Since the dawn of civilization thousands of years ago, the broader Middle East has been a crucible of conflict. Foreign armies have waded in, often with good intentions, to bring peace and impose order. Almost without exception they have failed. Yet once again the Western world seems to believe that it is immune to the lessons of history.
And given those clear catastrophes dating back at least to Cambyses' Lost Army in 500 BC, not to mention the Roman Empire's adventures in Judea, one might think that before we launch a new war in that part of the world -- in this case Libya -- we as a nation would have a long, serious conversation about it. That didn't happen. Instead the White House announced late Friday that President Obama will deliver a speech about our involvement in Libya on Monday evening, nine days after the first bombs hit the ground.
Both sides of the aisle have done a miserable job of fostering a true national debate about the wisdom of going to war. On Capitol Hill neither party took ownership to push through a vote on a declaration of war or anything even close. Instead, on March 16th, three days before we launched our first attack, the House called an emergency session to discuss defunding NPR.
We are witnessing the same politics-as-usual sniping, skeptical media, and seeming inability to set clear goals -- the same issues that dogged us in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea.
This is not to say that we should stand by and let Moammar Gadhafi massacre his people by shelling residential apartments and shooting women and children in the head. Western interventions have been unsuccessful largely because it's difficult to impose democracy on tribal societies. Look how long it took for Iraqis to make any semblance of progress after our invasion in 2003. True momentum began only when we turned the reigns over to the locals.
We are rewriting a new chapter in the lengthy and blood-stained history of Western military intervention in the Middle East. NATO just announced it is taking control to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya and the White House says NATO is working out details on taking over the broader mission. Given the failure of the last week's airstrikes to stop Libyan government forces, the US and its allies are hatching a plan to supply weapons to the Libyan opposition -- suggesting a long-term involvement that could burden us for some time to come.
The hasty policies cobbled together to preserve Western interests in the region -- even if taken in the name of preventing a massacre -- were decided behind closed doors. When U.S.-led forces, after a quick U.N. vote, began launching missile strikes last Saturday to prevent Gadhafi from attacking his own people, it took most of us by surprise.
If history teaches us anything, it's extraordinarily dangerous to interfere in the Middle East. We are risking repeating the same failures powerful nations have encountered centuries before us. The thousands of American soldiers who have been killed or suffer permanent disabilities as a result of combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade are a testament to why it makes sense to debate, and then act deliberately with a clearly-defined national consensus to support the troops.
The major events that have shaped the region -- ranging from the French in Algeria and the British in Egypt to the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- are clear indications that meddling in Middle Eastern affairs in the name of bringing civilization, democracy, and freedom can be a recipe for disaster. And to do it without an honest dialogue is downright foolish.
Follow Lauren Ashburn on Twitter: www.twitter.com/laurenashburn
Lillian Daniel: Two Undeclared Wars Dr. King Would Have Disapproved Of
he could muster to support his war. The other nations in the area who feared Saddam and did not trust him would have joined us with the same plan Obama used in Libya but Bush did not want Nato to slow down the Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld rush to start the war that eventiually almost destroyed Americas domestic and international stability. Republicans and other conservatives forget that they were very complicit in the Bush B.S..And every time the heat rises in the middle east the price of a gallon of gas goes up and the OPEC gang and their American buddies profit. Think about it.
The President's nuanced Doctrine in today's speech was attacked by Senator McCain who feels that might is the weapon of right. Having proclaimed that "Gaddafi should go", the President, according to the Senator must continue the battle (unilaterally if necessary) use war for regime change.
Ms Ashburn wants deliberation before action. Republicans and others say he deliberated too long. Had he acted a week sooner lives would have been saved, they say.
Leadership and diplomacy are deliberative by my definition. War as "diplomacy by other means" is the breakdown of diplomacy.
To then raise the spectre of the risks of involvement in the Middle East as a further caution, as Ms Ashburn does, elevates the Middle East above its rank. Involvement in any potential or real conflict in any part of the world is not scaleable when there are simultaneous decisions that must be made; as there are now in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen for openers. Then add Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone. All need attention at various levels and are getting it. We are still trying to undo a decade of unilateralism, and this President refuses to act precipitously if he has the option. He is pilloried for deliberation. President Obama has been decisive. Not decisive enough the right and too decisive for Ms Ashburn. I expect, that as much as he can, he is at peace with his decision vis-a-vis Libya.
Obama was pushed by all the screaming from the right as usual, imho. And it might have been better to put real pressure on the Saudis, who we arm I suppose, to really force them to intervene, as well as the others in the region, really spent the energy needed to get them to do it. Why are we the farthest away and we have pilots flying 25 hours from the Midwest to bomb the Mideast!
It almost seems like, to me, that the dems and repubs had nowhere to go, so what better thing to do than completely preempt the unemployment and Wall Street and other issues by having a war; because we know that the idiotic non news media will talk about nothing else.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the brothers Koch can keep on working in private now that the world is discussing the latest war.
So I am grateful to you for reminding us about the war on unions and the middle class (or, what's left of it)
If all goes well and Gaddafi is 'dethroned' in a few weeks, you could save the debate for more important matters like when and how to get out of the costly wars have been going on for nearly a decade.
If you ask me, this one is even more stupid war than the one with Iraq. And I had so much respect for Hillary and Obama... