Stephen Walt has an interesting piece up on the similarities between neocons and liberal interventionists (via):
In case you hadn’t noticed, over the weekend President Obama took the nation to war against Libya, largely on the advice of liberal interventionists like Ambassador Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and NSC aides Samantha Power and Michael McFaul. According to several news reports I’ve read, he did this despite objections from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.
The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power — and especially its military power — can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America’s right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.
I’m too busy to write much but his whole article is worth reading.
Exurban Mom
For those who have been wondering why we haven’t heard from Keith Olbermann on Libya, he just tweeted that he’s going to try to post a video Special Comment to http://www.FOKnewschannel.com tonight….(the FOK stands for Friends of Keith, by the way, though the logo might be reminiscent of another news channel you may be familiar with)
Svensker
I always think of Liberals as anti-war. And it is always a shock to find out that many aren’t.
Chris
Not surprising: neocons are people who originally came from the other side of the aisle (hence “neo”). It’s a word for a class of Democratic intellectuals with strong views on national security, who became Republicans in the 1970s in response to the changing face of the left, which they thought was becoming too dove-friendly, and too influenced by a counterculture they didn’t like.
Yutsano
I lurve the little scare line he gives about China at the very end. Like he’s the only one keeping an eye on the REAL enemy.
Dave
While there are similarities (and I will willingly self-identify as a liberal interventionist), I think there are key differences. Primarily that LI’s will use the UN as the vehicle for intervention if at all possible and try to find consensus with the international community, as opposed to neo-con’s who basically say “fuck the world” and go in with both middle fingers fully extended. And those two attitudes also shape which areas the two groups will or won’t get involved with. I think Walt groups the two too closely together.
Comrade DougJ
@Yutsano:
You’re right, that is stupid.
PurpleGirl
Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.
This is such a good summary of the problem. I don’t know how to make the liberal interventionists realize how wrong they can be and how damaging they are to the country in the long run. In the alternative, to make them realize that they need to study more and reflect on the actions they want to take so that fewer errors are made.
FlipYrWhig
I don’t think I’d sign on to the part about “a useful way to legitimate American dominance.” The left critique of liberal/humanitarian intervention is, yes, that talk about humanitarian rights and interests is just a fig leaf for empire. But I would guess that virtually no self-described “liberal interventionist,” if there is such a thing, would accept that characterization. She or he would say that “American dominance” is a tool for securing a principle more important than that, i.e., human rights. This is right at the heart of the internecine liberal-left foreign policy conflicts from the ’90s.
Joe Beese
Not a dime’s worth of difference, as they say.
Captain Haddock
With the end result being war, does it really matter what the differing philosophies are? Its really just bullshit that each side uses to gloss over the fact that they are bought and paid for entirely by the arms makers.
fasteddie9318
Periodically we all must be reminded of this simple truism of the American experience:
Anti-war = fundamentally unserious, possibly seditious, worthy of scorn and, if possible, censorship
Pro-war as often and messily as possible = Very Serious, if perhaps overambitious, essentially patriotic, reflective of the highest ideals of our nation, worthy of every opportunity to express and act on this principle either in the media or in political office
The closer you get to the latter, the higher you can rise in the politician and pundit classes. It’s not surprising that “liberals” in high office have a hankering for war; if they didn’t, they’d never be allowed near high office.
fasteddie9318
@Dave:
The (oil-producing parts of the) Middle East for the one, as opposed to the (oil-producing parts of the) Middle East for the other?
I kid, I kid.
Bob Loblaw
Massimo Calabresi has another similar, interesting take on the same topic.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/20/why-the-u-s-went-to-war-inside-the-white-house-debate-on-libya/
I’d be very interested to know which senior official was his source for some of that, but that’s the joy of anonymity for you.
FlipYrWhig
@PurpleGirl:
I don’t think many people other than Joe Lieberman and Kenneth Pollack are liberal interventionists to that degree, where the point is to pursue intervening with great zeal. More common is the reluctant internationalist/citizen of the world, who sees atrocities happening somewhere in the world and wants to find a way to make them stop. The spirit is something like, “I know this has risks and could get terribly out of control, but we have to do something before it’s too late.” I don’t think that’s “damaging” to the same extent you do. I think there needs to be a dynamic tension between that kind of humanitarian impulse (which I like) and the cold calculus of how likely it is to work without breeding further problems (which is also sensible and necessary).
Brachiator
Interesting post St Patrick’s Day blarney. This, for example:
Intervening in Libya may be a mistake, but I don’t see how it guarantees American dominance.
@Yutsano:
As is Sarah Palin, of all people:
I don’t know if this makes Palin a neocon, or just a plain old con.
Pococurante
Ah Stephen Walt.
Of course the US taking a temporary C3 role in a very narrowly focused UN-approved initiative to head off a dictator’s threat of genocide is “going abroad in search of a monster to destroy” and exactly like the neocon rush to invade and occupy Iraq.
I guess I should take solace in the fact the nitwit didn’t use this opportunity to drag in how this could never happen if we weren’t lobby slaves to Israeli oppression.
fasteddie9318
@FlipYrWhig:
If Lieberman and Pollack are somehow not neo-cons, I’m failing to see the difference.
Dave
@fasteddie9318: No…it’s fair. I guess I self-identify like this: I still think it is to the US’s and UN’s shame that we stood by and let Rwanda burn. That’s where I come from. That if something bad can be prevented, and we can stop it, then we should.
Dave
@Brachiator: It makes her a fucking idiot.
Chris
@Brachiator:
She’s a fucking idiot, is what she is.
Really? Democratic peace theory? She still believes that? Fucking Christ.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
The article might have been a useful critique, but this is just an annoying attempt to make both sides equal. Please explain how Clinton’s bombing of Serbia and then leaving it to Europe to clean up shows support of America’s dominance?
The best critique of LIs I think would be that they think that there are some problems that must be solved by international players and that some times force is a justified tool in solving these problems. Both of these points can be argued. And it definitely could be argued why some places are “handled” more readily than others.
Joe Beese
@ The Captain:
Yep.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2101-arms-and-the-man-war-profiteering-bolsters-obamas-re-election.html#
cleek
golly… a country that spends so much on its “defense” budget that it could afford to buy a brand new F15 every 20 minutes is addicted to war.
whoodathunk?
fasteddie9318
@Pococurante:
You’ll have to show me where he writes that the buildup to the Libya campaign was “exactly like the neocon rush to invade and occupy Iraq.” That Libya is not exactly like Iraq does not mean there aren’t a few similarities there, nor does it mean that Libya won’t present serious difficulties of its own as things unfold.
Mike in NC
Good old American Exceptionalism, bitchez!
fasteddie9318
@Dave:
But we let Rwanda burn while the liberal interventionists were in charge, and yet we’re jumping in to a less-bloody situation in Libya with those same liberal interventionists in charge. That’s exactly the same set of decisions I’d have expected us to make had the neo-cons been in charge in both cases.
FlipYrWhig
@fasteddie9318: Fair enough. Maybe Lieberman and Pollack are the left edge of neocon-dom (heheh, condom). Really my point was that I don’t see “liberal interventionists” to be as “damaging” as PurpleGirl contended. The particularly damaging ones are the neocons, because neocons crusade to get involved, while “liberal interventionists” get involved more as a last resort. YMMV.
ornery curmudgeon
Great … as always I get to read about what I think as a Liberal, which never corresponds to what I actually think.
