More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Max Boot, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and an informal but frequent adviser to Gen. Petraeus, writing in the Weekly Standard:
Better late than never, the United States and her allies finally have acted to stop the slaughter in Libya....The only way this crisis will end--the only way we and our allies can achieve our objectives in Libya--is to remove Qaddafi from power. Containment won't suffice. We must make
"rollback" the international strategy....Behind the scenes, we and our allies should be working to build the most durable and democratic regime possible--while assuring Qaddafi's allies, especially in the army, that they will be welcome in the new Libya....
The passage of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973 is a step in the right direction. But it is only a beginning--not the end. Much dangerous and difficult work remains to be done to create a decent post-Qaddafi state where (in the words of the U.N. resolution) civiliaons will not have to fear "attacks" and "abuses."
Adam Garfinkle, speechwriter to Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, writing in the American Interest, which he edits:
As noted, there is a regional and tribal element to the fight in Libya. It is unlikely that the Benghazi-based rebels could by themselves establish stable control over the whole country. It is almost as unlikely that the Tripolitanian tribes could re-establish firm control over Cyrenaica....We are therefore looking into the maw of a Libya that may well be divided, in the throes of some kind of protracted, at least low-level civil war, and that could very easily produce an insurgency spilling over the Egyptian and Tunisian borders—complete with refugees, the usual dysfunctional NGO triage operations and all the rest. And in due course, if the fractious mess lasts long enough, there is a reasonable
prospect that al-Qaeda will find a way to establish a foothold amid the mayhem....
Now, given that this sort of problem is foreseeable, and that it was also foreseeable before the cruise missiles started flying on Saturday, it stands to reason that a responsible, serious government will have thought about all this in advance, and come up with some plan for the post-combat "Phase IV" of the Libyan War, right? Not on your life; the President and his war council almost certainly have not even begun to think about this sort of thing, because they’re still in denial that it could happen....They don’t realize it yet, but these guys are on a path to make even…Rumsfeld and …Franks look good—and you thought that was impossible....
I wish the President had never opened his big eloquent mouth about Libya, and I wish we had not started this war; but wishing won’t make it go away. I have no intention of waxing banal and invoking Vietnam, because Libya has nothing to do with Vietnam; there are no quagmires in a place that, from a military point of view, is an island in the sense that every target worth hitting can be hit from the sea. But I do suspect that this can only end badly, and that what is left to policy at this point is to figure out the least bad of all possible outcomes and struggle toward it.
Boot or Garfinkle? Who makes the better argument—and why?
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Sadly, I think Garfinkle is right. I admire Mr. Boot, but, I think he is way too naive about what happens after Qaddafi is gone. This is truly a situation with no good outcome. And, unfortunately, I'm fairly certain this applies to just about every other country in the area. Just about every Arab country is a geopolitical fiction imposed by outside actors and maintained by an empowered and ruthless few. If you could snap your fingers and make oil meaningless most of the large scale strife would go away as these areas reverted to tribal fiefdoms. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Nov '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
It seems these arguments always go the same way. The pro-interventionists say something like "we have to stop this mad dictator from abusing his people. We have to stand up for the good guys." The anti-interventionist (I am sure there is a way to make that word longer if I try harder) says something like "We don't know what we are getting into, the results of removing the Evil Dr. Porkchop will be that a new Evil Dr. Porkchop will arrive and the opposition are too dumb to run the show. We don't know who the good guys are anyway." I think both have good points. But I find myself agreeing with Boot. I think we owe it to the rest of the world to use our resources and prosperity for good. Yes, we need to use them carefully. But we shouldn't shy away just because it's messy or because "there's nothing in it for us." Because doing something good for your neighbor always holds promise for you. Maybe that's a little pollyanna, but it's my opinion.
Edited on Mar 25, 2011 at 6:47amJan '11
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
The premise of American government is that all authority comes from the consent of the governed. We know that these countries aren't American, but then again, we think that this principle of authority is universal. We believe that government only works, ultimately, if the people choose it.
Therefore, it's a basic contradiction to impose consent of the governed from the outside.
Doesn't our current Libyan plan depend on the premise that if we remove the tyrant, the "natural" consent of the people will be allowed to thrive? Who's kidding who? There is no collective consensus in Libya, being thwarted by a tyrant. If you take Qaddafi away, the place falls apart anyway. Even if we take Qaddafi out, the place will descend into chaos.
