Declare war and go on spring break
Remember when “regime change”, attacking another country, and taking sides in another country’s “civil war”, were anathema to Liberals? Remember when two dozen countries invading a Muslim country wasn’t a “coalition because “who’s kidding whom?”, the U.S. is really leading and doing all the bombing? Remember when trying to hunt down a brutal Arab dictator who murdered his own people wasn’t enough reason to declare war and hunt him down?
But, this is another day and another time, and besides, “we” like this President, and nobody likes that dictator. Why, even the French are willing to oust him, it must be the right thing to do. Let’s just declare war and go on spring break with the kids…they’ve never been to Brazil. And besides, I’ve got my Blackberry if they really need me on any of this war stuff.
THANK GOD FOR HILLARY AND THE FRENCH. There, I said it. I guess lions and lambs will be lying together in short order.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of order, who’s in charge? One of the problems with war by committee is that it’s difficult to know. Sure, Obama didn’t want to get involved other than by mouth. And Gates gave us the reasons why it would be incredibly difficult to set up a No Fly Zone against a third, or is it fourth-rate power. But the French and Brits said they were going to do it anyway and Hillary convinced Obama that he could either join in or be relegated to the backside of history; plus he wouldn’t have to disappoint Michelle and the kids by cancelling their most excellent vacation and well, what the hell. Still, nobody is really in charge and so the press gets jerked around trying to explain why this is a great strategy... assuming they can figure out what the strategy is. On the upside some brave Libyans will get to live another day. And fortunately and contrary to the ‘other reality’ that dominates serious conversation among serious pundits, defeating Gadhafi’s forces in this desert fiefdom is not that complicated. Mercenaries only get paid if they are alive to collect and soldiers are not keen on getting killed either.
And the mission, well it’s not regime change, but Gadhafi has got to go. How’s that again. Hey, I enjoy subtlety and nuance at least as much as the next guy (or gal). And I understand that you can be for something before you are against it. But this one…
Right on Old Man.
*Yawn* ...
ReplyDeleteYes, yes. We get it. You guys hate Obama, liberals, and France. If Libya wasn't being bombed the Old Man and Fred would be crying why oh why won't Obama DO something already, etc., etc. It's the same old song and dance.
I think you are almost correct in your criticism of the Democratic party and so-called "liberals" in the U.S. Yes, they aren't criticizing, or even questioning, U.S. policy towards Libya. In fact, they don't question U.S. policy towards many countries. Neither do Republicans. As long as everything is quiet, and oil prices don't jump around too much, who cares if we ally ourselves with dictators?
Fundamentally, both parties accept the same foreign policy principles: U.S. interests pretty trump everything. Remember, the Dems are not doves. How many Democratic Senators voted against the Iraq war? One, two? Significant opposition to the wars only arose in Washington after it became clear the wars were *tactical* mistakes. The criticism was: the war costs too much. Not: the war is wrong. The liberal or "dove" part of the spectrum, which opposed the war on grounds of *principle* rather than *tactics*, is hardly represented.
The main difference between the parties, as far as I can make out, is that the Dems are hawks pursuing U.S. rational self-interests, while the GOP has become irrationally hawkish, to the point of advocating self-destructive policies.
If we are going to talk about Libya it seems to me we should be primarily concerned with what actions will cause the least harm for civilians. There is some evidence the U.S. airstrike went beyond what the international community called for, which was an enforcement of a no-fly zone, whose limited purpose was only to protect civilians from Gadafi's bombardment. I think the Obama administration has made the calculation I would expect of a rational hawk: Gadafi is going to lose eventually. We may as well end the war swiftly, ally ourselves with the winners, and stabilize oil prices. Even at the cost of the civilians killed in our bombings and the continuation of the civil war, which will be unavoidable if we sabotage the cease-fire.
Okay sure, Obama is different because extremists like Rumsfeld would probably blunder into a third ruinous ground war against the advice of our own generals. But the Dems are not hypocritical. The principles of rational hawkishness explain their actions in Libya, as well as their inaction in Bahrain, where the local dictatorships are our allies, and they are strong enough to resist democracy.
I hope I'm wrong. But I do hope everyone on all ends of the political spectrum will reconsider our foreign policy.
Sorry if I woke you. I know that magical thinking is best done in a semi-somnambulant state.
ReplyDeleteIf you re-read my post when you are mostly awake you will note that my criticism was not that Obama did something, but that he did so only because the world (okay the French and Brits) were prepared to act without him. Something about Superpower and Leadership and Exceptionalism… but I digress. No, I don’t hate Obama, really. He seems nice enough and bright enough too. Hey, you can’t go wrong picking first seeds.
And yes, sometimes wars cost too much and sometimes they’re wrong and sometimes they’re wrong because they cost too much be it lives, treasury, political capital, etc. And sometimes war finds you even though you wish it wouldn’t. That is the way of the world. We are all free to wish otherwise.
And yeah, the U.S. interests are often the deciding factor in foreign policy decisions. In times past it was fashionable for the roguish left to champion the Soviet Union. But alas, after 1991 it seemed so yesterday to do so and gosh, it turned out the U.S. could still be wrong about almost everything even without a worthy antagonist. Go figure.
While I am encouraged that the national community merely mustered abstentions, it seems like we are reading from different hymnals. The one I have says something about taking all necessary action… whatever that means. Beyond that our definition of cease-fire seems at odds. Mine does not include the bombardment of cities under rebel control. And maybe it’s because I know people in the military, but soldiers’ lives can be important too, just like civilians. Let’s face it. The calculus of causalities is both messy and unknown. Let’s not look for a one-size-fits-all strategy for next Libya, Egypt, Bosnia or Rwanda.
Speaking of strategy, thank you for pointing out that Obama is not Rumsfeld. I will be sure to address that as soon as Rumsfeld decides to run for president or become otherwise relevant again. Maybe a tickler file is in order.
Finally I am not sure what foreign policy you are advocating other than ‘other’ so I don’t know if I can join you in hoping you are wrong. But to be honest, I am leaning that way.
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteSorry if I woke you. I know that magical thinking is best done in a semi-somnambulant state.
If you re-read my post when you are mostly awake you will note that my criticism was not that Obama did something, but that he did so only because the world (okay the French and Brits) were prepared to act without him. Something about Superpower and Leadership and Exceptionalism… but I digress. No, I don’t hate Obama, really. He seems nice enough and bright enough too. Hey, you can’t go wrong picking first seeds.
And yes, sometimes wars cost too much and sometimes they’re wrong and sometimes they’re wrong because they cost too much be it lives, treasury, political capital, etc. And sometimes war finds you even though you hope it wouldn’t. That is the way of the world. We are all free to wish otherwise.
And yeah, the U.S. interests are often the deciding factor in foreign policy decisions. In times past it was fashionable for the roguish left to champion the Soviet Union. But alas, after 1991 it seemed so yesterday to do so and gosh, it turned out the U.S. could still be wrong about almost everything even without a worthy antagonist. Go figure.
While I am encouraged that the international community merely mustered abstentions, it seems like we are reading from different hymnals. The one I have says something about taking all necessary action… whatever that means. Beyond that our definition of cease-fire seems at odds. Mine does not include the bombardment of cities under rebel control. And maybe it’s because I know people in the military, but soldiers’ lives can be important too, just like civilians. Let’s face it, the calculus of causalities is both messy and unknown. Let’s not look for a one-size-fits-all strategy for next Egypt, Libya, Bosnia or Rwanda.
Speaking of strategy, thank you for pointing out that Obama is not Rumsfeld. I will be sure to address that as soon as Rumsfeld runs for president or becomes otherwise relevant again. Maybe a tickler file is in order.
Finally I am not sure what foreign policy you are recommending other than ‘other’ so I don’t honestly know if I can join you in hoping you are wrong. But to be honest, I am leaning that way.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteYou say your criticism of Obama is that he did something in Libya "only because the world (okay the French and Brits) were prepared to act without him". Are you saying the U.S. should have attacked Gadafi's forces unilaterally, before an international consensus was reached? Or are you saying the U.S. should have committed to non-intervention, again regardless of the wishes of the international community?
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteI am simply saying that a leader should lead.
So when international representatives deliberate and arrive at a consensus, they have failed to be "leaders", in your view. Each representative, from each country, must set their own course of action, without being influenced by the noises and opinions of their neighbors. Surely this isn't really your vision of international relations ... ?
ReplyDeleteConsensus is a wonderful thing. I wasn’t criticizing the international community (although I can often be found doing so). I was only referring to leadership, particularly US leadership.
ReplyDeleteIf the main talking points about setting up a No-Fly Zone is that it will be incredibly difficult and you want nothing to do with it and then you jump in because your closest allies start going ahead without you, that’s fine if you are Kuwait or Canada or maybe even the UK. It’s less okay if you are the leader of the Free World. (Question: Does anyone else still use the term ‘Free World’? Is it PC?)
If you say ‘Gadhafi must go’ and you sign on to a military adventure that does not have ‘Gadhafi must go’ in its mission statement, but you still insist that ‘Gadhafi must go’ what message does that send about leadership (or even followership)?
It is important to know what the plan is and articulate it. You can’t vote ‘present’ when you are in charge… or at least you shouldn’t.
Hey Fred,
ReplyDeleteOkay, I think I see what you're saying now. You're not saying U.S. policy on Libya is right or wrong, you're just saying that the U.S. should adopt a consistent, well-defined position. That makes sense.