"Objectively Pro-Terrorist": Why Aren't We Doing More In Libya?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:11:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A Dkos commenter writes:

If we couldn't do anything useful in Libya -- as is certainly the case in Saudi Arabia and probably the case in Syria -- that would be one thing. But that argument is not being made. It's just that "this is not worth American blood and treasure" -- [. . .] Well, one can't right every wrong in the world. One can't protect every innocent. But when there's something that we can do and choose not to, people can goddamn well own this expression of their priorities.

[People] may not like Qaddafi shelling Misrata and invading Benghazi and Tobruk to clench an iron fist around his subjects collective throat -- but [they] can live with it. [They] won't lose sleep over it. It's not worth American blood and treasure. If he argues that we can't achieve anything there, that's a different matter. It becomes a different argument. But what we can achieve is not part of this debate. It's whether we should try.

I think this raises the question why are we not doing more - not just in Libya, but everywhere. We can do more. Not just in Libya. But let's start with Libya for discussion's sake. Is there any doubt that we could take Tripoli in a month? Sure that requires ground troops, but so what? Are we gonna be "objectively pro-Qaddafi?"

By now you may have figured out that I have begun the process of reductio ad absurdum. It could end at asking why we have not invaded Cuba or Myanmar. It could go further and ask why we are not at war with China. More . . .

My point is a simple one - Seneca Doane and anyone who uses the "objectively pro-Qaddafi" line must know that no one arguing against intervention in Libya is in favor of Gaddafi (or Castro or the Chinese regime.) The argument is larger than that. My own argument questioning intervention in Libya was posted here on March 27 - Libya and The Interest of America. In that post, I wrote:

[Juan] Cole finally gets to the crux of the issue when he writes:

Assuming that NATO's UN-authorized mission in Libya really is limited ( it is hoping for 90 days), and that a foreign military occupation is avoided, the intervention is probably a good thing on the whole[. . .] Qaddafi only had 2000 tanks, many of them broken down, and it won't be long before he has so few, and and the rebels have captured enough to level the playing field, that little further can be accomplished from the air).

What happens AFTER the air campaign (which Cole glides over, is beyond what the UN sanctioned anyway) can not accomplish anything further and Gaddafi remains in power? What then? Cole is completely silent on this point. As he must be for it destroys his argument. Ironically, Cole admonishes "the Left" to understand that:

Military intervention is always selective, depending on a constellation of political will, military ability, international legitimacy and practical constraints. The humanitarian situation in Libya was fairly unique. You had a set of tank brigades willing to attack dissidents, and responsible for thousands of casualties and with the prospect of more thousands to come, where aerial intervention by the world community could make a quick and effective difference.

Cole's argument then is that if air power is sufficient, then we should do it. I can accept that argument conditionally here. To Cole, Libya is like Kosovo. I am not convinced that is true. Cole blithely ignores the history of escalation of military actions that litter world history. In any event, time will tell. Whether "the Left" supports or opposes the Libya intervention, it is happening. We'll see in 90 days where we are and what Prof. Cole says then. If a land action is proposed, will Prof. Cole then say he opposes? I doubt it.

(Emphasis supplied.) 90 days have come and gone. The President has said ground troops in Libya are out of the question IRRESPECTIVE of the the effect on Qaddafi. That it is not worth "American blood and treasure." Does that make the President "objectively pro-terrorist?"

If Seneca Doane is right, then it must. I disagree.

Speaking for me only

< R.I.P. Peter Falk and Open Thread | NY Passes Gay Marriage Bill >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

"Objectively Pro-Terrorist": Why Aren't We Doing More In Libya? | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I love the part about Saudi Arabia (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:57:54 AM EST

As Jeff and I have discussed before, we arm Saudi Arabia and we maintain all of that equipment too. It is U.S. Apache gunships that take to the skies and end any kind of mass protest. So we could do something about Saudi Arabia. Our position there is shameful. Sometimes I can't believe how little people understand about who has enabled who to be oppressed and how and why.