And, as always, these strange “truths” show how bad I am, or at best, that I’m no different than the ‘other side.’
FlipYrWhig
@fasteddie9318: I think Rwanda is the “never again” for the humanitarian/liberal intervention ethos.
Dave
@fasteddie9318: Then I guess I am even more of a liberal interventionist? I think stepping in to stop innocents from being slaughtered is a legitimate use of force. You can’t do it everywhere but when you can, I think you should. But that’s just the mindset/opinion of one blogger/commenter.
Joe Beese
If Rwandans had wanted us to give a shit about them, they should have settled their country on top of a lot of oil.
Valdivia
@Chris:
Even worse badly articulated dem pease theory !
Cris
Isn’t that almost a direct quote from George W. Bush?
Barry
@FlipYrWhig: “More common is the reluctant internationalist/citizen of the world, who sees atrocities happening somewhere in the world and wants to find a way to make them stop. ”
Bahrain. That massacre is OK with the Serious People.
fasteddie9318
@FlipYrWhig:
The liberal interventionists are prepared to wait for international organizations to do their work before intervening; I’m not sure you can make any judgments about their eagerness to intervene.
The interesting thing is that from a practical standpoint this brings its own set of problems–in Libya, for example, if the international community was going to get involved anyway it would have been far more impactful to get involved a couple of weeks ago instead of dithering around about things. On the other hand, there are principles of international law that were upheld here (as opposed to being undermined as they were in Iraq II) that are, sad to say, probably more important than the particulars of the Libyan situation. I’m ambivalent about this particular intervention, but I’m not ambivalent about the idea that once the UNSC has spoken, nations need to either abide by what it says or face severe consequences. Once the vote happened and Gaddafi basically told the world to cram it, there was no choice but to do what’s been done.
Suck It Up!
more labels, more divisiveness, more bullshit.
fasteddie9318
@FlipYrWhig:
…*cough*alreadyhappenedagain*cough*Sudan*cough*
El Cid
I usually feel an obligation to mention both the ‘hawks’ and ‘liberal hawks’ as part of the foreign policy establishment, because they are. Because often the term ‘hawks’ is assumed to be something special on the right wing side of the spectrum, at least the formally identified right, and it isn’t.
That’s the case whether or not a particular instance of military force appears to be for an RTP / humanitarian cause (just granting that), or for other assertions of US power.
It’s stupid to mention that, though, even if now you can go online and read declassified records (officially) of decades of US foreign policy in Foreign Relations of the United States. Because if you do, firebagger, hippie, ultraleft, victim hater, tyrant’s bootlicker, and so forth.
Cris
It does, because knowing what makes them tick is essential to making a case against them.
Bob Loblaw
@FlipYrWhig:
Which goes to show how much of interventionist sentiment is still deeply rooted in sheer antiquated racism.
Somehow it became agreed that it was the international community’s fault that Rwandans let their society become enveloped in a great fireball of hatred and took to butchering each other with machetes. Because, silly jungle savages, how could they be expected to do anything else?
Pococurante
@fasteddie9318: You’re kidding right?
The entire premise of his article is that Obama is acting just like Bush by this involvement. He indulges in a lot of concern trolling that Obama will in fact occupy Libya, because his advisors have the same world view, because now we’re involved everywhere, etc. Count the number of sentences that start with “what if” and all build on each other.
This article is atrocious and has no bearing on the current reality. Simply more outrage harvesting for the lecture circuit. But then this is how he makes his living.
“Liberal interventionists” have not taken over the administration and are not invading “everywhere”.
One country. Libya. Because the dictator told the world he was going to kill a good third of his country, he has the history to prove the UN should take that threat seriously, and when the threat of outside involvement became more real he doubled down.
I’m not happy we’re involved at all. I’ll be concerned if we do not hand over control this week as we were told. I’ll be vitriolic if we commit to occupation. But we’re nowhere near any of this nonsense right now.
PurpleGirl
But both sides end up costing us huge amounts of money. And they are prepared to strip domestic social programs to pay those costs. Iraq and Afghanistan have cost how much? Even if the Tomahawk missiles used yesterday were already paid for, they will want to build more and they cost even more.
But the Section 8 housing program has had NO NEW MONEY for subsidies in two years. But we can’t increase taxes on the rich… no, we can’t. Billions for war and nothing for safety nets.
ETA: Where is the money coming from? Who’s going to pay for this adventure?
joe from Lowell
Walt misses the other huge difference: liberal interventionists recognize that we can’t dictate what’s going to happen in other countries, and support interventions when there is a significant local force on our side, while neocons think that having the U.S. military take over, occupy, police, and run other countries is just peachy.
There’s no way liberal interventionists would be supporting the Libyan action in the absence of the protesters/opposition forces. Contrast with Iraq, where there were absolutely no locals involved in the defeat of the Iraqi army, the overthrow of the Baathist government, and the establishment of the post-war regime. Compare with the Afghan War, in which there were fewer than 1000 Americans in the country the day the Northern Alliance drove the Taliban out of Kabul.
FlipYrWhig
@fasteddie9318: I know this is very No True Scotsman, but… IMHO a true liberal interventionist would in fact want to get involved in the Sudan.
@Barry: Well, are we talking about what people _would_ do, or why they don’t? It would be in accordance with the precepts of liberal intervention to do more in Bahrain. For that matter, it would also be in accordance to have done more in Iran during those protests. But the kinds of liberal interventionists who are actual diplomats and such restrain their liberal interventionism by weighing what’s feasible and what isn’t.
Like how you might think single-payer is the right solution for health care in America, but know that it can’t really happen under current conditions, you might want to back the best possible measure–without really giving up on the precepts and ideals of single-payer.
Dave
@FlipYrWhig: FWIW, I think we should have gotten involved in the Sudan. You had a clear-cut atrocity taking place, a large area of support from the local populace and other organizations (UN, AU) that we could work with and through.
Pococurante
@PurpleGirl: Budget priorities don’t compete like that. The GOP is slashing safety nets to pay for tax cuts to corporations – it is strictly ideological.
If aliens landed on earth today and made all war impossible today’s GOP would still slash safety nets.
Don’t like it? Me either. Vote.
Chris
@joe from Lowell:
Anecdote:
As far as Rummy was concerned, that was the problem. From what I’ve heard about the first Bush term, Rumsfeld was angry with Operation Enduring Freedom because too many aspects of the war were out of his hands, and in the hands of people like the Northern Alliance, local allies like Pakistan, NATO, or our own State Department and CIA.
When planning the Iraq war, Rumsfeld wanted to make sure that wouldn’t happen, and that he and his cronies would be in charge of virtually everything. Lo and behold, the war was a massive clusterfuck right from the start… and it only started getting better after he and his posse were finally fired in 2006 and the war planners started listening to people outside of his small, ideologically circumcised clique.
joe from Lowell
@Chris: Really?
I’d thought the opposite. Rummy was all about the “light footprint,” and seemed genuinely eager to start withdrawing troops from Iraq and turn over security and governance to somebody. (Not that he opposed the creation of the permanent bases, but we have bases all over the world, in countries we don’t run, so that’s a different point).
I know the part about the DoD vs. State, but that’s a different kettle of fish, too.
FlipYrWhig
@Dave: Yes, those are the kinds of things I would like the US military to do. And I know it would lead to all kinds of problems.
joe from Lowell
I don’t think Rummy was ever a true neocon.
