Before I begin I have to make a disclaimer: this is a pure opinion piece not pretending at any degree of analysis. I just wanted to express the feelings I have been having since the beginning of the latest adventure of western powers in Africa.
Airways are full of news from Libya: brave pilots of coalition forces bombed this and that and completed establishing a no-fly zone all over the Libya, hurray –hurray! What a great victory over an air force with two and a half planes from the prehistoric era and the pilots who think that an airplane is just like a camel only with wings! Apparently, we are supposed to fall into an ecstasy about our Western might. Do not get me wrong, I am not mocking here the coalition pilots, who are doing their jobs at highest professional level, risking their lives as routinely as we are going out for the cup of coffee at Starbucks. My beef is with those morons who actually made the decision to begin this whole operation. Or may be it is better to say, half-made, half-decision?
My problem is with so called leaders of the free world, Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Cameron. No, I have not forgotten about Mr. Obama, I did not include him in the above list intentionally. I just recognize the simple truth that Mr. Obama’s behavior in this situation is anything but leadership. He looks more like a child forced by his parents to do his chores. He does not want to, but is too afraid to refuse. So, let’s talk about our brave Frenchman, and his supporting star, Mr. Cameron. They scare me because I do not understand what they are doing in Libya, and whenever I do not understand something, I get scared. Now, may be this is it: I just do not understand. May be Mr. Sarkozy and Co. have a great design imperceptible by regular folks, like me, and I have really nothing to worry about. Daddy knows better, and children must just relax and trust daddy. This is probably what they told to Mr. Obama.
Even though I admit remote possibility of this scenario, it does not seem too likely. No one can keep secrets nowadays for too long, and if there were a hidden design, someone, somehow would have leaked at least a glimpse of it. However, all what we hear and read is about the great mission of protecting Libyan revolutionaries from evil Qaddafi. O, he is evil indeed, there is no doubt about that, but do we really go to war these days to protect one side in the civil war against the other? The idea itself seems quite absurd to me, and I know from my pre-American experience that civil wars are never about good versus evil, it is usually, evil of one kind versus evil of another kind.
Interestingly, there is very little information available about those rebels. I have not heard the media discussing their ideology, political goals, and such, except of that part, where they want to get rid of Qaddafi. Well, Osama bin Laden would love to get rid of Qaddafi, too, but I presume it does not mean that we have to help them, does it? Or we do? A few days ago, a guy from Bush’s counterterrorism team stated on NPR that at least some of these rebels are indeed connected with militant Islam, and we do provide them with air cover. What an insane world are we living in?
Still, let give our coalition a benefit of a doubt. Let assume that these rebels are indeed freedom-loving people ready to give their lives to establish a western style democratic government in Libya. Is it still a sufficient reason to go to war? I would understand it if Sarkozy and Cameron would have told Qaddafi: “Dear Colonel, we have invested billions into your country, and we need your oil. So, if you are going to f-ck with us, we will come and get you.” I, personally, do not see anything wrong with going to war to defend one’s vital economic interests and investments. Of course, any war is bad, and should be avoided, but when nothing else works, responsible governments must do whatever it takes to defend interests of their citizens. And, of course, it is reasonable to suspect that French and British doing in Libya exactly that, but why all this pretense? Since when did it become so shameful to defend one’s economic interest that some bogus “humanitarian” reasons must be invented to justify such actions? It probably happened at the same time when “profit” became a dirty word, and self-interest became something like masturbation – everybody does it, everybody knows that everybody does it, but it is improper to mention it in public.
So, while I can see legitimate reasons for the Brits and French to be angry with Qaddafi and wanting to get rid of him, I do not understand how their current actions will achieve this. Instead of a quick and decisive Falkland Islands or Grenada style operation, they conduct a bombing campaign and establish a no-fly zone. Where in the annals of the history of military art have they read that bombing can win a war? Haven’t they learned the lessons of Iraq and Kosovo? I am completely flabbergasted by their shameful bickering about the chain-of-command, by their unwillingness to accept painful reality that there can be no victory without causalities. I am stupefied that they care more about nonsensical things such as reaction of the Arab world to their action, instead of thinking how to achieve their objectives in the quickest and most efficient way. And this scares the hell out of me. If this is how our “leaders” are going to defend our way of life, we are doomed. I still hope though, that I am wrong, that there is something out there, which I am not aware of. May be some special op forces inserted on the ground in such a clandestine manner that even the journalists did not get the wind of it. Well, hope dies last, but as of now, it is hardly breathing.