There is nothing humanitarian left to do now for us in Libya. A no fly is established, and it is the EUs job to help the rebels since they are the ones who armed Gaddafi so that he could keep those people in line until he couldn't anymore.

Juan Cole's assessment is disappointing too. It isn't about broken tanks. It isn't the old broken crap making things really hard for the rebels, it is the newer stuff. It is the French and Italian artillery pieces and all the new munitions that Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and France gave him. If all he had was all that old broken Russian crap he'd have been long gone by now. So those countries need to fix this crap, they did this.

We have done the humanitarian job, now it is a civil war and the rebels are having to fight against all that crap that EU countries gleefully gave to an oppressive dictator.

I was surprised that Gates brought up as well that the other EU NATO countries have become so lazy about maintaining their own forces because they always thought they could use the United States for anything they really needed.

Those countries all have to be responsible to their citizens and their voters too, and their leaders haven't been given free rein in any NATO mission since I have been born. I'm shocked that my President somehow thinks he is the Dictator the freeworld or something. It is shameful.

At this point it is looking more and more like Greenwald is correct. What fuels such insanity other than protecting oil companies.

P.S. Josh says that he is very upset that we can be in Libya I guess until further notice, but we won't do anything about children being tortured to death in Syria. It shocks him that we have some sort of limited rhetorical justice that is that obvious, even to our own babies. And it hurts him.

''If Seneca Doane is right'' (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Warren Terrer on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:51:46 AM EST

That's a howler.

I'm a cynic. I don't believe for one second that the US intervenes militarily (or otherwise) in any country for the sake of 'protecting civilians'. Consequently I don't support any of these foreign military adventures, feasible or not. My motto is 'Yankee Go Home'.

What I've never seen adequately debated is who exactly are these rebels? Who leads them? What are their goals? How can we be sure they have the best interests of the Libyan people at heart? I think this debate hasn't occurred because it's of no interest to the Obama administration. The rebels are objectively anti-Ghadaffi and that's all that matters.

As for Prof Cole, I used to read him occasionally, but after he became a supporter of the Libyan war, for such weak reasons, I lost all interest in his writings. It became painfully clear that he's simply against Bush wars and for Obama wars, which ceased to make him a credible analyst.

But I agree with your basic analysis that there is no principle involved in limiting the war to an air war and keeping ground troops out of it, at least no principle relating to protecting civilians or being anti-Ghaddafi. The principle involved is that air wars are thought to be much easier halted than ground wars so people will be more likely to support (i.e. tolerate) the war. But you're right. What if the air war fails and success would require a ground war? Then what?

Which "We" Are Jumping Outta (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by seabos84 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:49:10 PM EST

Which "We" Are Jumping Outta Humvees & Choppers?

Are the phake "we" of the arm chair warrior regiment jumping outta humvees and choppers, cuz ...

I can't honestly think of a greater waste of money than the cost of all the fuel & clothing & food to send our phake "we" armchair warriors off to go jumping outta choppers and humvees.

Since the arm chair warrior phake "we" are just little peckered chest thumping big mouthed a-holes, I WOULD support sending the phake "we" off as long as:

WE only spent 3 days feeding & transporting the phake "we" to the front lines,
WE only gave the phake "we" old rusty leftover rifles - I can NOT imagine wasting good money on providing these blow hards with a new M-16, or a functioning captured AK, since either is gonna end up in the hands of the enemy once the phake "we" meets his deserved blowhard fate, 15 minutes after getting dumped on the front line.

While I find what humans do to each other to be completely disgusting and inexcusable, arm chair warriors are 1 of the lowest, most despicable pieces of crap humanity has ever produced.