I think he wanted a splendid little war, and the troops home by Christmas, like so many adventures in Central America.
Brachiator
@Cris:
There’s all kinds of variations on the idea that “democracies do not, or rarely, wage war on one another.” And the Wiki notes this caution:
So, once again, Palin is good with homilies, bad with actual knowledge.
@joe from Lowell:
Good point, which a lot of people clearly overlook or don’t think matters.
bourbaki
Since Rwanda keeps getting thrown around in these Libya threads it might be helpful to remember the French intervened there as well and to some what controversial ends.
As usual nothing is simple in this world…
El Cid
@FlipYrWhig: Those who actually had worked on the ground for years understood that military intervention would have made a horrible situation even worse. What stability was achieved — meaning, slowing down the slaughter of victims — was in fact the constant negotiations, local peacekeeping, access to exterior trade, and so forth. Doesn’t sound like the sort of thing which would make sense, but that’s what happens.
I haven’t heard anyone yet propose some realistic argument about how military intervention into Zimbabwe or Burma, besides vague hand-waving, would make things better rather than worse.
Fe E
Why is Balloon-Juice the only fucking site on the whole fucking internet that can’t figure out how to keep its margins intact when a user uses Internet fucking explorer?
Jeeebus fix this fucking shit already.
Dave
@FlipYrWhig: It’s possible. It’s also possible that won’t happen. If you wait to game out every possible outcome before committing to anything, you’ll never commit to anything.
Here’s what I saw in Libya. You had a dictator closing in on a city with a population of 670,000 people with a mercenary army saying he was going to “cleanse” the city. You had the UN authorize action to stop it. The US and other countries were able to do so. The infrastructure for doing so was already in place.
Could a scenario develop where the US puts boots on the ground? Yes. Could a scenario develop where UN implements a demarcation line between east and west Libya a la Cyprus? Yes. Could a scenario develop where Khadaffi gets smoked and the whole country engages in democratic reform? Yes. And a hundred other things could occur as well.
But what DID happen? 670,000 people didn’t get murdered by a thug’s army. I think that makes this a worthy endeavor.
Chris
@joe from Lowell:
The light footprint in principle maybe, but sharing command the way he did in Afghanistan, not so much. He may not have wanted to stay in Iraq for a long time (how else do you explain sending a quarter of the number of troops from Gulf War I to invade a country twenty times bigger than Kuwait?) but he wanted to have more control over the operations as long as they lasted than he did in Afghanistan.
According to the people I’ve talked to who were in the foreign policy/national security community at the time, at least.
FlipYrWhig
@Dave: I see this case in much the same way you do. I also question how long it will have to take, what the endgame would look like, all of that, just like everyone else. But at the moment, on balance, it seems like a good call to get involved–and if it all unravels in the future, that won’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t a good call when it was made. And I respect that people are leery about anything in this vein. On the other hand, I don’t have a lot of respect for the rush to vent about imperialism, oil, and naivete.
Dave
@FlipYrWhig: We can agree on all of that.
cyntax
Digby’s got an interesting post up, excerpting some on the ground reporting being done for Chris Matthews. Here are a few choice tidbits on the rebels and their strategy:
If we don’t get this handed off quick, it looks like we could be there awhile.
bourbaki
@Dave:
I didn’t realize that Qaddafi was actually Attila the Hun (or in light of Fallujah maybe Bush would be more a propos).
But since were off in the land of the hypothetical what if instead of the revolt being crushed in a quick a bloody assault, Libya is instead subject to years of an even bloodier civil war? Would it have been a worthy endeavor then?
PurpleGirl
@Pococurante: Don’t assume that I don’t vote, because I do. I’m just a little pre-occupied worrying about how not to be evicted, how to get a job, how to buy food… very different priorities but very important to me.
Stillwater
@FlipYrWhig: More common is the reluctant internationalist/citizen of the world, who sees atrocities happening somewhere in the world and wants to find a way to make them stop.
I think you’re speaking for – and about – yourself here. But even then, the point Stephen Walt is making still applies, with only a slight alteration: the only difference between Neocons and ‘reluctant hawks’ is the level of enthusiasm for the otherwise agreed upon military intervention.
Different emotional commitment, same result.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@joe from Lowell:
I remember at the time thinking about something I had read in David Hackworth’s memoir “About Face” regarding his experiences in Vietnam, that it seemed to him the Army’s top brass had higher priorities than just winning the war, specifically rotating as much of the officer corps as possible thru the SE Asian theater so as to get them some combat experience; the idea was that that way they would be ready when the time came for the Big Show in Europe when the Russians would come charging thru the Fulda Gap.
And that pace Hackworth this explained why they would yank officers out of the line and redeploy them at just about the time that they finally had enough experience to get a feel for what the VC were doing and how to run their units to counter them effectively, with obviously detrimental effects on our war effort (as a new officer would come in to a given unit and have to start the learning process all over again from scratch, repeatedly). Because winning the war was important, but it wasn’t that important, especially if you already knew for sure that we were going to win in the end anyway, so what difference does it make.
It struck me at the time back in 2003-2004 that Rummy’s announced restructuring of our forces to be lighter, faster, and more easily deployed on short notice to the far reaches of the globe was just that: a higher priority than winning a war he didn’t think we could lose.
Brachiator
@bourbaki:
The French, as well as the rest of the world, largely did nothing in Rwanda. From the source you cite:
FlipYrWhig
@Stillwater: I was thinking of Samantha Power et al, but I’ve confessed to my sympathies flowing in that direction, yes.
I think neocons are basically still playing The Great Game, and I don’t think liberal intervention is like that. But YMMV. Like I said, I remember it as one of the big left-liberal splits from the ’90s, and it’s all coming back to the surface.
srv
It looks like a strategery for who takes over this war now wasn’t quite worked out. Gates must be banging his head against the walls.
As excited as Bobo is, he is consternated about all this multilateral stuff and that Obama got a simpler option than Iran for boosting the next campaign. I predict he’ll be happy with the outcome though when the Siege of Tripoli is still going on in 6 months and he can write about how unilateralism has been proven right again.
Dave
@bourbaki: I am simply quoting what Khadaffi said. And considering the situation and his mercenary army, it’s not a leap to take him at his word on that and act accordingly.
And yes, that is also a hypothetical result. Could that be a result? Yes, it’s possible. It’s also possible that the UN-led no-fly zone will lead to Khadaffi’s ouster and geniune reform will take place.
My point is that right now, the one KNOWN thing is that we kept a city’s residents from being massacred. I still believe that was worth doing.
Sloegin
The only fix for Libs and Cons only seeing nails and using the metaphorical hammer (or more aptly, acres of hammer warehouses stuffed full of hammers)…
Is to cut our hammers back, way back. Halving our spending would still leave us ahead of the entire EU (27 nations). Cutting by nearly 70 percent! would still leave us ahead of the #2 spender, China.
A benevolent empire is still an empire.
ppcli
@Chris:
“ideologically circumcised clique.”
Very interesting. I knew Rumsfeld and his group were ideologically circumscribed, but I hadn’t heard this further tidbit. Those guys were just weird.
Gus diZerega
@Pococurante:
Excellent example of character assassination substituting for actually confronting Walt’s arguments.
Republicans (assuming you are not one, which is iffy) are not alone in their inability to engage in intelligent analysis and picking feces flinging as a better option.
