Should We Arm the Rebels?
The newest question concerning the Libyan conflict that the punditocracy has taken upon itself to decide is whether or not the West should arm the Libyan rebels.
Roger Cohen writing for the NYT says YES:
I said of Libya in an earlier column: Be ruthless or stay out. So now the West is in, be ruthless. Arm the resurgent rebels. Incapacitate Qaddafi. Do everything short of putting troops on the ground. Qaddafi, as President Obama has said, “must leave.” So that Libya can be an Arab country that is imperfect but open.
Max Fisher over at the Atlantic says NO:
The cycle is a familiar one: rather than commit American lives to a murky and uncertain conflict, the White House asks the CIA to find or create local proxies that can do the fighting for us. We invariably find the most skilled fighters, the most ruthless killers, who can best challenge or outright topple whatever regime -- often communist, usually despotic and deserving of ouster -- has earned American ire. But the conflict often escalates and turns for the worse. Our killers turn out to be even more brutal than their killers, or maybe they're not as unified as we thought and turn against one another, or they end up targeting civilians as well as enemy fighters.
The most common outcome of U.S.-funded rebellions has been to create instability and violence that, whether in the form of intractable insurgencies or low-level sectarian fighting, tends to last far longer than whatever political conflict they were meant to resolve. The flood of arms -- particularly the easy-to-use, impossible-to-destroy, grimly effective Kalashnikov rifle variants -- make weapons so prolific and so cheap that terrorism, criminal gangs better armed than the police, and militias of every political and religious stripe are all but impossible to stamp out. By the time that CIA funding dries up, young men who have made their living for years fighting on the American dime have no other way to support their family than killing for hire. Wealthy, extremist sheikhs and would-be sheikhs on the Arabian Peninsula are always happy to write checks in pursuit of their Islamist dreams, as they have done in support of Afghan and Pakistani militants for decades. Violence begets violence, instability begets instability, and the U.S. tactic of arming rebels has been incredibly successful at fomenting both, but has done little to end either, often creating problems far outsizing those we originally meant to solve.
Expect to be hearing from our own Victor Davis Hanson on the matter shortly, but in the meantime, I'd be interested in hearing from our readers. Now that Obama has committed U.S. force to the mission in Libya, shall we follow up by arming the rebels?
My own thought: So long as there's any shadow of a doubt that these rebels aren't al Qaeda, we shouldn't even consider arming them.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
Instead of the CIA working clandestinely why not have State work privately with Muslim states to send "volunteers" to augment the freedom fighters. We could pay for transport and all classes of supply with Security Force Assistance funds, the providing nation pays salaries and hazard duty pay. Could possibly get forces from Pakistan, Jordan, Lebanon, Albania, Kosovo, and maybe Iraq.
Jul '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
Delivery for Mr. Qaeda. Mr. Al Qaeda, you have a delivery...
Aug '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
You mean the rebels about whom we know absolutely nothing other than that
Those rebels? Sure, I don't see how arming them could possibly go wrong.
Jul '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
I thought the whole point of blowing up Daffy's weapons was so that if the rebels won and turned out to be bad guys, they wouldn't have any weapons.
Jul '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
Here we go. We know nothing about them because it is not in the interests of an Administration that wants to arm them that we do better understand them. Hillary is tapped to carry the message because Obama does not want any tape of him saying arm these monsters, he wants tape of Hillary to use in a primary challenge. This is the moment for Hillary to resign in protest and establish an exploratory committee.
Arming Al-Qaeda is so utterly foolish only Barack Insane Obomber would push it. And our great grandchildren will be born into debt servitude still paying the interest on every weapon. He is doing cartwheels over the idea in the Oval Office.
Jan '11
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
You know, I'm one of those guys who believes that, no matter why you got into the war, once you're in it you've got to win it. Going to war is like getting onto the downslope on the ski jump ... you don't go back. You know, Vienna and all ...
But this case is different. I don't know where Vienna is, in Libya. In the first place, Libya isn't shooting back at us. We're theoretically there to stop Qaddafi from winning, but we're not going to help anyone else win.
This is like a football huddle where the quarterback says, "Don't fumble. On three!" All the players are confused, because they've been told what NOT to do, but haven't been told what the play is.
How do we enthusiastically support our soldiers when even they don't know what to do?
