Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Few have wanted to acknowledge that there are a variety of ways to go wrong with Libya. As the past several days ticked by, it became clear that adverse consequences awaited unilateral American action or inaction. This is what used to be known as a tragic situation. But the claim to moral clarity put forth by partisans on both sides of the intervention divide put us under powerful pressure to view only unilateral action or inaction as tragedy fodder.
In both cases, idealism itself intensified that pressure. From the vantage of those calling for unilateral nonintervention, American exceptionalism means a providence of exemption, from the very protracted strife that must afflict all parts of the world where democratization (or modernization or globalization) cannot develop as organically and peacefully as it did at America's cultural origin. From the standpoint of supporters of unilateral intervention, American exceptionalism means a providence of duty, to politically represent, through force if necessary, the veritable 'party of freedom' that continually appears in the world, unable to rely on itself or other powers to overcome local despotism.
Neither vision of American exceptionalism is wholly wrong about the character of America's place in the world, but both are incomplete. The problem is that no unilateral decision about Libya could adequately capture, much less translate into action, the element of truth in both visions.
The consequence was a growing fury of idealisms. Noninterventionists had begun to curse their opposite numbers for marching us off to another undeclared war, in proud denial of the humbling lessons of Iraq. Interventionists had begun to condemn them for willful ignorance, craven apathy, and a dereliction of leadership.
The real prevailing interest of the American people, meanwhile -- that which should always remain paramount -- slipped out of view. That interest is the avoidance of a general regional war in the Mideast and beyond. Unilateral American intervention in Libya would create unparalleled conditions and opportunities for that general war. But unilateral American abstention risked a shocking power vacuum capable of feeding a deep and unpredictable wave of further violence. The actually political meaning of American exceptionalism is that the paramount interests of the American people must come first in foreign policy -- above any moral meaning of American exceptionalism, whether it countenances a prudential prejudice in favor of peace or a prideful prejudice in favor of war. That does not mean American foreign policy must be an amoral enterprise. Far from it. A constitutional foreign policy, however, must not be hijacked by moral idealism, no matter what the variety, no matter how sincere.
The only option with the best chance of securing the American interest, remarkably, was multilateral military action, formally authorized by the United Nations, with Europe in the lead, Muslim states proactively on board, and the United States in only a supporting role.
And, even more remarkably, that is what we have now. Whether or not the US intervened alone, a demonstration that our Muslim and European allies are unable to accept the due measure of responsibility to keep good order in their own neighborhood would be a dangerous scandal with dizzying implications for America at a perilous and demanding juncture. The fact of the matter is that the American interest cannot be secured unless they prove they are able to do so. Swiftly passing and acting upon today's UN Security Council resolution is essential to that end.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
To make a difference now, much more than a no-fly zone is required. Gaddafi is at the gates of Benghazi.
Apparently the UN resolution is similar to the Nov. 1990 resolution on Iraq, authorizing whatever is required.
What is needed at this point are air strikes, and a lot of them, on Gaddafi's supply lines, rear bases, forward marshalling areas, air fields, and command and control centers.
I have been opposed to unilateral action, and have serious reservations about "joint" action, but if we are in this and we hope to make a difference, there is nothing to be gained by going only half way and in the end leaving Gaddafi in place.
Hopefully the support of the Arab League and our European allies will be more than just rhetoric.
Edited on Mar 17, 2011 at 5:01pmRe: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
James, the problem with your argument is that we will arrive with too little, too late.
There is a reason why, in an emergency, everyone looks to the United States. It is the reason why, in such a situation, we look in this country to the President. The unitary executive is there for emergencies. Congress is good at fiddling and diddling. When time is not of the essence, its debates and negotiations may be conducive to wisdom. But in a pinch it is useless. The UN is like Congress -- just much worse -- and NATO is not much better.
Obama is not an executive. He let Pelosi and Reid write the major bills passed in his first two years, and we got what you would expect: thousands of pages that no one understood. Now, instead of taking the lead and tipping the balance when it would have been easy, Obama dithered and is now referring the matter to the UN. The result is that Gaddafi will win, and we will have offended him without doing any harm. It is the worst of all possibilities. Ahmadinejad is watching and chortling.