Ash Can
Whether or not Walt is ultimately right in his analysis, this excerpt nicely sums up what about this intervention gives me the willies. The extenuating circumstances make this situation look far more like Kosovo and Kuwait than Iraq, of course, which I consider clear positives. However, what if Obama and/or his crew are overestimating how easy this will be, and do consider the military a pre-eminent tool of statecraft? What happens when — not “if” — Qaddafi hunkers down in his nuke-proof bunker and lets every other Libyan fight to the death out there? This is what’s bothering me.
Based on what I’ve already seen of Obama, I believe the chances of him making a mess of this are about the lowest they can be for any nationally-viable politician in this country. The scenario of suddenly turning on a desert-savvy megalomaniac leader of an oil-rich nation, however, is decidedly unsettling in its deja-vu-ness, no matter who’s running the show on our side this time around.
Dennis SGMM
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Good call. I was with the Navy’s riverine forces operating out of Binh Thuy down in the southern part of the Mekong Delta. It was routine for us to have Lieutenant Commanders aspiring to be Commanders and Commanders who aspired to being Captains show up, go out for a ride and then put themselves in (At the time they could, don’t know how it is now.) for every medal short of the Navy Cross. They put themselves in for a panoply of medals for doing something once that we did every fucking day.
bourbaki
@Brachiator:
No shit.
And France had a right-wing prime minister at the time…hmmm…
As I said the world is not a simple place.
Cris
Anti-semite!
ppcli
@Brachiator: Most of the world largely stood by in Rwanda, that’s true. The French, however, deserve special notice because they, more than any other power, actively made things *worse*, by supporting Hutu Power from the outset, and then intervening only when Paul Kagame’s forces had turned the tide. Even by the standards of Realpolitik, the French record in Rwanda displayed unbelievable cynicism.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Cris: Also explains our tendency to prop up dictators. Don’t want to winnow down our “legitimate” targets.
Pococurante
@Fe E:
Agreed. In fact just before I read that I downloaded Firefox to see if it had the same problem. I’m willing to bet there is an old school IE hack that no one every stripped out.
Brachiator
@bourbaki:
Which means what?
Which again, means what?
For you, would it? What makes an intervention “worth it?”
If the US and other forces did nothing and Gaddafi crushed the opposition, would your reaction simply be “tough cookies?”
The attitude of some posters here seems to be a one-sdied pacifism uber alles. If a protest results in the peaceful end of an authoritarian regime, then well and good. If the regime fights back and crushes the opposition, then the protesters were either unlucky or a bunch of losers who don’t demand either consideration or respect.
And the outside world cannot get involved. Except to sell arms to the authoritarian regime the first time around. And maybe to prop it up if it suits everyone else’s interests.
Stillwater
@Ash Can: I agree with this comment!
The problem is that ‘defending the besieged’ dovetails all to easily with ‘ousting Qaddafi’ (which was clear right from the beginning, even tho advocates kept repeatedly denying this was the case) which of course is regime change, and that leads to nation building. The idea – if it’s been promulgated – the Qaddafi will just leave is ridiculous on its face. Ground troops at some point, or ‘advisors’ to the rebels, or etc., will be necessary. What our commitment to this enterprise will be is yet to be determined. But with so much at stake geopolitically, I can’t see the US just stepping aside and letting the Brits (or whoever) run the show. That doesn’t necessarily mean we put troops on the ground. But in order to have a voice in divying up the oil loot and shaping the new government, we have to maintain a presence there for however long it takes to stabilize the country and install a pro-US, pro-Western democratic government (which is always the sticky point, isn’t it?).
Of course, what the fuck do I know? Right?
gene108
@PurpleGirl:
There haven’t been that many protracted liberal interventions, since Vietnam.
Somalia, in 1993, probably comes the closest to a failed intervention, but our involvement wasn’t protracted.
Haiti, Bosnia, etc. had clear objectives and we didn’t jump into nation building.
I wouldn’t call the no-fly zone over Iraq a liberal intervention. It was left over from the Bush, Sr. administration.
I’m not particularly in favor of getting involved with Libya’s civil war, but post-Vietnam interventions by the Clinton Administration were a long long way from what the neo-cons wanted to do in Iraq. We didn’t set our selves up for nation building, to any great degree, in the 1990’s.
Our goals were specific, so we would not get bogged down in another Vietnam.
What worries me is that since we’re bogged down in Afghanistan, I think the fears of creating another protracted war may have waned from the hawkish politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Whatever caution, we approached military missions post-Vietnam, needs to be restored.
The question is will the generals, who are running things and got commissioned after Vietnam ended, draw up lessons from their success in Gulf War I, rather than 15-20 years ago, when Vietnam era veterans, who didn’t want a repeat of Vietnam, like Wesley Clark and Collin Powell were in charge.
At this point, I don’t think it’s fair to compare the post-Vietnam liberal interventions, with the protracted cluster-fucks in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush & Co. got us into.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Fe E: Because not everyone wants to comply with browsers that eschew standards?
priscianus jr
The war was already on and it wasn’t going to end until the democratic forces were utterly crushed by Qadafi. It is true that the neocons wanted intervention, but they had also wanted us to support Mubarak in Egypt. Sometimes you find yourself on the same side with people you don’t agree with, and that does not mean they were the reason you made the decision you did. I see the resemblances to Iraq (1 or 2) and Afghanistan, all of which I opposed, as largely superficial. And no, Obama is not a reincarnation of Bush.
joe from Lowell
@Chris: I agree with you about Rummy’s control-freakishness vis-a-vis the State Department (and the CIA, in Afghanistan). I’m saying, that’s a different point than the one about allies, or the one about local forces.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
Have you seen this, Comrade DougJ?
It is kind of sobering.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Fe E: Why would anyone want to use Internet Exploder?
As to the topic: this is me, staying in the boat, holding tight to all my punctuation. I will wave at you folks, though; I’m not unfriendly. :waves:
Hermione Granger-Weasley
And I think you should see this comment.
Aneece – March 22, 2011 | 10:40 am · Link
Long time lurker, first time poster.
I just wanted to say that, as a heterodox liberal who abhors violence and militarism, I’ve struggled to find others who share my take on this intervention. I think the “pro” interventionist commenters here are the first voices outside my circle of friends who see things the way I do. I especially agree with Martin.
The fact that some of the powerful interests support this attack for selfish reasons is irrelevant. Powerful interests who support eradicating cancer do so for selfish reasons. It’s what they do, by definition. The fact that we don’t bomb every bad man/country in the world is irrelevant, as is our list of past debacles and crimes (except in anticipating public perception). At best, we can only do what we can do, and in practice we do much less.
Martin is right, there is no popular Arab outrage against this intervention. The nations that are upset about it are afraid of limits on their own ability to slaughter their citizens. For once, we might actually be the good guys. I believe that, if anything, we risk failing by not being aggressive enough, and being too frightened of low level civilian casualties. In Misurata, we need to knock out they’re freaking tanks. If the uprising succeeds quickly, then all the despot pearl clutching in the world will be drowned out by jubilant Libyan crowds on Al Jazeera. We risk over-learning the lessons of Iraq. This is not a manufactured crisis. This is not Western imperialism. It’s a practical task that can be done badly or well.
bourbaki
@Brachiator:
No, I would have said “What a tragedy.”