May '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
There are only two options, neither of which the administration or the country can bring itself to face:
Stay out of the fray completely, then treat with the survivors after the dust has settled, or,
Go the full Iraq/Japan/Germany nation-building model: slay the tyrant, install the new rulers, write the laws and leave forces there to enforce them.
No good choices here. The first is a crap shoot and the second means lots of (our) blood and treasure. I would have gone with the first choice.
Arm the rebels? Who are the rebels, anyway?
May '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
We got three options. Qaddafi wins, the rebels win, or we stick around forever and hold them in some sort of permanent stasis of conflict (aka, a Peace Process).
I don't like #1 or #3.
Oct '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
1) Didn't Daffy surrender his WMD program and compensated the Lockerbie victims with $2.7Billion in exchange for immunity from terror-related lawsuits and restoring normal relations with the US?
2) Defending the rebels from a slaughter via air attacks is one thing, but IF the US is arming the libyan rebels, that will be seen by Daffy as an escalation. And if he survives, the US will have another hostile mideast country to deal with. If you arm the rebels, you might as well kill Daffy while you're at it.
3) I realize that Al Queda has "boots on the ground" in rebel territory. The US will not involve military troops.
May '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
Kennedy Smith: We got three options. Qaddafi wins, the rebels win, or we stick around forever and hold them in some sort of permanent stasis of conflict (aka, a Peace Process).
I don't like #1 or #3. · Mar 29 at 7:29pm
Okay, three options.
Jan '11
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
John Marzan: 1) Didn't Daffy surrender his WMD program and compensated the Lockerbie victims with $2.7Billion in exchange for immunity from terror-related lawsuits and restoring normal relations with the US?
2) Defending the rebels from a slaughter via air attacks is one thing, but IF the US is arming the libyan rebels, that will be seen by Daffy as an escalation. And if he survives, the US will have another hostile mideast country to deal with. If you arm the rebels, you might as well kill Daffy while you're at it.
3) I realize that Al Queda has "boots on the ground" in rebel territory. The US will not involve military troops. · Mar 29 at 8:11pm
1. Daffy did surrender his nuke program - believe it wound up at Oak Ridge (where it may have been used to develop the Stuxnet computer virus). His biological weapons we left in-country and opted to let him destroy the stockpiles of mustard gas.
2. You're assuming that before this whole rigmarole began that Daffy wasn't a hostile.
3. You're assuming, once again, that the CinC will keep his word (big mistake)
Dec '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
I say we sit on the sidelines and see who wins.
Then, when it's all over, we swoop in and kill those guys.
Then a light lunch, and back home.
Let the Europeans fight over who should fix/keep the oil wells.
Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 10:10pmJan '11
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
CoolHand: I say we sit on the sidelines and see who wins.
Then, when it's all over, we swoop in and kill those guys.
Then a light lunch, and back home.
Let the Europeans fight over who should fix/keep the oil wells. · Mar 29 at 9:48pm
Edited on Mar 29 at 10:10 pm
This was our fantasy back in Chicago when it came to dealing with the street gangs except we would have to arrest the winners - not kill them (wanted to, couldn't)
Dec '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
Pike Bishop
This was our fantasy back in Chicago when it came to dealing with the street gangs except we would have to arrest the winners - not kill them (wanted to, couldn't) · Mar 29 at 10:32pm
Indeed.
In the past, I too have said similar things about how to fix the gang problems in the inner cities.
Evacuate the folks who want out, wall the place up, and at regular intervals air drop in big crates full of whiskey, spam, and ammo.
When the shooting dies down, go in and sweep the mess up.
I'd give it a month, tops, then you're good to go.
There is something to be said for letting the baddies kill one another unhindered.
Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 11:03pmMay '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
Maybe we should consider restoration of the Hapsburgs. Makes about as much sense as arming the rebels (although since we're already providing close air support for them, why not?).
Dec '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
Better arming an untrained, unorganized, undisciplined, and unled mob won't make them a better fighting force.
Aug '10
Re: Should We Arm the Rebels?
That's not too far off, remember when one of the more creative ideas for Iraq was to give it to the Hashemites? If only the kingdom of Jugurtha were still around.
Edited on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:09amRe: Should We Arm the Rebels?
The consensus seems to be:
1: The U.S. has no clear mission in Libya and there's no way this ends well
2: Who are the rebels?
3: Whoever the rebels are, there's no way in heck we should consider arming them.
I'd say we're all realists here. Good job, team.