But we know what will happen, don't we? Qaddafi will leave, Obama will crow that his multilateral approach "worked," and the while the media is applauding, no one will pay attention to the disaster they've left behind.
The Pottery Barn Rule? Doesn't apply to Obama. He's going to break Libya, but won't have to buy it.
Jun '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Someone needs to explain to me why it's more important to stop a civil war in Libya, militarily, than it was to end the genocidal slaughter in Darfur, militarily. It's not like Darfur was over before we could do anything. Something is not adding up. Not for me anyway. The international perception will continue to be, Libya has oil, Darfur did not.
Edited on Mar 25, 2011 at 6:24amFeb '11
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
I vote that Garfinkle is correct.
Why are we attacking the Libyan regime to end murder and not that of Myanmar? Or Iran? Cuba? Or China for that matter?
Because Libya made it to the television screen, while the others did not? Or did everyone just assume Libya would be really easy?
Condemn me as a heartless lowlife if you wish, but the affairs of Libya are none of ours. We tolerated Khadaffi even after he committed acts of war against us. Now we cannot because he continues his oppression?
The Libyan adventure was a mistake. I hope it will not turn into a disaster.
Nov '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
KC Mulville: The premise of American government is that all authority comes from the consent of the governed. We know that these countries aren't American, but then again, we think that this principle of authority is universal. We believe that government only works, ultimately, if the people choose it.
Therefore, it's a basic contradiction to impose consent of the governed from the outside.
Doesn't our current Libyan plan depend on the premise that if we remove the tyrant, the "natural" consent of the people will be allowed to thrive? Who's kidding who? There is no collective consensus in Libya, being thwarted by a tyrant. If you take Qaddafi away, the place falls apart anyway. Even if we take Qaddafi out, the place will descend into chaos.
This is crazy. By this line of reasoning, no group of people can ever come together as a nation if they don't agree on every single point. Rousseau answered this question, rather convincingly I might add, nearly 250 years ago.
Jul '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
I am so disappointed in Max Boot. Since when are we in the business of "creating" decent states?
Right now, we're a bit busy just trying to save our own.
Oct '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
I've been sitting on the fence over this, but started leaning towards Pat Buchanan's view (www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/03/24/how-killing-libyans-became-a-moral-imperative) that the US should no more interfere in this than it did in the Spanish or Nigerian civil wars. To quote, "Why doesn't Egypt, whose 450,000-man army has gotten billions from us, roll into Tobruk and Benghazi and protect those Arabs from being killed by fellow Arabs? Why is this America's responsibility?"
Oct '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Jun '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
The toothpaste is out of the tube, isn't it? Allowing Gaddafi to remain in power will not only be a failure for the United States and her allies but a failure of the uprising and is not really an option, is it?
While it's true that we are not entirely sure of the makeup or the long-term intentions of the rebels; we have been painfully familiar with the make up and behavior of the delusional madman in power who has killed Americans, Brits and his own people. We are in it now and the burden of pulling together a foreign policy towards a post-Gaddafi government that has seen America and the NATO allies as supportive of their cause will be the responsibility of statecraft.
As with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change during Clinton's time in office - that received overwhelming support in the House and unanimous support in the Senate - it should have been our stated policy for regime change in Libya - particularly after the Lockerbie bombing. Instead, despite sanctions, Gaddafi has continued to foment terror and cause problems in the region.
We have passed the Rubicon.
Jun '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
I agree about one thing. Once you grab on and start wrestling the alligator, you have to follow through with it. It's kind of dangerous to stop halfway.
May '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Whether we like it or not, the US is going to follow the Boot recipe. the thing I most disagree on is his statement 'better late than never.' The administration delayed and went in after Qaddafi got better organized. During the delay Obama consulted everyone BUT congress, the only group he should have been obligated to consult. Now Obama owns this adventure more than either Bush ever did theirs. Even he knows he can't slink away now.
Jun '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
From Buchanan's article you cited: America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own,” said John Quincy Adams in his oration of July 4, 1821.
Would Mr. Adams have felt the same way if a commercial ship carrying Americans had been destroyed by a foreign terrorist under the orders of his country's leader? Would he have responded with force of action or merely the force of his rhetoric?
