The Libyan Stalemate
The Libyan operation is being quietly aborted, barely three weeks after its ill-conceived onset. There will be no mission creep, no American boots on the ground, and no arming and training of the rebel forces.
The impending stalemate is the least of all evils. It is preferable to an open-ended escalation or to an outright victory by either side. Libya will be effectively divided in two, with the boundary passing somewhere east of Brega and west of Benghazi. The Interim Transitional National Council (ITNC) will be dominated by hard-core Islamists. They already form the fighting core in eastern Libya, which is composed of former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG. Oh, yes, they have “renounced violence.” It is just as well the ITNC’s claim to represent the country as a whole will get nowhere, France’s hasty act of recognition notwithstanding. Gaddafi will continue to control a half of the oil wells, and he will be able to evade the sanctions—current and future—thanks to the sympathetic generals ruling Algeria to the west. On the other hand, three-quarters of Libya’s oil reserves are believed to be in the Sirte Basin currently controlled by rebels. Since oil accounts for more than two-thirds of of Libya’s GDP, a rebel-controlled statelet in the east may offer all kinds of rich pickings to the British and French oil companies which were the driving forces behind this intervention.
President Obama has never had his heart in this operation. The ambivalence was obvious in his bizarre description of “Odyssey Dawn” as a “time-limited, scope-limited kinetic military action” for which “our military … is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.” The operation will now die a quiet death, which is just as well. Only weeks ago Libya had the potential to combine the worst elements of several Western military interventions over the past decade and a half. To gain the United Nations Security Council approval on March 17, it was presented as a 1997 Iraq no-fly zone lookalike. France and Britain had always intended to escalate the operation once this limited mandate was granted, however, and proceeded to do so within days of the Resolution’s adoption. The bombing raids soon became reminiscent of NATO’s 1999 air war against Serbia, civilian targets and victims included. The parallel demand for Gaddafi’s ouster soon opened the possibility of a further escalation—specifically prohibited by the UNSC Resolution 1,973—which would have entailed outright occupation of Libya by ground troops.
The only serious combatants among the insurgents are hard-core Islamic fundamentalists from Cyrenaica, including veterans of various Jihads in Central Asia and the Balkans. This means that the “success” in this war would be hugely detrimental to the American interest. Instead of an eccentric dictator, Libya would be ruled by the likes of Hizb-ut-Tahrir Party, North Africa’s response to the Taliban. These people are most unlikely to be described by U.S. officials as “strong parters in the war on terrorism,” as Gaddafi was designated only five years ago. According to a 2008 West Point analysis of a cache of al-Qaeda records, nearly a fifth of foreign jihadists in Iraq were Libyans; on a per-capita basis, Libya provided twice as many of them as Saudi Arabia. NATO commander Adm. James Stavridis admitted that much when he told a Senate hearing that there were intelligence reports about the presence of Qaeda and Hezbollah members among the insurgents.
What next? Gaddafi needs to be given some discrete assurances that, when the dust settles, he would be left in peace if he behaves and stays below the radar screen. “Negotiating with Gaddafi” is bound to be called a defeat by those who had always intended to use the limited mandate under the UNSC Resolution 1,973 but for once they should be ignored: the fruits of their clamoring have proven too costly in American lives and treasure over the past decade. A viable exit strategy requires giving up the rhetoric of regime change.
Four lessons of Libya may be drawn by now. The first has been known for years: “humanitarian intervention” is a pernicious concept which provides the equivalent of the “Polish army attack” on the Gleiwitz radio station to a would-be aggressor. It undermines the concept of collective security and it undermines international law as a system of commonly respected norms that are binding upon all states. Its arbitrary nature is evident in the failure of its most vocal practitioners to invoke it when the violator is too powerful (e.g. North Korea subjecting its people to famine and terror), or too insignificant (various African despots, in Sudan, Congo, etc.), or considered a partner (NATO ally Turkey’s war against the Kurds in the 1980s and 90s took the lives of at least 30,000 civilians). Far from being “moral,” humanitarian intervention is inherently a tool of situational morality.
The second is that foreign interventions are easy to start and very difficult to end. They create a dynamic of their own which makes long-term planning and management impossible. Ends and means get confused. Enormous costs make “failure” unacceptable, but the definition of “success” becomes elusive. Both Iraq and Afghanistan provide telling current examples.
The third is that wars should be fought not for “ideals” but against threats to national security. All too often when no threat is present—such as Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”—reductio ad Hitlerum is deployed. Muammar Gaddafi—eccentric, unpleasant, brutal and probably mad as he is—was not a threat to the United States. He has been no worse a dictator than several of our Third World clients. He is more reliable on Islamic extremism than our kleptocratic “allies” in Saudi Arabia. Libya’s per capita gdp and other indicators show that he has shared more of his country’s oil wealth with his people than the rulers of the Emirates, or Bahrein, or (again) Saudi Arabia. Who rules Libya may matter to delusional one-worlders like Samantha Power, to neoconservative ideologues who have never seen a war they did not like, or to oil executives, but their interests are not national interests. Their interests can be reliably assumed to be the exact opposite of the American interest.
The fourth is that with each new war started without congressional approval—let alone a formal declaration—the United States loses further vestiges of its republican identity and enhances its imperial character. His previous antiwar rhetoric notwithstanding, Obama has effectively embraced the previous Administration’s September 2001 dictum that “no statute can place any limits on the President’s determinations” because “these decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.” They are nothing of the sort “under the Constitution,” but that did not prevent Hillary Clinton from telling the House of Representatives that “the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission.” Successive administrations—most notably those of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush—have inured us to illegality to such an extent that its explicit flaunting is seen as normal. That is, on balance, the worst consequence of this unnecessary adventure.
