The Conservative Schism on Libya
One of the (admittedly abstract) virtues that accompanies a party not holding the White House is that it faces far less pressure to close ideological ranks. To govern, as the old saw has it, is to decide, and the energy inherent in the presidency creates a partisan groundswell when employed in the service of all but the most divisive issues.
As an instructive example, consider two of the most salient initiatives of the George W. Bush administration: the War in Iraq and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. While conservatives of good will and upstanding intentions broke ranks with President Bush on both topics, it seems safe to say that there would have been far more opposition from the right had either policy come out of an Al Gore Administration. A president, especially when he’s popular, can often persuade members of his own party who would otherwise be recalcitrant on ideological grounds. And if you doubt the importance of a president’s popularity in determining this influence, you need only look to President Bush’s failures to win over Republicans on immigration reform and TARP in the final quarter of his presidency.
I mention all this because the reaction of the conservative establishment to the Obama Administration’s intervention in Libya – free of any pressures to close ranks behind the executive – seems to me illustrative of a broader debate over foreign policy that will (if the primaries serve any intellectual purpose whatsoever – a debatable premise) play out as we head into the next presidential cycle.
On one end of the spectrum, we have the hard-core non-interventionists like Ron Paul. Of course, these folks are opposed to this action abroad, as they are generally opposed to military reactions to all but the most immediate, direct threats to American national security. That this position is reflexive doesn’t make it wrong, but it does make it uninteresting for our purposes here. It’s a philosophy so parsimonious that it doesn’t benefit much from further examination.
Somewhere on the other end we have what are most conveniently referred to as the “neoconservatives”, though I hesitate to use that term because its undeserved employment as an epithet doesn’t seem to have ended quite yet. This group (best exemplified by the editorial voice of the Weekly Standard) consists of enthusiastic proponents of challenging Middle East despotism head on and of healing the region through a long-term investment in liberal democracy. They are also prone to give greater weight to international human rights abuses as legitimate national security interests of the United States.
To the extent that the neoconservatives are critical of the intervention in Libya, it has more to do with means than ends. They blanche at the increased weight given to U.N. approval; the administration’s promise of a quick, limited and cosmetic conflict; and the ambivalence as to whether or not regime change is an explicit goal of the coalition’s efforts. They are the non-interventionist’s opposites in nearly every way.
What’s most interesting, however, is the maturation (or restoration, depending on your point of view) of a third foreign policy mindset within the party. The temptation is to call this group “realists”, but that isn’t quite right because (1) it weighs them down with a lot of the baggage of others who have appropriated that label in the past and (2) it’s simply too self-congratulatory a term to be taken seriously as an ideological marker.
This group (think of its members as skeptical hawks) represents an interesting synthesis of the other two. Like the neocons, they don’t feel backwards about the use of American power; yet their circumscribed definition of our national interests lies closer on the continuum to the non-interventionists (though its still a considerable distance away). More than anything, this group embodies a foreign policy of doubt – doubt at America’s ability to fundamentally reshape alien cultures and governments, doubt at the notion of democracy promotion and nation building as unalloyed goods, and doubt about the integrity of military adventures that have amorphous goals from day one.
A good representation of this philosophy comes from the Hoover Institution’s Bruce Thornton, who writes on Hoover’s Advancing a Free Society website:
So what are the national and security interests of the United States in this intervention? The received wisdom of Republican and Democratic foreign policy alike is that support for brutal dictators in the long run tarnishes our prestige and harms our interests by squelching the democratic aspirations of the oppressed. In the Middle East particularly, this “democracy deficit” has empowered the jihadists who turn to a debased form of Islam in compensation for a lack of freedom. Removing these oppressive autocrats thus will clear space for incipient democratic movements to create regimes founded on liberal democratic principles of freedom, tolerance, human rights, and the rest. And our efforts to liberate oppressed Muslims will buy us their affection and support, further eroding the appeal of jihadism and making us more secure from terror.
But this dogma begs any number of questions and looks more like wishful thinking rather than a sober understanding of reality. In the past we have liberated oppressed Muslims in the Balkans, oppressed Muslims in Kuwait, oppressed Muslims in Afghanistan, oppressed Muslims in Iraq, and now we’re going to liberate (maybe) oppressed Muslims in Libya. And how much goodwill has that bought us in the Muslim world? Did liberating millions of Shiites from a murderous tyrant in Iraq make Shiite Iran stop regarding us as the Great Satan? Of course not. We have to free ourselves from this curiously arrogant assumption that the whole world determines its policies and beliefs simply in reaction to what we do. Muslims have a religious world-view and sensibility that condition their actions and interests, and we must understand those spiritual beliefs in their own terms rather than reducing them to the materialist determinism that dominates our thinking. As the Ayatollah Khomeini said, he didn’t start an Islamist revolution to lower the price of melons.