Exhorting the Egyptian military to storm into Libya to some how clean up the mess is foolish to say the least and reckless to even consider. It makes an internal dispute into a regional war throughout North Africa. If this is how Pat Buchanan would act as Commander-in-Chief, then I think we should be thankful that his run for the Presidency never really got anywhere.
May '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
I sincerely hope so, and thanks for the plug. As noted, I'm not a big believer in the necessity or wisdom of Phase IV. Knocking off Qaddafi is a worthy end in itself, even independent of the humanitarian goals. His continuance in power is an embarrassment to the United States, and his replacement would have to try really hard to be as bad or worse.
Speaking of embarrassments to the United States, however, the President is not living up to even my low hurdle of expectations. I thought Lauren linked to a report that the President was "energized". He's about as energized as a slug that runs on windmill power. He's not even going to address the nation on this, refuses to use the W word, and seems bent on putting our forces under the command of a dysfunctional NATO.
With even a barely sentient President, I'd say this war was the absolutely right choice. But this guy is making me distinctly queasy about the whole thing.
Mar '11
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
On the whole, I come down on Mr. Boot's side of the argument. The current problem is that Boot's comments make more sense if stated from a position of strength and resolve, a position the US seems to lack at the moment.
Garfinkle makes a good point about the unpreparedness of the current administration, but his subsequent damning of Rumsfeld and Franks is sophomoric. Garfinkle's final point, "But I do suspect that this can only end badly, and that what is left to policy at this point is to figure out the least bad of all possible outcomes and struggle toward it," is a tautology. Foreign policy is often a choice of bad vs. worse.
Sep '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
If this is a "humanitarian" mission then I'd like to know for whom we are fighting. Nobody has come up with anything coherent about who the rebels are and what their stated goals are if they dipose Qaddafi. Ignorance on this seems to be running amuck, the blind are leading the blind. Until some sort of description as to who we are defending is clearly articulated by the President and his Administration, I refuse to support this mission.
Furthermore, I believe in Napoleon's axiom "When You Set Out to Take Vienna, Take Vienna!" There is nothing about this war that comes close to following this rule. Instead, if the mission is successful in its stated goals it will result in a bellum interruptum (Victor Davis Hanson has written and spoken about this. A basic primer on bellum interruptum by him can be found here). Whether the President likes it or not, he has started a war in Libya that will only end when Qaddafi is toppled or we lose by deciding to leave.
Edited on Mar 25, 2011 at 9:21amJun '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
To further elaborate on the Mr. Adams dictum as invoked by Pat Buchanan: America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own,” said John Quincy Adams in his oration of July 4, 1821.
Even though this may upset the non-interventionists in the Ricochet community and even though Mr. Adams' statement is a noble sentiment it should be considered in the context of his time. The threats to America were from beyond an ocean and once apparent were cannon fire or armies bearing muskets. In the post-nuclear age we face threats from terrorists who can arguably get their hands on dirty bombs, deadly viruses, missiles or bombs to take down airliners or airliners to take down buildings and kill thousands or God help us, a nuclear weapon -- sometimes under the orders of delusional leaders, sometimes merely plotting their villainy in the safe haven of sympathetic countries.
As a rule of thumb, yes, America should avoid foreign entanglements but at the moment we are entangled and bemoaning the fact doesn't really get us anywhere.
Oct '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
I'd rather see the US try to destabilize Iran and Syria.
Jul '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
No good deed goes unpunished. There is no identified side worthy of support in this very foreign civil war, and it is not like we will just secure the oil fields to stabilize the world energy market. Can't do that, that would be in America's interest, and the world's interest.
When Al-Qaeda endorses your intervention, it is time to stop and think.
Jun '10
Re: More Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
So much of this entanglement has been mismanaged. There is no clear end-goal and yes, we do not understand who the rebels or what their long term plans are. But are we so incompetent and impotent to understand them or put conditions on our continued support for their cause now? Perhaps we are. Are U.S. representatives having a dialogue with the rebel leadership now? One would certainly hope so...but it is possible that we are not.
Also, I think "taking Vienna" was what Victor David Hanson articulated in the most recent Ricochet podcast wasn't it, when he said the way for Obama to salvage the situation would be to unleash the American military to see to it that Gaddafi was utterly defeated? Listen to his comments about 28 minutes into the podcast.
Edited on Mar 25, 2011 at 9:45am