Oct '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
What a tortured thesis. Libyan intervention could only be an aspect of American Exceptionalism in a neocons wet dream. Let us hope that we Americans practice some American Exemptionalism in this intervention. Other nation states have much bigger dogs in that hunt.
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Paul A. Rahe: James, the problem with your argument is that we will arrive with too little, too late.
Obama is not an executive. He let Pelosi and Reid write the major bills passed in his first two years, and we got what you would expect: thousands of pages that no one understood. Now, instead of taking the lead and tipping the balance when it would have been easy, Obama dithered and is now referring the matter to the UN. The result is that Gaddafi will win, and we will have offended him without doing any harm. It is the worst of all possibilities. Ahmadinejad is watching and chortling.
Paul -- you're right to be concerned, but I believe Ahmadinejad would have had more reason to chortle had we jumped in alone early or if we had continued to sit things out. Even more than that, I suspect either of those two alternatives would have presented Ahmadinejad with a singular opportunity to meddle further in the region and sow greater instability. Obama's record as an executive may be dismaying, but his policy has closely tracked that of the Editors of National Review...
May '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
I gather that this is most likely the case and, given Obama's indecisiveness and waffling, I figure that he has every reason to. What the Iranian leadership must be deliberating over is with what ease may they proceed towards the development of a warhead(s).
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
James Poulos
Paul A. Rahe: James, the problem with your argument is that we will arrive with too little, too late.
Paul -- you're right to be concerned, but I believe Ahmadinejad would have had more reason to chortle had we jumped in alone early or if we had continued to sit things out. Even more than that, I suspect either of those two alternatives would have presented Ahmadinejad with a singular opportunity to meddle further in the region and sow greater instability. Obama's record as an executive may be dismaying, but his policy has closely tracked that of the Editors of National Review... · Mar 17 at 5:54pm
You -- and apparently the editors of National Review -- grossly overestimate the Arabs' resentment of us. Had we provided the rebels with air support, Gaddafi's coalition would have crumbled, and we would have been regarded as heroes throughout much of the Arab world. What we have earned with our dithering is contempt, and we deserve it. We neither help our friends nor harm our enemies. If we keep it up, we will have very few of the former and many of the latter.
Dec '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Maybe, but I doubt Gaddifi's forces can withstand a major widespread air offensive.
I think many of his military forces could quickly break. His support may be weak.
Edited on Mar 17, 2011 at 6:04pmRe: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Nickolas
Maybe, but I doubt Gaddifi's forces can withstand a major widespread air offensive.
I think many of his military forces could quickly break. His support may be weak. · Mar 17 at 6:03pm
Edited on Mar 17 at 06:04 pm
But will we get to that point? And if we do, will there be anything left of the opposition? Had we done this at the outset, what you describe would have happened. Now, I wonder. I do hope that you are right.
Jun '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
If we've learned anything, we've learned that American intervention never plays out the way we planned, and it always takes much longer than we planned. That's because surgical precision (our way of doing things) is hard, and time consuming. Gaddafi will bring out the human shields. Intervention might be some nation's (or group of nations) chance for a noble humanitarian crusade, protecting the Libyan rebels, but is it ours? We have a lot on our plate these days. And the minute we stretch ourselves too thin, every enemy we have will use that golden opportunity to steal a base...or even steal Taiwan.
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
I'm much less concerned about resentment by Arabs than destabilizing opportunism by our enemies and the possibility of chaos among our allies. Some might have cheered us as heroes, but that wouldn't have been the whole story, I don't think -- or the most important part of it, necessarily.
Dec '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Paul A. Rahe
Nickolas
Maybe, but I doubt Gaddifi's forces can withstand a major widespread air offensive.
I think many of his military forces could quickly break. His support may be weak.
But will we get to that point? And if we do, will there be anything left of the opposition? Had we done this at the outset, what you describe would have happened. Now, I wonder. I do hope that you are right.
I don't know what Hillary has in mind and can get Obama to agree to when she can get his attention in between rounds of golf and watching basketball games, but I think an aggressive air campaign at this point could still turn the tide.