The Thornton view, now ascendant, in the GOP, is in many ways a refutation of the Bush Doctrine. Which will become dominant in the Republican Party of the future? That’s a question that will depend heavily on who becomes the next GOP standard-bearer.
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Great post. Brings some clarity to this complex issue.
Sometimes I wonder if the best policy is no policy, but to look at each case for intervention individually, since the facts surrounding an uprising can be varied from place to place.
We are compelled in each case to make a value judgement about the insurgents. Are they for liberal democracy, or looking to usurp the dictator to dictate themselves?
Sep '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Thornton's veiw will dominate because it is what we are all coming to learn. My own views have evolved from optimism in promoting democracy (in a place like Iraq with a diverse economy and and comparatively educated population) to the realizations that Thornton expresses so eloquently. We all have seen for ourselves, and we wouldn't have, had we not tried. The fact that some held this position originally - well, they were right, but in defense of those of us who were wrong, it wasn't proven until now. We gave it a real try and failed.
Democracy requires certain conditions -more than just a middle-class and an educated population - to take hold. It requires a belief in individual rights and freedom. It requires a commitment on most of the population to eschew tribalism. It requires a separation of church (mosque) and state - otherwise the state will lack power and authority to make and enforce laws - unless of course they correspond to religious laws, in which case it is not a democracy at all. In the Middle East none of these conditions present themselves.
Islam is a desert in which the seed of democracy cannot grow.
May '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
How can anyone be in favor of or opposed to President Obama's policy in Libya? Who knows what it actually is?
I've been most heartily in favor of blowing Qadaffi to kingdom come since the disco bombing during the Reagan administration.
Providing air support for the Libyan rebels, not sure. Who are they?
May '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
In related news, to recap our situation in the US:
And congress and the president are on Spring Break.
Nov '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
The so-called realists are merely the latest iteration in a long line of defeatists and apologists that have thwarted the spread of freedom for over 60 years.
To expect that the liberation of one muslim country will buy us goodwill from other muslims is indeed absurd (these countries hate each other.) But it is not absurd to expect that it will buy us goodwill from the liberated, or that their success will inspire revolution against totalitarian regimes elsewhere.
Democratization of majority-muslim countries is often presented as a fool's game because of "cultural differences." What are the cultual differences between Iran and Iraq that make the former a theocratic dictatorship and enable the latter to exist as a free society? Why does North Korea manage to starve its citizens to death for 60 years while South Korea flourishes? Why does the Soviet Union imprison the Eastern half of Berlin for decades while most of the West looks on in silence?
Totalitarianism is not the natural system of government of any people on earth. This idea is everywhere and always the result of people in free societies attempting to explain away their disinterest in the misery of others.
Edited on March 23, 2011 at 2:51pmNov '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
"Buying us goodwill from the liberated." --Even if a genuine "liberation" were the end result --unlikely-- I wouldn't bet on it; previous such engagements have bought us as much resentment. Europe has a pressing reason for intervening in these intra-Muslim conflicts: to stem the flood of refugees into Europe. I'm not so sure the US has any.
Aug '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
My military service is behind me now, but just the same I would not be willing to personally don a uniform and fight on behalf of any of these dysfunctional Middle Eastern nations, so it would be wrong for me to advocate supporting military action expecting someone else to take the incoming fire.
The one exception to that, Israel, is the one country worth fighting for because it's the only Middle Eastern nation in which it is clear that what is being defended is actually worth defending.
I have no interest in assuming any risk or expense whatsoever for the likes of the Saudi Royal family or the other such despots and theocrats. Sorry. We have enough encroachment on own liberties to fight right here at home.
Edited on March 23, 2011 at 1:42pmSep '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Jan-Michael Rives: The so-called realists are merely the latest incarnation in a long line of defeatists and apologists that have thwarted the spread of freedom for over 60 years.
To expect that the liberation of one muslim country will buy us goodwill from other muslims is indeed absurd (these countries hate each other.) It is not absurd to expect that it will buy us goodwill from the liberated, or that their success will inspire revolution against totalitarian regimes elsewhere.
Democratization of majority-muslim countries is often presented as a fool's game because of "cultural differences."
Iraq is not a free society.
And yes, there are cultural differences. Islam. Islam is different. Just ask any Muslim. Being unique, it has certain distinct abilities and inabilities Some cultural differences are compatible with democracy, others are not. One of Islam's unique traits is that it is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Democracy requires the belief in separation of church and state. In Islam, this is heresy.
Success (limited as it is) may well inspire some group within a Muslim country to rise up, but they inevitably meet the stronger, fully-organized force of Muslim fundamentalists within and outside their country.
May '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Just read that France is proposing the war that is not a war be run by a committee.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-says-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html
What could possibly go wrong?
Jul '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
I think neoconservative questions about the Libyan intervention (myself included) also has to do with experience. Since 2001 with Afghanistan and Iraq we have seen the complexities and complications of military intervention to promote a freedom agenda. We have shown that we can succeed at regime change and stabilization operations but at a tremendous cost. Now more than ever with our budget woes we need to weigh the costs and benefits of action in an unblinkered way.