But unlike you (or at least what you seem to be arguing) I don’t believe American airpower drops ponies and freedom and that intervention can never have a downside. It is highly possible that action leads to a worse outcome then inaction, whose to say. We have had essentially no serious debate in this country about our involvement (and no a bunch of assholes whining on blogs does not count). In particular, what is supposed to happen if Qaddafi doesn’t go?
To turn your question back at you, what if Libya turns into a retread of Somalia or Iraq circa 2006 then what will you say? I’m sure it won’t be “tough cookies,” but I also doubt it will involve a limited US role…
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
Iran and N. Korea just learned to never give up their nuclear weapons they way Qaddafi did. Libya is very influential in the African Union, which is very critical of neo-colonialism, and for good reason. I don’t know how having Europe decide the outcome of a civil war doesn’t come across as colonial intervention.
joe from Lowell
@srv:
Look, I can understand how people opposed to a military action can be eager to declare it a failure, but the existence of disputes between the military commands of allied nations a whole three days into the action doesn’t actually prove that.
Remember the silly garment-rending in April 03, that the armored spearheads’ pause to let their supply lines catch up with their advances meant that the drive on Baghdad was “bogged down in a quagmire?” No, the need to let your supply units catch up as the lines get longer and longer due to a fast, successful advance was not proof that the offensive against the Iraqi Army had bogged down, and the argument over how to organize the command structure for this mission doesn’t mean the alliance is splitting.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
hmm..moderation.
Comrade DougJ.
Can you really blame Obama for wanting to be on the right side of history for once?
The poor guy couldn’t do anything to help the Greens, to help the Egyptians, to help the Saudi Shi’ia or the Jordanians or the Yemenis or the Tunisians or the Bahrainis but by gawd, a WHOLE LOT of people were BEGGING him to do something about Qaddafi, to help the Libyan people.
This is not a precedent, this is not a policy, this a singleton event based on special circumstances in a particular environment.
agrippa
That article falls into the category of: “I have never heard that idea before; now that I have heard it, I do not think much of it.”
I am, what many may call a ‘liberal interventionist’. I am well aware that that this may work out poorly; if for no other reason than I do not know who comprises the rebels and what they want. And, war is a roll of the iron dice and is very destructive.
I do not like the means; but, if you want to stop the killing of civilians the options are limited.
I have nothing whatever in common with neocons.
joe from Lowell
@Dave:
Let’s not forget that he used air assets, tanks, and artillery, all firing HE shells, to attack crowds of peaceful protesters.
But he’s not a bad guy, really. Just misunderstood. When he said the opposition would be crushed “with no mercy,” he was actually speaking French, and didn’t intend to thank them.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Valdivia: It’s not as if you can expect her to understand it, fercryinoutloud. Much less articulate it well.
Joel
I liked most of the article (with the exception of the diversion that @Yutsuano points out). The end effect of war is serious, and it doesn’t really matter how you get there to begin with.
However, I want to flip things around, for the sake of debate. I’m still fairly undecided on this issue, but I readily acknowledge the limits of pacifism. How, for example. does Walt address Lindbergh and the America Firsters?
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@ppcli: I missed that weirdness. Calls to mind this frame from Randall. Which, thinking about it, explains a great deal about Rummy and crew, actually.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
from the moderated comment.
Comrade DougJ, all the glibertarian boggarts are concern trolling the holy hell out of Operation Omar. Need I point out that you seem to be in lockstep with all of them? Sully, Frum, Douthat, Brooks, Larison, Dr. Manzi and the rest of the Glibertarian Hivemind at TAS….
If we do get to see ecstatic Libyans on al-Jazeerha all you pearl clutchers are going to look pretty sillie.
rickstersherpa
@Pococurante: I was wondering when someone would bring up this slander. I guess ol’Stephen Walt must hate the Libyans as much as he hates the Jews. I always think of that ultimate realist, George Washington, and his farewell address on this issue.
However, the Realist position does have actual problems.
Because the fact is we are an Empire, and as part of that is the role of protector we play to Europe and our frienemies in the Middle East. So there are U.S. interests in the Libya and especially its oil, as we all notice as we see the gas price heading to $4.00 a gallon with a rocket. So it is very hard to draw a line and say “that is a national interest worth going to war for and that one is not” on any thing but an ad hoc basis. A problem like Libya is very much a “damned if you don’t, damaned if you do situation.” Because of Libya’s geographical location, so close to Europe, and our strong military presence in the Med, if we took a pure neutral, none of our business attitude, and Gaddafi slaugtered a million people, we would be accused of passive accomplice, especially since because of the oil, we would soon be involved with business him again. And so we done the opposite with no clear outcome down the road.
As opposed to Iraq 2003, the U.S. did not go looking for this affray in Libya, but instead a crisis and the aggression of another force a decision. In that sense this is more similar to Iraq – Kuwait, 1990-91.
Lets see how this plays out.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
This is where my point about siding with a meaningful local force, instead of taking the place over and running it ourselves, comes in.
Interesting use of the word “just.” Did Mubarak “just” leave? How about Tunisia?
And the condition in the U.N. mandate forbidding such forces is…what?
You’re defining your conclusion: this action must be an effort to install a client state and get our hands of Libyan resources, because any action is by definition an effort to install a client state and get our hands on Libyan resources. There isn’t evidence for this point; in fact, there is evidence against it (the language of the UN resolution, the presence in the coalition of Arab League states and anti-occupation western governments like Canada), but so what? You’re taking this proposition as assumed, so it doesn’t need evidence.
joe from Lowell
@bourbaki:
Nobody believes that. You, on the other hand, quite clearly believe that American intervention can never have an upside.
You can try actually looking at the specifics of the case, and drawing a conclusion from them, instead of merely checking your ideological gut and drawing a conclusion that wouldn’t differ one iota no matter what the situation on the ground.
joe from Lowell
@Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937:
As if they were confused on the point before this past week.
You don’t think the Arab League is concerned about colonial intervention? You don’t think the governments in Belguim or Canada are concerned about colonial intervention?
And yet, they support this action. I suggest that this goes back to the fact that western powers didn’t start this fight, only got involved after being asked by the locals and their neighbors, and committed to not putting boots on the ground.
Tough to colonize a place you don’t enter. It makes it a lot harder to tell people what to do.
JenJen
Great piece in Salon; John McCain was for Gadhafi before he was against him.
John McCain’s Libya Amnesia
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: You’re defining your conclusion: this action must be an effort to install a client state and get our hands of Libyan resources, because any action is by definition an effort to install a client state and get our hands on Libyan resources.
No, I’m not defining my conclusion. In fact, the opposite. On the supposition that this effort results in Qaddafi being deposed, a new power structure in Libya needs to be created. So that requires a reshaping of Libyan power structures and institutions (unless his replacement by another dictator is on the table). And the US and the West generally will want to see certain types of institutions and policies prioritized when the power restructuring happens. That’s to say, the West won’t grant the Libyans wholesale autonomy in determining what institutions and interests are promoted.
joe from Lowell
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
You mean the skeery, al Qaeda Mooslims, who we don’t even know personally fer chrissakes?
Amazing how those brave protesters everyone was cheering last month turned into such a menace.
