I don’t write too often about politics these days. My affection for the subject has waned in recent years as I have come to understand that I have less and less of the complexities of this world figured out. The human race doesn’t work in the neat conservative/liberal divide that our modern media so easily presumes. Also, our fragmented and ever-changing political system leaves little stability and the constant news cycle leaves a steady stream of Pyrrhic victories for the cable news shows to fret over for a few days until the next big thing happens. However, this current escalation in Libya leaves me wondering about a few things:
1) What is the goal of our involvement? Do we want to oust Qaddafi and will stick around until that happens? Do we want to provide a safe zone for rebels and leave Qaddafi and his loyalists entrenched in Tripoli? Do we want to support a democratic regime change in the country? We don’t know any of this. Obama has hinted towards a Qaddafi ouster while Admiral Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seems to indicate the goal is containment. Until we know what our goal is, how can we have a metric for victory? It is this sort of shaky commitment that led to, not so much Iraq and Afghanistan, as Somalia and Kosovo in the ‘90s. We need a clear vision.
2) Can the objectives of intervention, whatever they may be, actually be attained without putting boots on the ground in Libya? If the only goal is to provide air support for the rebels than the answer to this question is yes. However, if the goal is for any broader level democratic efforts or even the ouster of Qaddafi the answer is no. Are we willing to commit ground troops to this enterprise? Can we avoid it without leaving the rebels out to rot?
3) Do we know anything about the rebels and are we confident they are any better than Qaddafi? As bad as Iraq has been (and as improperly handled) I can only imagine how much worse it would have been for the Iraqi people had we merely removed Saddam and left a giant power vacuum in the country. How do we avoid giving power in Libya to the devil we don’t know? This is a huge unknown and I haven’t heard anything hinting toward a satisfactory answer.
4) Why Libya and not Yemen or Bahrain? The same day we announced support for intervention in Libya, news broke of Yemenis troops opening fire into a crowd of protesters, killing hundreds. A state of emergency was declared in the country, an act that usually allows the power class the right to restrain and punish opposition in the name of protecting against chaos. Why is this less worthy of intervention than Libya? This, of course, opens a whole other can of worms concerning intervention. When do we do it and why? What are the metrics for intervention? A certain number of people dead? an offensive and evil ruler? our chances for success at promoting democracy? the support of a broad international coalition? This gets tricky. And picking one over another does not seem to clarify the issue.
Of course I wish for success in the effort, but am not entirely hopeful. I keep thinking of the Thomas Jefferson quote, “The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Perhaps when a rebel group declares its democratic intentions and promises to abide by certain standards for support, we could provide them with the means to topple dictatorship, but it seems foolhardy to just start dropping bombs and hoping for the best. That’s my two cents.
Also, I encourage a reading of David Brooks’s op-ed from the New York Times today about the perils of multilateral intervention. Really, you should just read Brooks every week if you don't already.
1) What is the goal of our involvement? Do we want to oust Qaddafi and will stick around until that happens? Do we want to provide a safe zone for rebels and leave Qaddafi and his loyalists entrenched in Tripoli? Do we want to support a democratic regime change in the country? We don’t know any of this. Obama has hinted towards a Qaddafi ouster while Admiral Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seems to indicate the goal is containment. Until we know what our goal is, how can we have a metric for victory? It is this sort of shaky commitment that led to, not so much Iraq and Afghanistan, as Somalia and Kosovo in the ‘90s. We need a clear vision.
2) Can the objectives of intervention, whatever they may be, actually be attained without putting boots on the ground in Libya? If the only goal is to provide air support for the rebels than the answer to this question is yes. However, if the goal is for any broader level democratic efforts or even the ouster of Qaddafi the answer is no. Are we willing to commit ground troops to this enterprise? Can we avoid it without leaving the rebels out to rot?
3) Do we know anything about the rebels and are we confident they are any better than Qaddafi? As bad as Iraq has been (and as improperly handled) I can only imagine how much worse it would have been for the Iraqi people had we merely removed Saddam and left a giant power vacuum in the country. How do we avoid giving power in Libya to the devil we don’t know? This is a huge unknown and I haven’t heard anything hinting toward a satisfactory answer.
4) Why Libya and not Yemen or Bahrain? The same day we announced support for intervention in Libya, news broke of Yemenis troops opening fire into a crowd of protesters, killing hundreds. A state of emergency was declared in the country, an act that usually allows the power class the right to restrain and punish opposition in the name of protecting against chaos. Why is this less worthy of intervention than Libya? This, of course, opens a whole other can of worms concerning intervention. When do we do it and why? What are the metrics for intervention? A certain number of people dead? an offensive and evil ruler? our chances for success at promoting democracy? the support of a broad international coalition? This gets tricky. And picking one over another does not seem to clarify the issue.
Of course I wish for success in the effort, but am not entirely hopeful. I keep thinking of the Thomas Jefferson quote, “The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Perhaps when a rebel group declares its democratic intentions and promises to abide by certain standards for support, we could provide them with the means to topple dictatorship, but it seems foolhardy to just start dropping bombs and hoping for the best. That’s my two cents.
Also, I encourage a reading of David Brooks’s op-ed from the New York Times today about the perils of multilateral intervention. Really, you should just read Brooks every week if you don't already.
No comments:
Post a Comment