Is that an ad hominey attack on the despicable, cuz I won't engage their b.s. "ideas"? YAWN. Their ideas suck cuz they suck, so let's cut to the chase ... AND let's start shipping 'em off to Somalia, or Fallujah, or Kandahar ...

rmm.

i confess that (none / 0) (#2)
by observed on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:16:24 AM EST

I also am pro terrorist. In fact, i do not know why that guy in Yemen is on our hit list. His crime seems vocally hating America and cheering US deaths.

The DKos commenter (none / 0) (#4)
by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:17:40 AM EST

has presented a mouthful of premises in just his first line: "If we couldn't do anything useful in Libya as is certainly the case in Saudi Arabia and probably the case in Syria.. that would be one thing. But that argument is not being made. Its just that this is not worth American blood and treasure."

First of all, an intelligent consideration would depend on what the commenter's definition of 'useful' is (e.g., secure oil, back the aspirations of the "people", prevent bloodbaths in a civil war, kill the leader, turn the country over to the "rebels", and assume all will then be well).

Saudi Arabia is ruled out, and Syria "probably" is, although we could kill the Saudi King and Bashar Assad if that was deemed "useful". Apparently, there are non-useful or probably non-useful outcomes in these two cases, and only useful outcomes in the case of Libya. And, of course, President Obama has ruled out the treasure and blood of ground troops in Libya in keeping with his general administrative inclination to decide by mini-steps. A Dresden-type bombing might do the trick in Tripoli, but that may not be useful. So, I reject his premises and support the argument that the commenter sees as having gone missing.

What I found (none / 0) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:25:35 AM EST

interesting is the statement being the same mindset that conservatives use against things like Medicare and Medicaid. It's like what Bill Clinton called "compassionate conservationism": Gee, I feel sorry for you and I'd like to help you but I just can't.

Actually I think a little most honesty about these foreign adventures would go a long way. It's really about oil.

Largely this country or DC at least is still functioning with a Cold War mentality where it really was black and white and the lines were strictly drawn. It's just not that simple anymore and that's where we get into problems.

Hopefully one of these days, we will get a real debate on a lot of these issues but it's not going to be in '12. What are the limits of what we are willing to do in foreign countries? What are the standards that need to be met to get involved? If we are going to get involved, should ground troops always be included? It's very rare that success is done with air power alone. Bill Clinton is the only one that's been able to pull that one off that I know of. Define a "strategic interest" to the US. And then there's Israel. We have just continued the same policy there for decades even though it still might not be the best policy for us or even them.

air wars always, always, always (none / 0) (#6)
by cpinva on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:25:58 AM EST

(did i mention always?) require a ground war, to be ultimately successful. nagasaki & hiroshima were preceded by ground wars, and followed by occupation troops. kosovo, the most recent "air war", required boots on the ground. even guernica, possibly the most successful air attack ever, needed ground troops to finish the job.

that said, it doesn't necessarily require US troops on the ground. mind, i'm not advocating, merely pointing out.

btw BTD, you left out N. Korea, certainly the most obvious (ok, maybe iran is a really close second) target, if we're talking about a "good" use of our military power. of course, the chinese might get a tad upset (or maybe not, would you want n. korea on your border?), but with as much money as we owe them, they might think twice about a war with us.

: Yes, I think the Chinese (none / 0) (#7)
by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:30:31 PM EST

have realized that you do not need to have title to have ownership.

I think I stated some 90 (none / 0) (#9)
by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:44:22 PM EST

days ago about the need to land a Marine MEU. Had that been done 90 days ago, this whole fiasco would be over. Not because the marines are that great, but because the Libyan Army is that bad.

I could make the justification in my mind because more than half of the major cities had risen up oin protest over the Ghaddafi Regime.

Now, 90 days in, it's different. The people on the ground who THOUGHT they would get help and assaulted the breaches are long since dead or replaced. The true revolutionary leaders are gone in Libya.

Ghaddafi will go, but because of the pusillanimous response in an area that the US has been responding to since 1803... well, what can I day?