler of Libya could be an Ahmadinejad clone, but Qaddafi's about as close to rock bottom as it's possible to get. Certainly worth a shot at knocking him off without having to babysit the place afterward.
Another (thankfully not seen here, we've got better sense) is that we would create bitterness and resentment by blowing up some stuff and then leaving. As opposed to the goodwill and general bonhomie we create by occupation.
There is great advantage to be gained by deposing Qaddafi quickly. Not just in Libya, but by the example of meting out justice to our sworn enemy. The example of America's terrible swift sword bumping off a dictator who tries us too high, and then leaving without looking back, will send shivers down the spine of any despot within carrier range. Sponsor terrorism, start a nuke program, turn your guns on your own people, and this could be you, pal.
It's a far, far cheaper strategy in lives and money, and thus a more credible threat. It lowers the threshold for military action, and is therefore more of a deterrent for those who now believe they can push us far enough to test the limits.
Call me irresponsible. But if you want to scare the bejeezus out of bad actors without getting involved in quagmires, a little creative destruction can do wonders.
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
There are problems with the ends and the means. The problems with the ends have to do with the unknown nature of the "opposition" (probably Islamists) and poor definition of the mission and the command structure of the coalition: We definitely do not want a Black Hawk Dowm redux. The problems with the means have to do with those pesky constitutional issues and the fact that there is no consensus on the part of the public (and this is still a res publica) that the US should be intervening in Lybia. Unintended consequences can be a b***h!
Mar '11
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Obama assures us that this is a UN matter with Britain and France taking the lead. We are just supporting the action.
France and Britain want this action fine. I guess we can help them "break it" but they need to worry about what comes next, let them "buy it"
May '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Well of course he should have gotten an authorization for the use of force, my good Berean. It would not have been difficult, and only his feckless dithering made it impractical.
However, none of this addresses whether we should stick around to mold the new nation, or just knock off Qaddafi and leave. I'm arguing for the latter here, and elsewhere, when the opportunity presents itself.
Edited on Mar 22, 2011 at 9:23amMay '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Well said, Jager. Though I wonder if the break, don't buy concept should also have been applied to Afghanistan. Swift punishment to the malefactors, and then hand over the keys. Because otherwise we get so tied down by these things that others feel free to act with impunity, assuming that we couldn't possibly muster the will to hurt them.
Dec '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
I don't have a problem with breaking it and leaving in some situations. Libya is one of them. I suspect few would seriously object if we just eliminated Gaddafi and then walked away. It's a pity we can't conduct foreign policy so sensibly.
While we may coy and demure about targeting Gaddifi, the French may not be.
Oct '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
It is increasingly unlikely that Qathafi will be removed from power. Obama says that while it would be nice, it isn't necessary; that his goal is primarily humanitarian in nature (ICR2P). This "Responsibility to Protect" is a new strategy adopted by the UN that allows the UN to intervene in any nation where the UN deems it has the "Responsibility to Protect" the citizens from an unfair government.
The surviving opposition in Libya is the tribe of the deposed royal family who Qathafi overthrew because of their support of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Oct '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Let's bomb Iran !
Mar '11
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Applying the logic used as a reason to bomb Libya, a dictator is killing his own people, large parts of Africa and the mid-east, including Iran, should be bombed.
At some point we need to realize we have neither the money nor the manpower to solve all the worlds problems.
Dec '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
I worry more about the military being used as a kneejerk reaction, being whipsawed at the whim of the Executive branch.
That being said, "you never know if the next regime will be worse" applies to democratic republics, just as it does to any other political system. Witness today in the US of A. I'm concerned that we will never, (today, not after WW II, or even the Korean War) "install" a government anywhere that satisfies American public opinion, so, really what is the point to having that amongst the listed objectives?
May '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Is this very different from assassination?
I don't object to a hit-and-run in all circumstances. Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 without inciting a war. But such actions are always a gamble.
Nov '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
The problem with strategic decapitation of leadership is that it could be termed an assassination. From what I understand that's a big no-no. It's far better to go and kill hundreds of soldiers (perhaps on both sides, though hopefully the vast majority on the other side) than to take out just a few top guys with missiles. I know that can be hard for us mere proles to understand, but if we put ourselves into the shoes of our esteemed leadership, we would see contrariwise. After all, if we let that cat out of the bag, they're free game too!
