On Libya

[drwex]

I'm writing this for the people who ask, and for my own record.

People who know me seem to be surprised by my support of our military intervention in Libya, particularly given that I'm not in favor of our military actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am not a pacifist. I believe that the use of force is necessary at times and while I do not believe in the concept of a "just war" - in fact I think the term itself is loathsome - I believe that we live in a world of laws and those laws cover things like wars and military action. War is never just, but it can be legal. War is never right, but it can be necessary. We make the laws to cover things - including military action - that we know need governance. Nobody makes laws or international treaties about how to have a peace because we all agree on that. Laws and treaties are there for things we disagree about - human rights, trade and commerce, and conflict.

My biggest objection to our action in Iraq is that we went in under a lie (there were no WMD and BushCo knew it; there never was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and they knew it) and at the wrong time. Had we gone in when Saddam gassed the Kurds I would have supported it. Had we gone in to support the uprising after Gulf War I (with UN backing) I would have supported that. I believe that in Libya we are acting on good true information - Qaddafi is in fact using armed forces against a civilian population in ways that constitute war crimes, and he should be stopped from doing so.

I don't buy the argument that says "if we intervene here (Libya) why don't we intervene there (Bahrain)" or anywhere else? First, there's a large difference in my mind between a criminal action by police forces (shooting peaceful demonstrators) and the wholesale, indiscriminate shelling of civilian populations with heavy weaponry brought in by foreign mercenaries. That said, if we could get international (UN) and local (Arab League) support for action in Bahrain I'd be more likely to support it.

Knowing that we would want such legal cover, I'm disappointed we didn't press for it earlier. One of the stories that's been lost in the crisis is that the Libyans who asked for a no-fly zone at the outset wanted it to be there to block Qaddafi's import of foreign mercenaries and their heavy weapons. When you hear that towns are being shelled by "forces loyal to Qaddafi" it mostly means "mercenaries paid by Qaddafi" - this is largely not the Libyan army itself. One of my ongoing disappointments with Obama is that he seems to require Hilary Clinton to be his spine too often.

Also, I don't think we're required to operate by a standardized playbook. A good analogy I heard is that this situation is much more like a soccer match than a football game. In US football, the coaches will often script the first 20 or so plays and try to get things to go according to their plan. In a soccer game things are much more fluid and you win by being flexible and reacting quickly. I'm OK with there being "no exit plan" as long as I can believe that our military planners are in fact thinking on their feet.

Right now it appears that we are pretty unequivocally the good guys. Every day I listen to the BBC talking live to Libyan citizens and doctors who are treating the victims of Qaddafi's crimes - kids with hands and feet blown off by tank shelling, snipers shooting at anyone who tries to enter or leave a hospital. I want us to destroy those tanks, shut down that artillery, drive off those snipers. Yes, we do have to figure out what to do about Qaddafi himself, and yes if this bogs down into a stalemate it will be ugly. But those things are in the future, and the future is always uncertain. If that future comes and I feel like we're acting illegally or on false grounds I may flip over to opposing the military action. But not today.

Comments

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

My biggest beef is the violation, again, of the war powers act.

[ringrose.livejournal.com]

Wikipedia has an interesting section on the constitutionality of the war powers act.

i am not a lawyer, merely a GROPO

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

True it does - however, in this instance, most of constitutional issues are moot, as I understand them (interpreting the issues to be that the War Powers Resolution hamstrings the President, as Commander in Chief, from defending the Constitution, in accordance with his oath of office) as the Libyan issue is not threatening our Constitution.

And I'm neither, I've just googled it a little.

[ringrose.livejournal.com]

The President is within his constitutional rights to enter a UN enforcement. What sketchy research I've done says that was decided during the debates on the UN Participation Act to not be "declaring war".
Source: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp - the section on International Peacekeeping and the power to "Declare War".

I almost ended with "Even though I don't like the decision, it was his to make." It was his to make... but when I turn it around and ask "would I be happy if he'd said 'no' and all the rebels in Lybia were killed by hired foreign mercenaries" my answer is no, I'm not happy with that either.

Re: And I'm neither, I've just googled it a little.

[drwex]

when I turn it around and ask "would I be happy if he'd said 'no' and all the rebels in Lybia were killed by hired foreign mercenaries" my answer is no, I'm not happy with that either.

This is why I say that war is never just, never right. But sometimes necessary.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

'Either way, the most troubling criticism that Obama faces comes from a prominent Constitutional scholar, who in 2007 told the Boston Globe: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'

That Constitutional scholar? Senator Barack Obama.

[ringrose.livejournal.com]

Flip-flopping can say several things about a person, all the way from "takes the point of view which is convenient" to "is willing to reevaluate his position."

The idea that intelligent people - and sometimes the same intelligent person - can be on both sides of the argument does seem to hint that there might be two valid sides to the debate.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

My arguments against include the unConstitutionality of it, the lack of end-game conditions, the costs, and the complete lack of U.S. interests in the situation.

(I can't really argue about the loss of life, as lives are already being lost either way.)

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Sigh. On the one hand, I have nothing but sympathy for the Libyan rebels, and think that the human race could only be improved by smearing Muamar Qaddafi across several yards of open desert...

...but, uh, how did that line go again? "Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots fights one on twelve." I'm thinking this was well within the EU and Arab League's capabilities and sphere of interest, and they should have been the ones to do it.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Heh, my wife brought up that same B5 quote when I was talking to her about this.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I'd be all for knocking over Qdaffy *IF* it wasn't going to interfere with winning the wars we're already in. Given how strained the Army is I have serious qualms about that. As for how we're intervening . . . we already did the "no fly zone" experiment and proved it doesn't get rid of dictators and does a lousy job of protecting the rebels. I'm opposed to any military action that doesn't have a clear objective and a plan for reaching that objective. So far "Odyssey Dawn" is lacking both.