Nov '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Franco
Iraq is not a free society.
And yes, there are cultural differences. Islam. Islam is different. Just ask any Muslim. Being unique, it has certain distinct abilities and inabilities Some cultural differences are compatible with democracy, others are not.
Explain Turkey. Explain Indonesia. Explain Bangladesh.
The willingness of Westerners to throw entire nations of people under the bus when the going gets tough reeks--absolutely reeks--of racism. This has been the case not only with regard to murderous Middle Eastern theocratic regimes, but with murderous Asian communist regimes and murderous African tribalist regimes. Hell, there's been a murderous communist regime in Cuba--90 miles away from us--for sixty years.
But when France and England are in trouble, you'd better believe that 400,000 of our boys will die to save them from murderous German fascist regimes.
Aug '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
...and the idea that we are doing all this on a credit card is rather abhorrent.
Aug '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Jan-Michael Rives
Franco
The willingness of Westerners to throw entire nations of people under the bus when the going gets tough reeks--absolutely reeks--of racism.
Try again.
Nations are not races.
I don't blame you, I blame it on your teachers.
Jun '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Franco: "Thornton's view will dominate because it is what we are all coming to learn."
I couldn't agree more with your statement here, Franco. When the Iraq war started (2003) I believed with all my heart that it was a noble adventure. I supported the war throughout. Saddam Hussein had murdered way more, tortured way more, raped way more than Qaddafi ever, even in his dreams, has done I despised the politicians who had given eloquent speeches in Congress supporting regime change in Iraq, only to turn, for political expediency, against the war when things turned difficult. I thought to myself, "you bastards, you voted to send our finest young men and women to get killed or mutilated, and now you just want to dishonor their sacrifices and walk away." Well, we carried it out, thanks to GW Bush and our military, and I am glad we did, for the sake of those that sacrificed. But I would not do that again. If Saddam needed to be removed, kill him. The same with Qaddafi. We don't need, nor can we afford to spend billions of dollars for a people, like Iraq, who will never be our friends.
Edited on March 23, 2011 at 2:03pmNov '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
nordman
Jan-Michael Rives
The willingness of Westerners to throw entire nations of people under the bus when the going gets tough reeks--absolutely reeks--of racism.
Try again.
Nations are not races.
I don't blame you, I blame it on your teachers. · Mar 23 at 5:19am
OK, I'll try that again. By "entire nations of people" I was emphasizing the enormous number of people we leave to fend for themselves, not the fact that they are part of a particular nation.
Feb '11
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Caroline Glick wrote on this subject earlier this week.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=213195
Oct '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
My own view is closest to Thorton’s. I think two other factors are important and have not been mentioned. First, America has become the defacto defender and army of the free world. Second, America’s national interest varies dependent on the country and the situation.
Europe expanded its social programs at the expense of its military during the Cold War because America was defending it against the Soviet Union. We allowed Japan a military only to defend itself, and agreed to defend them against external threats. Given the current economic situation in the EU, it is unlikely Europe will now be spending more on their military. American cannot make up this deficit. There is an economic and manpower limit to where and how we can respond. In addition, our current armed forces are simply not trained for nation building.
Defining our national interest in these situations seems to be more difficult. But it needs to be done and prioritized based on the cost and expected effectiveness of our response. The implication of this is that there will be some situations that will not be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction.
Oct '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Jan-Michael Rives
Explain Turkey. Explain Indonesia. Explain Bangladesh.
Turkey, Indoesia, and Bangladesh are not examples of free societies. Religious minorities are actively killed and persecuted in all three countries without the protection of the rule of law, and with the police and military frequently looking on and not interfering.
Feb '11
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Jan-Michael Rives
But when France and England are in trouble, you'd better believe that 400,000 of our boys will die to save them from murderous German fascist regimes. · Mar 23 at 4:53am
The US did not join that war until attacked by Japan. No US forces fought alongside the French before their defeat or alongside the Resistance. No US aircraft flew in the Battle of Britain, though Wikipedia says there were seven American pilots..
Sep '10
Re: The Conservative Schism on Libya
Jan-Michael Rives
Franco
Iraq is not a free society.
And yes, there are cultural differences. Islam. Islam is different. Just ask any Muslim. Being unique, it has certain distinct abilities and inabilities Some cultural differences are compatible with democracy, others are not.
Explain Turkey. Explain Indonesia. Explain Bangladesh.
57 Muslim countries and you come up with three marginal cases.These are legacy democracies formed at a time when Islam was less politically dominant. Calling them democracies is somewhat of a stretch as well - they aren't like the USA.
Turkey is moving toward theocratic Islam as we speak. Indonesia, until recently was run by a dictator, and the population doesn't consist of the same strain of Islam that dominates countries in the Middle East.
Bangladesh I won't even bother...who wants to be like Bangladesh?