Jager
Applying the logic used as a reason to bomb Libya, a dictator is killing his own people, large parts of Africa and the mid-east, including Iran, should be bombed.
At some point we need to realize we have neither the money nor the manpower to solve all the worlds problems.
If bombing dictators really would solve the problem, that'd be a rather cheap and easy way to get world peace.
May '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
But the strongest rationale for our action in the first place is our desire for stability. So if you're not going to assume any responsibility for the chaos that follows his departure, why bother in the first place? It sure can't really be about humanitarian issues or we would have gone in two weeks ago -- and for that matter intervened in a host of other places.
So, no. I'm afraid that we we will be quite expensively involved in Libya for years to come.
Jul '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
As Professor Rahe once said, "Butcher and Bolt".
Jul '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Mrs. Thatcher's argument for the death penalty wasn't that it was a good preventative measure but rather that some people had forfeited the right to live--and that society should not have to pay for their continued existence. I have no problem applying this logic to Libya, or anywhere else. Every time I read about another shrapnel bomb in Israel, I find myself wondering if perhaps the best solution is just to shove most of the people in Gaza right into the sea--but I've gotten rather used to being called a fascist over the last few years, so I'm not claiming any objectivity. I do worry a bit that the situation any of this would create might not be worse than the one that presently exists, though. Getting the Russians out of Afghanistan certainly had unexpected costs...
As Tennessee Williams said, sometimes a vacuum is a hell of a lot better than the things nature chooses to fill it with.
May '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Matthew Osborn: It is increasingly unlikely that Qathafi will be removed from power. Obama says that while it would be nice, it isn't necessary; that his goal is primarily humanitarian in nature (ICR2P). This "Responsibility to Protect" is a new strategy adopted by the UN that allows the UN to intervene in any nation where the UN deems it has the "Responsibility to Protect" the citizens from an unfair government.
The surviving opposition in Libya is the tribe of the deposed royal family who Qathafi overthrew because of their support of the Muslim Brotherhood. · Mar 22 at 11:18am
Cool spelling. Hadn't seen that one before. But whatever Obama or the UN says publicly, I think Nickolas is correct in observing that our partners in this venture see that as a mere fig leaf, while winking about the only possible endgame, that being the removal of Qathafi.
May '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Trace Urdan: But the strongest rationale for our action in the first place is our desire for stability. So if you're not going to assume any responsibility for the chaos that follows his departure, why bother in the first place? It sure can't really be about humanitarian issues or we would have gone in two weeks ago -- and for that matter intervened in a host of other places.
So, no. I'm afraid that we we will be quite expensively involved in Libya for years to come. · Mar 22 at 3:04pm
Stability is the stupidest Middle East goal ever. A stasis of suckery. However, I share your fear that we'll fall into the trap of attempting it, much to our detriment and their continued misery. Which is why I wrote this highly-influential alternate doctrine, lapped up eagerly by world leaders.
May '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Damn right. They're a serious threat to us and our allies. And we've ignored two popular uprisings so far. Letting opportunities slip.
Jun '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
After the bombing stops I'd like the see the entire mess dropped into the laps of the Arab League. Let them fill the leadership vacuum. I'll bring popcorn and we can watch.
Oct '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
Kennedy Smith
Damn right. They're a serious threat to us and our allies. And we've ignored two popular uprisings so far. Letting opportunities slip. · Mar 22 at 3:38pm
I've got 2 votes to bomb Iran so far! As to the "assassination" charge, we can easily get around that by targeting the "command and control of the military," which means the leaders of the country that we want to assassinate.
May '10
Re: Don't Buy It, Just Break It
I have to hope, on some level, that the Bush Doctrine goal fostering democracy could be a net positive over the long term. The longer we're in Iraq (and the more Afghanistan shifts towards nation-building), the less amenable I am to that idea.
The issue that others have pointed out time and again is: who steps in to fill the void? If there's no culture of liberalism in a country and no leaders able to shift the people in that direction, our military men and women sacrifice to provide a wasted opportunity. If the best we can do is a slightly-less-despicable strongman, it's hard to see how the math works in our favor.
This is a long way of saying I'm more supportive of the John Derbyshire "Rubble makes no trouble" approach as time passes. Find their military facilities, bomb 'em to bits, move on. As far as assassination, I'm not opposed to targeting monsters and their inner circles when Congress will vote for it. Anyone concerned that America knocking off some dictator will open the floodgates is probably giving our enemies too much credit.