On the other hand, Obama may have been suckered into a late UN vote that calls his bluff.
May '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
So being a true executive would require the president to write the bills himself rather than having Congress do it? I am not sure I understand this argument.
Dec '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Conor Friedersdorf
So being a true executive would require the president to write the bills himself rather than having Congress do it? I am not sure I understand this argument. ·
You don't understand your own straw man?
Nov '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Paul A. Rahe
You -- and apparently the editors of National Review -- grossly overestimate the Arabs' resentment of us. Had we provided the rebels with air support, Gaddafi's coalition would have crumbled, and we would have been regarded as heroes throughout much of the Arab world. What we have earned with our dithering is contempt, and we deserve it.
I was absolutely disgusted when I read Andrew McCarthy's piece in NRO today. It was a contemptible screed, advocating realpolitik at its absolute worst. Worthy of being framed and hung at the State Department.
Maybe the liberals are right when they say Republicans are selfish. Human suffering is fine as long as it's not our own, right?
Edited on Mar 17, 2011 at 7:19pmJul '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
I'm still looking for the clause in the Constitution that requires us to intervene in countries unless our own strategic interests are directly at stake.
And whatever happened to that quaint notion that Congress must declare war?
Jun '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Jan-Michael Rives
......I was absolutely disgusted when I read Andrew McCarthy's piece in NRO today. It was a contemptible screed, advocating realpolitik at its absolute worst. Worthy of being framed and hung at the State Department.
Maybe the liberals are right when they say Republicans are selfish. Human suffering is fine as long as it's not our own, right? · Mar 17 at 7:15pm
Edited on Mar 17 at 07:19 pm
If you're a father, your primary job is to protect your own family from violence. Who else would take a bullet for your family, if not you? And anyway, if you spread yourself too thin, trying to protect everybody, you protect nobody. That's the point. If you want play God--intervening in somebody else's civil war--then prepare to spend some time bleeding on a cross. That's the reward for that kind of "good deed." It never goes as planned. In any case, you need to get congressional approval. Good luck with that.
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Conor Friedersdorf
So being a true executive would require the president to write the bills himself rather than having Congress do it? I am not sure I understand this argument. · Mar 17 at 6:54pm
FDR had Frances Perkins, his Labor Secretary, draft the Social Security bill. It was 12 pages in length.
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Kenneth: I'm still looking for the clause in the Constitution that requires us to intervene in countries unless our own strategic interests are directly at stake.
And whatever happened to that quaint notion that Congress must declare war? · Mar 17 at 8:12pm
Our strategic interests are at stake. Look at the location of Libya; consider the amount of oil it produces (a strategic substance); and consider the larger impact of tipping it our way.
The last time we declared war was 1941.
Sep '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Kenneth – Could not agree with you more. These Libyan “freedom fighters” were the same people who cheered the release of the Lockerbie bomber and have cheered their new found enemy when he engaged in various terrorist activities. The founders foresaw the day when do- good politicians and professors would want to put the non-elite people, who actually do the fighting, in harm’s way so that they can feel self-satisfied in the belief that they are doing the right thing and tried to construct a road block or two. The idea that the Arabs would have loved us if we had intervened makes adolescent romanticizing seem mature. This is simply none or our business.
Jul '10
Re: Libyan Intervention and American Exceptionalism
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth: I'm still looking for the clause in the Constitution that requires us to intervene in countries unless our own strategic interests are directly at stake.
And whatever happened to that quaint notion that Congress must declare war? · Mar 17 at 8:12pm
Our strategic interests are at stake. Look at the location of Libya; consider the amount of oil it produces (a strategic substance); and consider the larger impact of tipping it our way.
The last time we declared war was 1941. · Mar 18 at 4:32am
Almost all of Libya's production goes to Italy and France; so I'd say it's their strategic interest. I realize oil is fungible, but 1.4 million barrels a day isn't terribly significant.
Given polls showing the majority of the American people don't want us intervening in Libya, I believe we are owed a proper constitutional process; a vote on declaration of war. Absent that, we're voiceless minions of the executive and the United Nations.
Edited on Mar 18, 2011 at 9:46am