Saturday, March 19, 2011

Good Morning, Have Some War


We begin the plunge. From the New York Times:

Mr. Obama used tough language that was at times reminiscent of President George W. Bush before the war in Iraq. 

“If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action,” Mr. Obama said, laying out a policy decision made after several weeks in which the administration sent conflicting signals about its willingness to use force to aid the rebels at a time of upheaval throughout the Arab world. 

But unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama cast the United States in a supporting, almost reluctant role, reflecting the clear desire of the Pentagon, which has been strongly resistant to another American war in the Middle East. He said that Britain, France and Arab nations would take the lead, and that United States ground forces would not enter Libya.

The idea of not getting embroiled in yet another conflict in yet another Muslim nation sounds perfectly lovely. But committing jets to a civil war is not the way to avoid that. If we push forward with the no-fly zone, we'll be ignoring the tanks that are raining shells on citizens. If we push forward with a so-called "no-drive" zone we'll be ignoring the snipers that are shooting people indiscriminately. If we opt to go after the snipers...Well, welcome to Libya. Unpack your things and enjoy your stay. You'll be here for awhile.

Glenn Greenwald looks at the chilling similarities between the buildup of our shiny new Middle Eastern war and the PR blitz leading us into Iraq. Already the specter of terrorism has been raised:

The attack on Iraq and the intervention in Libya are, in critical ways, vastly different, and glib comparisons should be avoided. Fear-mongering was the primary means of selling the Iraq war to the public. whereas purported humanitarian goals have taken center stage now (though humanitarian appeals -- rape rooms, mass graves, chemical attacks on his own people, and sadistic sons!! -- were also prominently featured in 2003 and in virtually every other war ever started). That the Arab League advocated the Libya intervention, and it now has U.N. endorsement, lend a perceived international legitimacy to it that Iraq so disastrously lacked. Because both political parties' leaders are even more supportive of this military action than they were for Iraq, the domestic debate will be much less contentious. At least for now, Obama is substantially more cautious than Bush ever was in limiting the U.S. commitment. And given that the Libya intervention has not even begun, no comparisons can be made between its execution and the brutal, inhumane slaughter and destruction that characterized the eight-year assault on Iraq; it's possible (though far from guaranteed) that this intervention could be short, relatively bloodless and successful.

Just as in the Iraq conflict, there's no reason to assume that this intervention will be "short, relatively bloodless and successful". Once again, we're diving head first into a conflict in a region that historically has not liked us very much. Not very much at all. Furthermore, there seems to be an assumption that as soon as the United States shows a bit of force, the pro-Qaddafi forces will immediately either lay down their arms or defect to the rebel side. Because naturally, just like in 2003, we'll be seen as "liberators". Of course. That always works out.

As for Brennan's warning that this action may trigger Terrorist attacks on the U.S., I suppose -- just as was true for the similar 2003 warnings -- that this is a possible repercussion of our intervention. But doesn't that really underscore the key point? If we really want to transform how we're perceived in that part of the world, and if we really want to reduce the Terrorist threat, isn't the obvious solution to stop sending our fighter jets and bombs and armies to that part of the world rather than finding a new Muslim country to target for war on a seemingly annual basis? I have no doubt that some citizens who support the intervention in Libya are doing so for purely humanitarian and noble reasons, just as was true for some supporters of the effort to remove the truly despicable Saddam Hussein. But the intentions of those who support the war shed little light on the motives of those who prosecute the war and even less light on what its ultimate outcomes will be.

Qaddafi should go. He's a monster by any standard. But in terms of American interests, must he? Until that question can be answered, we should not commit further treasure and yes, blood to another country's liberation movement.

No comments:

Post a Comment