My, my--how the tables have turned. It seems like just yesterday when we were arguing about the US invasion of Iraq. Bush's folly, I called it; America's worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. You assured me, Lev, (I don't recall the exact words) that Bush and his advisers were right to take out Saddam Hussein and that it would all be for the best in the end. We could have a long and interesting discussion over who was right in hindsight. But I wonder how much our broader political proclivities inform our perceptions of these sorts of events--we give the leaders we trust and support the benefit of the doubt, while the leaders we oppose we imagine can barely even tie their shoes in the morning let alone lead a military operation.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the situation in Libya. To be sure, I was captivated by the emergence of serious opposition to Qaddafi, but after about a week or so the situation seemed to be developing in accordance with two truisms that I've seen played out both in history and in contemporary. First, "people power" is an awesome phenomenon, but when the people are up against a leader who maintains control of his armed forces, is willing to shed copious blood and is indifferent to moral sanction, there is little chance of immediate success. The only alternatives are patience and persistence or active resistance--taking up arms against the tyrant. But this is where my second truism sets in: a rebel force using conventional military tactics rarely has much of a chance against the power of the state. I'm not talking about so-called weapons of the weak--terrorism and guerrilla warfare--or a civil war situation when the state itself is divided, but rather a situation in which a rebel force tries to take and hold territory using regular weapons and tactics. Almost always they get crushed.
So I had just about given up on Libya. I was expecting to hear that Qaddafi's forces had overrun Benghazi and that the rebellion was being drowned in blood. The intervention came as a surprise. It seemed like dithering and hand wringing was the order of the day. I too have some misgivings about the wisdom of intervention, but I have to admit that in this particular instance, I was more relieved than dismayed.
I have a far more simpler, perhaps even naive, understanding of why the intervention occurred. A terrible massacre appeared to be imminent and the international community had the capacity to prevent it. It's a quintessential moral dilemma: you see a horrific crime about to occur. You know that you can prevent it at a relatively small risk to yourself. Do you take action or not? Granted, things are never as simple as they seem. Perhaps the perpetrator is also the victim. Perhaps the person you save may go on to hurt others. Perhaps the whole thing is just an elaborate charade. But at the critical moment of decision, all those uncertainties are overridden by the fundamental imperative to save a life.
So, Lev, your points are well taken. True--we don't know who the anti-Qaddafi rebels really are. I don't think they know themselves. Under Qaddafi the preconditions for civil society, that would allow an ideologically coherent and identifiable opposition movement could emerge, simply didn't exist. The only unifying point now is opposition. So given those circumstances, what can we do to insure that the opposition evolves in a direction that is more open and tolerant, less colored by Islamic radicalism? One thing's for sure: if we burst out cheering when Qaddafi's opponents rise up against him and then stand quietly on the sidelines doing nothing while he cuts them to pieces, we're not going to win many friends on the Libyan street. If Al-Queda hasn't made inroads yet among the Libyan rebels, this is a sure way to insure that they will.
More later...
I am afraid that I have failed as a writer. It seems that I was not able to get my point across effectively, or may be the framework, in which I formulate my thoughts is so out of whack with the mainstream, that it is just impossible to explain them
ReplyDeleteI am not actually decrying the operation in Libya. My problem with the offered rationale and its execution. I do not believe in "humanitarian" interventions, they usually bring more blood in the long and often in not so long run. I believe in rights of the states to defend their economic and geopolitical interests. Diplomatically, preferably, but also military, if needed. The lack of will of Western Powers to do that, will eventually be their undoing. Yesterday's Obama's explanation is just pile of crap: US does not have any national interest in preventing massacre in Bengali. The only interest in this is the desire of Obama and Co. to be able to pat themselves on the shoulder for their great humanitarianism. There will be blood shed in Libya, one way or another. It is either Qaddafi kills or he and his people are killed. Who are we to decide who is to live and who is to die?
ReplyDeleteLev, I don't think you failed as a writer. Perhaps I failed as a reader in not following your reasoning. More likely, though, I did get your points and, as is often the case, simply didn't agree with most of them. As far as I could see what you're saying is that 1) Obama failed to exercise leadership; 2)the intervention itself is ill-advised; 3)the Europeans should not use humanitarian pretexts to hide their true interests; and 4)if Cameron and Sarkozy want to remove Qaddafi, they should do just that rather than mess around with a no-fly zone.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see all of Obama's speech last night, but in the parts I did see, he addressed most of these issues quite well. As far as the leadership issue goes, I think there's a tendency to confuse care and deliberation with indecision. And as for this business about him dancing to the tune of the British and French, I've actually heard that it was Hillary Clinton who made the decisive case for intervention. And don't forget there were other strong voices in the administration, Robert Gates for one, who argued against acting in Libya. So there was clearly a debate that had to take place, before Obama committed himself. I also think it is significant that the decision to intervene came as a response to an immediate crisis rather than as a premeditated act of regime change.
So why not just take out Qsddafi? I think Obama actually covered that pretty well. It's one thing to stop an impending massacre. Its another thing to go around removing leaders we don't like willy-nilly. Where would we draw the line? Today its Libya, tomorrow Syria, Zimbabwe, Burma, etc. etc. And if we can do it, why can't others? I'm sure Putin would love to have some regime change in Georgia, for example.
On the other hand, sometimes the situation on the ground changes in a way that demands a response. There's something almost disingenuous about all these complaints about lack of a clear exit strategy. Of course planning is important and there is a need for a broad overall objective. But the idea that you can neatly anticipate how a conflict will end at the outset seems to me pure hubris. As Napoleon said--on s'engage et puis on voit--first you dive into the fray and they you see what's going on. So it may be that the only way to prevent Qaddafi from slaughtering his own people is to oust him from power. I can't say I'd be thrilled to see things go in this direction, although it looks like that may be the way they're headed, but it certainly doesn't scare me to death...