Chris
@joe from Lowell:
Probably, yes. But I’d point out that he was also control-freakish vis-a-vis locals. The only Iraqi we were talking to early on was Chalabi, the exile in Washington that the Bush administration people knew and loved (and thought they could control). Actual local forces like Sistani had to fight their way into the system, and Rummy & co would have been happier shutting them out altogether.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
You’re defining your conclusion about our purposes, and doing so in the face of evidence – the UN resolution language, the presence of anti-occupation countries in the coalition – that would not be there if we were waging this war for the purpose of installing a client state instead of letting the rebels install a new government.
As the Libya doves keep pointing out, wanting something and committing to do something about it are two different things.
There’s a whole lot of room between “grant the Libyans wholesale autonomy” and “nation building/installing a client state.” Certainly, we’ll want to influence them. We fund the IRI and the Carter Center to influence governments around the world. That doesn’t mean we take over those countries and set up the government ourselves.
Brachiator
@ppcli:
This is very true, and I wrote about this on other boards at the time, especially when some people wanted to assert lame excuses like the legacy of colonialism, or simplistic assertions about long historic enmity between the Hutu and Tutsi.
The cold hard fact is that the French were deeply involved in what happened, and much of the world scrambled like little weasels for excuses to do nothing.
This does not argue for intervention in every case and every situation, but I also note that while the West wallowed in exquisite immobility over what to do about the Khmer Rouge, the North Vietnamese stopped the genocide. Of course, it helped that Pol Pot had first launched a preemptive strike against North Vietnam.
And Cambodia still retained a seat in the UN for the longest time. And the good pacifists wrung their hands for the longest time. Because they are, after all, against war. But apparently not against murder and death.
joe from Lowell
@Chris: Sure, but Rummy was still talking about an early exit and a quick turnover long after that sorry little Chalabi Parade was laughed out the room.
Linnaeus
I’m still reading every perspective I can on this intervention in order to come to some reasonably fair conclusion about its rightness or wrongness. But it’s hard for me to not be very, very leery about it. Not just for historical reasons, but also because it doesn’t look clear to me at all what “we”, i.e., the US, the EU, the Arab League, etc. are willing to do if the no-fly zone does not by itself work.
We also need to have a better definition of what “the intervention is working” means. Is it just stopping atrocities? Or driving Qaddafi from power? How far does this go?
joe from Lowell
@Brachiator: The legacy of colonialism means that it’s better for an African to kill fifty Africans than for an American to stop him.
The legacy of colonialism means that it’s better for a Libyan tank to fire fifty shells a day into Benghazi than for a French plane to bomb that tank, because it might miss the first time and send one bomb into Benghazi.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
well…..no it isnt.
It is crap DougJ. It is more both sides dooo eeet.
This is beneath you.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Comrade DougJ: the whole thing is stupid.
I want the time back it took to read it.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: It’s hard to take you seriously when you skip right over what happens in the crucial interval between Qaddafi’s ousting and the establishment of a fully functioning stable new Libyan government.
someguy
I wonder what happened to that guy.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Stillwater:
.it is not our bidness. UN Res 1973 is EXPLICITLY written to PREVENT any nation from doin’ a GW again.
NO invasion, NO occupation, NO boots on the ground.
The French have already recognized the NTC.
Let them worry about it.
Fuzz
To me an important distinction between liberal and neocon interventionist policies is that liberals largely only go when either the locals or the international community ASK them to. There were no Arab Iraqis on TV saying they needed help (Kurds were, and we did help), but we went anyway at the behest of the neocons. The Bosnian muslims were being killed off by the Bosnian Serbs and asked for help, the Kosovars asked for help too and in both cases Europe needed our military logistical capability to make it happen. Same with Kuwait(though I’ll admit I don’t know how we ended up in Somalia)
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
Somehow, I’ll have to struggle on, knowing you feel that way.
Let me know when you have any thoughts about what I wrote.
Not our problem. We don’t run Libya. We don’t want to run Libya. The fact that there is neither the intention nor the plans to set up a new state in Libya makes me support this action more, not less. I’d be against it if Obama was plumping for some Libyan Chalabi and talking about how American troops are going to play Benghazi Traffic Cop.
Ash Can
@Linnaeus:
I’m hoping the answer to that question is clear to Obama, if not to the British and French as well. For all the complaints I may have had about Bush Sr., he at least had an exit strategy in Desert Storm. Now, I’d be thoroughly shocked if Obama didn’t have an exit strategy; there’s no way someone as bright as him could be that dumb. I can’t help feeling uneasy about the mayhem that could take place between now and then, though.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Stillwater: Let the French deal with it.
They scrambled first, they recognized the NTC first, they brought the rain first.
Let us just take a participatory role this time.
Wouldn’t that be wise?
Dave
@Fuzz: The UN was already there with the OAU working to prevent famine when everything flared up in the civil war in the early 90s. So they got the warring parties to agree to a UN military mission. But it was small and both sides kept firing on the UN forces and people were starving, so the US offered to lead a larger mission. That lead into the 28000 UN soldiers, Blackhawk Down and the rest.
I think the single largest problem with Somalia is that NO ONE there wanted the UN there. Even the citizens who were starving didn’t want their help.
joe from Lowell
@someguy:
He’s right. The president only gains this power through actions of Congress.
Like the UN Participation Act.
Or the War Powers Act.
Or the Iraqi AUMF.
Or the September 2001 AUMF.
Bush claimed that the president had inherent constitutional powers to do so. Obama has abjured that claim since coming to office – for instance, by citing the AUMF, and not inherent presidential powers, when explaining why we’re going after al Qaeda in Yemen.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@joe from Lowell: I think Stillwater has a profoundly basic misconception of America’s new role in the global hierarchy. No one is ever going to let us proselytize jc democracy with force of arms in MENA again. Not ever.
How hard can this be if even Andy McCarthy gets it?
Linnaeus
@Ash Can:
Same here; I do think the president has an exit strategy. My concern is about what the new exit strategy will be if the scenario that produced the original strategy does not come to pass.
Stillwater
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: Wouldn’t that be wise?
You mean on my part? I didn’t realize I had that kind of power over international relations. If you mean wise from the pov of government, then perhaps you’re right. But wisdom is hard to come by. I think your complacence about this intervention is surprising, given all your past exhortations about the use of force, etc. You can of course, gain comfort from the literal wording of a UN res. that no boots will be on the ground, even if stability further erodes and the air strikes are insufficient to achieve their goals. Or you can put your faith in the ability and desire of others to maintain the peace sufficiently long for democratic elections, or whatever type of government results from Qaddafi’s ousting, to occur. Or you can find peace in believing that Obama has a new foreign policy which precludes him from imposing judeochristiandemocracy on Muslims.
But that doesn’t answer any of the real issues at play here, and your finding comfort in the UN res doesn’t address any of the concerns I’ve brought up.
Fe E
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
Largely because I don’t have admin authority to change it. So that’s that.
Valdivia
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
I know! And if I could spell without my phone auto correcting ( laptop is in the shop) and letting me edit I could go on and on about her vapidness. When I read her actual quote I couldn’t stop laughing. She sounds like a freshman who barely got the grasp of the idea trying to sound like someone who got a PhD.
Love your nym btw.
Stillwater
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: I think Stillwater has a profoundly basic misconception of America’s new role in the global hierarchy. No one is ever going to let us proselytize jc democracy with force of arms in MENA again. Not ever.