Entries(RSS)
Strange, Callimachus--and his effects on Latin--were exactly what one was referring.
Good luck to NATO finding a new Callimachus in Cyrenica. Yassou.
And one does agree, poor Callimachus, is rolling in his grave.
You should really do some Greek epigrams one of these days. From there to Paris, Illinois, though the American poet at the US end is at best interesting.
Actually the Green Book is not all that it is cracked down to be.
There are some very cogent sections.
But, patently, this is not the place.
Teasdale--the American Propertius. Paradox--or just buffoonery? I think the latter. A little learning etc etc. This sort of act was stale even before the Beats beat it to death. Speaking as the poor chump who has to look donors in the eye and justify how we are spending their money, I say enough.
Looking donors in the eye and panhandling, must be an epic proposition or is it some ancient pastorale?
#75,
Mr. Nicoletti,
The Spanish Civil War had two victors, one inside Spain (Franco's Right-wing coalition) and another outside Spain (the Communist/Socialist/Anarchist coalition). Each wrote its own history of the war in complete contempt of the other.
The reasons behind the fall of the Right-wing narrative and the rise of the Left-wing one have a lot to do with European geopolitics. The Francoist narrative held up while Francoism remained useful to the US. The rise of the Left-wing narrative about the Spanish Civil War went hand-in-hand with the submission of the post-1968 European Left to US hegemony.
#99
Just back from working in my orchard. Billiards, Sir? Why is it that I suspect you are more accustomed to the snooker table? Poor Dr. Fleming, imagine the Christian humility involved in providing band width for two old men such as you and I.
I spoke with a friend from Spain last week. She asked why the Opus Dei organization is so riddled with suspicion in the American press. Afterall, she said, in a country such as yours where, "pornography is everywhere, abortion laws are so liberal and gay marriage and gay soldiers are all the rage, why would anyone in your country care about a religious organization founded by a Spaniard."
I did not intend to begin a debate about Franco's political victory or defeat, rather to simply notice his place in the history and cultural traditions of Spain. It would be like castigating Lee because he fought for his country and lost, Or ignoring the prince of Troy because he was defeated in battle by Achilles. Or castigating the Jews for their jealous God as if their were no jealous gods described by Homer. Sure we have all read Ezra Pound and Nietzche on the politics and consequences of the one Jealous God of the Hebrews. We have all read the conciliatory and defensive narratives and cruelties of Franco and the Spanish civil war. But this is not what I was referring to at all.
I wonder if one can have an intelligent discussion with a "Marxist" or if "Marxism" drives out all rationale thought. Like "Libertarianism" its twin brother its seems to attract the same type of people, who engage in the same type of arguments. I'm sure Marx got some things right, just as Hitler got some things right, or Sade got some things right. But to spend much time on this evil 19th Century windbag - seems like a waste of time.
I wonder what an intelligent 19th English Gentlemen would have thought. He no doubt would have dismissed Marx as atheist Jew, an enemy of Christian society and a pseudo-scientific humbug.
I just realized that the comments of a particular poster here are enough to be compiled into a single treatise. Let us call it:
"General Theory and Reflections on the Principles of Anything and Everything Under the Sun"
intellectual flim-flam man jerking you chain with highfalutin mystagogic platitudes- best answered with mockery as in an obit being "more neoterically problematic rather than elegantly intense"- bs when i wrote it, bs still.
It is a cliche of Western movies that a captive white man can save his life by feigning madness. I suppose this combination of ignorance, effrontery, and affected whimsy is offered as a substitute. It does not work though it does bring me back to graduate school when an ignoramus fresh from Brown--where else?--opined that his small Latin and less Greek gave him insight into the classics. Where ignorance is bliss...
#70 Prateek,
"have you ever wondered why Christianity and vigourously anti-Christian ideology both pop up in the exact same places?"
My response about the Faith being at odds with the world was not meant to be as curt as it appears. Mr. Costa suggested that the Christians had opportunity to put their god in the Pantheon with the others and that it was their arrogance, their tribal disposition, seperatist mentality, a preferential choice to be gentile or in his own words "It was the various branches of the “Christians”, substituting “gentile” for “goyim” that not only excluded themselves but also in essence by that act later defined “pagani” in the West.
The great historian, Gibbon, popularized this myth and it is the subject of endless debate. Gibbon asserted the Ebbionites were the original Catholics and they denied the divinity of Christ and only after the pagans started converting did this ideaof the god-man develope. He also asserted there was no man named Ebion, but it meant simply poor men.
None of this is true but it has become a custom among the learned, such as Mr.Costa, to retell by inference. These Ebionites were known by the church has heretics from the very beginiing and more than a few of the early christian writers confirm the existence and teachings of this man, Ebion, and his followers.
The Church has been in spiritual conflict with the world from its very beginnings. One can say it has always gotten what it deserved. One can say it was senseless suffering from religious fanatics. One can say Christ should not have healed on the sabbath, one can say he should have armed his men and been prepared for the Sanhedren. But what one should not say and my point in answering your question was that the faith has been in conflict from the beginning and while Christians should not look for trouble, they should not be at all surprised if instead of an opiate, their faith is at times a great burden.
"One can say Christ should not have healed on the sabbath, one can say he should have armed his men and been prepared for the Sanhedren. But what one should not say and my point in answering your question was that the faith has been in conflict from the beginning and while Christians should not look for trouble, they should not be at all surprised if instead of an opiate, their faith is at times a great burden."
Brilliantly put, thank you!
Mr. Costa has his good points. If you enjoy poems that, no matter how many times you read them, make no sense, then he is your man. He has two weblogs with page after page of them.
I would quote you one of his shorter poems but they are all copyrighted and I would hate to see Mr. Costa having to pay royalties to all of us for reading his stuff.