I see your point about Georgia, but I do not think that the point is valid. It is not about regime change, it is about defending one's national interests. Putin does not have any legitimate economic or political interests in Georgia, while Britain and France invested lots of money in Libya. Some how you keep avoiding the economic issue, which is the most important one (or should be the most important one). I do not suggest that Sarkozy or Cameron must get rid of Qaddafi. What they need to do is to defend their investments and make sure that the oil keeps flowing. However is capable of providing it in the most effective way should be supported. But if determination is made to this regard, the support must be provided to its fullest extent without all this humanitarian b-s. As I said, nobody knows how many people will eventually die as a result of preventing Qaddafi from squashing the rebellion now. Благими пожеланиями умощена дорога в ад.
ReplyDeleteHave we all forgotten the infamous humanitarian operation in Kosovo? How many people have been killed under the pretext of stopping killing? Who can guarantee that the same thing is not happening now? Obama still has not answered the question about whom he is supporting, and what is their political platform. But in the end, it does not matter. Waging a war in which your country has no direct interest is just waist of resources and never produces any useful result. At least one example of successful "humanitarian" intervention?
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I was not a supporter of the action in Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia, I'm sure many people do consider it a success: the Serbs were forced to pull back, the safety of the Albanian population was secured, a framework was established for maintaining security, and within short time Milosevic was out of power and on trial for war crimes. Yes there were casualties from the bombing, but not on a mass scale--certainly nothing comparable to what might have happened if Milosevic's forces had been allowed to have their way with the Albanians.
ReplyDeleteBut other than Kosovo, when else have there been humanitarian interventions? In fact the whole idea of intervening to avert a humanitarian catastrophe could only have taken shape in the 1990s, after the end of the cold war. Before that point, geopolitical strategic interests almost always trumped humanitarian concerns. Both sides blithely looked the other way as their third world allies committed atrocities. One of the few instances that might be considered a humanitarian intervention before the 1990s actually occurred between two subordinate powers within the communist camp--Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1978. Although the US condemned it at the time as an act of aggression, I don't think anyone has any regrets now that the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge were finally shut down. But in general, such acts have been few and far between. It was only in the absence of Cold War confrontation and after events like the genocide in Rwanda and the massacre at Srebrenica that the international community could begin to embrace the notion that national sovereignty is not a license to commit mass murder.
In his speech, Obama was quite clear in distinguishing the situation in Libya from one in which fundamental national security interests are at stake and in laying out the criteria under which a humanitarian intervention might take place. The means must be accessible, the cost not too high and an international consensus must be in place in support of whatever action is taken. Moreover the situation must involve an immediate threat of a humanitarian disaster with potentially destabilizing regional consequences. Is this so unreasonable?
What is the worst that could come of this intervention? I just don't see the dire consequences, the rivers of blood that will flow from trying to do the right thing. Worst case scenario might be that Qaddafi holds on to power. Thanks to the intervention he would be prevented from overrunning all of Libya. The country would be divided and the rebels would gain time to establish a stable political order and build up their armed forces. Eventually they would prevail. Another worst case might be that they do prevail, and turn out to be just as bad as Qaddafi. Even here, though, you would be exchanging a certainty (Qaddafi already is as bad as Qaddafi) for a mere possibility--and a pretty remote one at that. The fact that whatever regime the rebels put in place would be beholden to the West for its survival, would tend to increase the likelihood of a friendly disposition.
One last point. I really don't see how economic interests play into this at all. Qaddafi was quite happy to keep selling his oil to France, Britain and anyone else who wanted it. He was as reliable a partner as they come. If maintaining stability on the oil markets was our sole concern, it would have made a lot more sense to cheer Qaddafi on as he crushed the opposition. But obviously there are other factors to take into consideration.
Well apparently he was losing control of the oil installations and the supply of oil was getting unreliable. Obviously, French decided that his departure is a done deal and they have to support the winners (the rebels) to ensure that French interests would be guaranteed. Remember, they declared their recognition of the rebels well before any massacre was considered imminent. (By the way, who said that it was imminent? Qaddafi, and his crazy son? We will never know now). After that they just had no way back and convinced British and Obama to keep pushing Qaddafi out. The humanitarian motive is just a smoke screen behind which French hides their terror that Qaddafi can sill win.
ReplyDeleteAs for Kosovo, I do not know how one can consider this a success in the light of uncovered fact that there were no mass graves in Kosovo, and that Albanians were as bad or even worse than the Serbs. Yes, Milosivech is dead, but how did that help Georgia that lost Ossetia and Abhazia to Russians because of Kosovo? And this is not the only negative effect of that intervention.
Back to Libya, there are no reasons to believe that the rebels would be better than Qaddafi. Why should they? Terror and violence are the only political tools known in that part of the world. The west makes the same mistake over and over again by projecting their cultural identity on other peoples. So much for recognition of multiculturalism!