Well, you’d be wrong to attribute this view of America’s role in the world to me, since I’ve never thought any of that. America’s new role will continue to be America’s old role, shaped to some degree by the prevailing political culture of the times.
ppcli
@Brachiator: (A bit late to the party. Stepped away from the computer for a moment, and the internet went down. I’ll never make that mistake again. But wanted to add:) We’re in agreement there, on all counts. The Vietnamese intervention to end the bloodbath in Cambodia involved many factors, of course, but it had overall a positive outcome. That has gone down the memory hole as quickly as the fact that the Khmer Rouge were supported by the U.S. There are other examples of interventions that – though these things are never uncomplicated – were basically models of “good” intercessions to end mass slaughter, followed by getting the hell out, and one wishes they were discussed more. India in East Pakistan/Bangaladesh, Australia in East Timor are two others that come to mind.
Concerning France and the extent of its involvement on the Hutu side in Rwanda: A buddy of mine was on Dallaire’s staff, and we were discussing the movie “Hotel Rwanda”. He brought up the scene in which the hotelier saves himself and his customers from death by buying time for a phone call to his boss (presumably the head of Sabina hotels back in Belgium}.
Very soon after, the army officer gets a phone call and is called off. The officer snarls “Who did you call?”. As my friend pointed out – why didn’t it strike anyone as telling that a European hotel executive could get the higher-ups in the Rwandan military to pay such immediate and decisive attention when they couldn’t give a damn about anything that UNPROFOR did or said?
AAA Bonds
@Fe E:
@Dave:
AAA Bonds
One thing I see missing from most discussion in American media is the history between France and Libya.
I’d assume most American reporters have access to Wikipedia, so they must just think Americans can’t handle that right now for some reason.
Here’s a horribly Great Man-style theory of my own: we underestimate the influence of the political elite’s personal grudges and friendships over the decision to go to war, or over foreign policy in general.
I think it MATTERED that Hillary Clinton saw the Mubaraks as family friends.
Brachiator
@bourbaki:
Ah, the grown up version of “tough cookies.”
Odd, I have never said this in any post in any thread here in Balloon Juice or anywhere else.
Highly possible? You’re guessing. I have no idea what the outcome might be. Neither do you. I have mixed feelings about the intervention. I simply refuse to assert that a stubborn insistence on neo-isolationism is a principled position.
Sometimes, anything you do will be the wrong thing to do.
Then we severely misjudged the situation. And it will be, as you say, “What a tragedy.”
I would probably ask, “What, if anything, can we do now?”
People are fighting to oppose Gadaffi. Former members of his government, in Libya and outside the country, have put their lives at risk to oppose him. And Libya is not Iraq and it is not Egypt. Gaddafi, unlike, Mubarak in Egypt, has the support of the military. And, for all his surface nuttiness, appears to inspire more loyalty than did Saddam Hussein. The nature of his support appears to be different than that of these other rulers, perhaps more tribal and kinship based than religious (as in Saddam’s use of Shia Sunni divisions to his advantage). I have not seen much that gives a solid picture of the nature of the Libyan opposition, or their ability to create an effective, stable government.
Sounds pretty bleak.
But I think it’s also fair to ask, what would you want if you were one of the Libyan protesters? Is it worth it to try to offer some assistance?
AAA Bonds
@Brachiator:
And a lot of people forget that we were still unsure where they were going to fall in Egypt, and the entire world held its breath until we knew that.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Stillwater:
no one can do that sillie.
it is what we call an impossible problem in mathematics.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: Somehow, I’ll have to struggle on, knowing you feel that way.
Lulz. Just caught that. (My refresh keeps jumping up to strange places in the thread. Anyone else?)
Omnes Omnibus
@Stillwater: Refresh jumps to last link you went to in the thread. I don’t know why.
Jay B.
Yes, yes, George Packer’s liberal intervention against Saddam Hussein was totally different than George Bush’s. In the same way, manslaughter is different than murder in the first degree. Everyone’s dead, but the motive was different and that makes all the difference!
To wit:
But what the fuck does that matter? Seven or 11, baby!
Yeah. You know it’ll be destructive, you don’t know who we’re supporting or why, but dammit, lessons must be learned and since force is the only thing they understand…Totally different!
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay B.: yes, that is exactly what was said and you aren’t selectively quoting and exaggerating for effect at all.
Stillwater
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: no one can do that sillie.
it is what we call an impossible problem in mathematics.
So your contention is that the bare recognition of an impossibility (Christianizing Muslims) constitutes a new approach to foreign policy? Look, Bush coulda given a rats ass about converting muslims, or whatever else you normally say about JD democracy and his purported efforts. His policy (independently of what he thought about it) was centered around establishing claim and possession of oil reserves (PNAC) as a necessary condition for maintaining not only American hegemony, but America’s livelihood. Policy wise, the creation of JDDemocracy in MENA wasn’t central, or even peripheral to the overall policy objectives: it was an afterthought. And to their misguided credit, they did the best they could.
Here’s the impossibility theorem I think your looking for: how to create governments of any stripe that are pro-US while at the same time popularly supported. Since it’s a conundrum, the historical solution of this was to install dictators that would give us access to resources, or honor our property claims at the expense of the domestic population. The contemporary examples, which try to circle that square, haven’t worked out so well. But the lack of success isn’t located in the creation of democratic institutions: its that democracy, and autonomy, are inconsistent with doing what the US (or any coercive outside influence, for that matter) wants. So JD this or that is entirely irrelevant.
soonergrunt
@Chris: She probably actually believes the Golden Arches peace theory. It’s easier to understand, and it has that cool capitalistic imagery to go with it.
FlipYrWhig
@Jay B.: Much the same way that a cop shooting a hostage taker is exactly the same as the hostage-taker shooting a hostage. Either way, someone’s dead, amirite?
Stillwater
@Stillwater: Whooops! That should be ‘JC’ and not ‘JD’.
Brachiator
@ppcli:
I know quite a number of people who love the album Concert for Bangladesh, even contributed to the charities, but who don’t have a clue about the conflict that gave birth to the country, or, more critically, the fact that the US supported Pakistan in the West Pakistan/East Pakistan Civil War.
On the other hand, the people of Bangladesh are very grateful that Indian intervened on their behalf.
Very interesting. I wondered about this scene myself.
Jay B.
@FlipYrWhig:
How about a cop killing the hostage-taker AND the hostage? Or do you actually not know how bombs work?
Brachiator
@joe from Lowell:
I know a number of white people who think this way, but not too many Africans.
I guess this might be true if “legacy of colonialism” really meant a single thing, but it applies to much, and is not applicable to even more. It’s also awkward when applied to the US, which didn’t have a colonial empire in Africa, but which did have, among other baleful modern influences, Henry Kissinger’s “realpolitik” neglect of the continent. And then there are the various proxy wars in which China, Cuba, the US and the old Soviet Union toyed with various African countries, France’s bizarre interference with former colonies, the lingering influence of the Belgian sadist, King Leopold, etc.
FlipYrWhig
@Jay B.: You were the one saying that one death equals one death regardless of context. That’s clearly just plain wrong.
Jay B.
@FlipYrWhig:
Yes, which is why Packer’s dead Iraqi is much better off than Bush’s dead Iraqi, one died in the name of liberation, the other in the name of freedom. That, or when it comes to the widespread destruction that inherently comes with widespread bombing nice sentiments don’t make people less dead.
Or are you under the impression that only bad people die when a cruise missile explodes?
FlipYrWhig
@Jay B.: I was nitpicking your facile analogy, not talking about the merits of the policy.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Stillwater: Oh no. I haven’t been clear at all. I’m sorry.
Bismallah, the relevent part of the Bush Doctrine–
is impossible. Because the democracy Bush was trying to force/stand up/install/implant was judeochristian democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are incompatible with shariah law, with the religion of Islam. COIN is just the BD cut down to village size.
Here is an example from A-stan. For nearly 10 years and nearly 400 billion dollars the US has been trying to wipe out the Taliban in A-stan by using pop-centric COIN. At this point there are more Taliban than there were 10 years ago, and more islamists in Pakistan as well, although they are mostly Jamaat-e-Ismali (JI) and not Taliban. And at this point, even Petraeus acknowledges that the Taliban will be part of whatever government we leave behind.
Because, muslims are directed by the Quran surah (16:125), where believers are told to respond to the extent of the attack levelled against them.
So the more strongly the west proselytizes the more strongly muslims resist.
It is like force feedback in robotics where the initial force invokes proportionate response.
Jay B.
@FlipYrWhig:
No, in fact, you created a completely different argument and addressed that.
My point is and was that the motives of liberal interventionists and neocons hardly matters in terms of war as soon as innocent people start dying, which, inevitably, they will. Dead is dead. By being completely obtuse you brought in the idea that what if we only kill bad guys, then the context is totally different. Yes, that would be different! And that’s part of the folly of war.
What if, in the end, we really ARE helping out Al Queda in this operation? What if we make it worse? That’s at least as probable as “helping” anyone by adding firepower to a civil war.
HyperIon
@Brachiator wrote:
or file under Necessary but not Sufficient.
FlipYrWhig
@Jay B.: Yes, when innocent people start dying, that is bad. Humanitarian intervention has that as its foundational premise. You’re saying that humanitarian intervention that leads to widespread deaths of innocents is a bad thing. Um, of course. So, you’re right, neocon geopolitical meddling and humanitarian geopolitical meddling are equivalently bad _when they have the same outcome_, that is, thousands of dead innocents. But that’s not really an argument that neocon and humanitarian agendas _do_ lead to the same outcome, is it? An accidentally tainted vaccine supply and a deliberately planted bomb can both kill on a large scale, but that doesn’t mean that vaccines and bombs are indistinguishable, so we might as well not do either.
Stillwater
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: Because the democracy Bush was trying to force/stand up/install/implant was judeochristian democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are incompatible with shariah law, with the religion of Islam.
No. Bush wanted democracy because installing dictators doesn’t fly in the New Age.
He(let’s get real here: Bush himself never thought about any of these things) his adminstration wanted to establish a permanent claim – either thru law or force – to the oil reserves of Iraq, and it made a gesture at democracy for very compelling political reasons. That gesture meant the establishment of legislative bodies and branches of government and popular elections. Whether they had ‘free speech’ was entirely beside the point. Do you think the sticky problem in Iraq all these years later is that American international and geopolitical concerns hinge exclusively on free speech?The central problem was, and continues to be, how to create a government that was receptive to both US demands (the primary goal) and domestic populist demands (the secondary goal). Same with Afghanistan. Only there, it’s even more starkly revealed: sympathy for US interests in the burgeoning ‘democracy’ is purchased with cold US dollars.
HyperIon
@Dennis SGMM wrote:
Speaking of medals, I keep seeing Petraeus testifying on C-SPAN with his chest full of medals. It just seems pathetic in some way. Most of them must be for fairly mundane activities.
I have a question for you as a vet: I know it is improper to wear a medal that is “undeserved” but is it OK to NOT wear one’s medals? Or it is considered part of the uniform?
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Stillwater: Not being able to mindmeld with Bush like you, I can only go by what he SAID.
al-Islam has encoded defense against proselytization response. Judeochristian democracy is impossible to impose on majority muslim states.
And that is what I explained.
No. But defense against proselytion response is what creates jihadism, what makes terrorism.
The structures you say Bush really wanted could have been incorporated into islamic democracies. But Bush was stupid. He insisted on trying for jc democracy. There is no substrate to support that. He could have stood up islamic democracy, but he was a WEC. Couldnt turn off the proselytizing.
joe from Lowell
@Brachiator:
Some of the military. Quite a bit has defected.
But, enough of the military to keep up the slaughter.
Stillwater
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:But defense against proselytion response is what creates jihadism, what makes terrorism.
This makes no sense. If they’re immune to proselytization (as you always remind us), why would that create jihadism? I would have thought it was dictatorial (and other) power structures imposed by the west that impoverish and oppress the citizenry, and perpetuate fundamentally unjust economic and political institutions.
Edited.
joe from Lowell
@Jay B.:
You know who knows how bombs work?
The people Benghazi who celebrated the news of the UN mission. As a matter of fact, they know how bombs work a whole hell of a lot better than you.
But maybe you can enlighten the poor dears.
joe from Lowell
.@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
No, it isn’t. If it were, we’d be up to our necks in Iraqi and Afghan terrorists. Instead, 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia (not exactly a…er…Mecca for proselytization), some from Egypt, some from Yemen, and one from Syria.
Terrorism (not talking about the state variety here) comes from political opposition to a repressive government, not military opposition to an outside force. The terrorist grows out of the protester, not the soldier.
Zawahiri, for instance, was a Muslim Brotherhoood protester and activist, was tortured in an Egyptian jail, and went out and helped found al Qaeda.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
Though the west has certainly imposed its share of dictatorial power structures, it certainly has no monopoly.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell: Though the west has certainly imposed its share of dictatorial power structures, it certainly has no monopoly.
You’re right, and it’s a good point, especially wrt Muslim extremists. A good part of the original tension between the bin-Laden faction and other Muslim groups was internal to Saudi Arabia itself, independently of the role the US plays in propping up the government.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Omnes Omnibus: Because if you look at the URL in your browser, when you went to the link, that’s part of the URL. And refresh takes you right back to that same URL.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Jay B.: Obviously better to keep the hostage taker alive so he can kill all the hostages, then.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Stillwater: /sigh
OBL said it, John Walker Lindh said it, every radicalized amerimuslim has said it.
American interventionism is proselytization.
Trying to impose jc democracy is proselytizing jc democracy.
Thinking jc democracy would be better for the muslim brown people.
Sure, it would be. It would be great if islamic culture could have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
But the problem is that IT CANNOT BE DONE.
Proselytizing is thinking yours is best, that yours is the ONLY truth.
You cant turn it off. You are doing it now.
How hard can it be if Andy McCarthy gets it?
@joe from Lowell:
Tortured by Mubarak, the American puppet.
Again, American interventionism.
Terrorism is a RESPONSE to western interventionism.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@joe from Lowell:
why did they attack America then? Why not attack the Saud royals? Lissen to what they say. From OBL on EVERY SINGLE TERRORIST cites western interventionism.
and yes, muslims are pretty much immune. Have the Taliban converted? How about the Sadrists?
can you name any converts outside of rifqa bari? And that was in the US where proselytization is legal. And she was a minor.
joe from Lowell
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
That is idiotic. Mubarak was a Pan-Arab nationalist. He didn’t come to power through American intervention, and we took a very hands-off role in how he ran the country. Interventionism my ass.
Stop blaming all of your problems on everyone else.
What is this, a joke? Al Qaeda attacks the Saudi royals all the time. How can you manage not to know this?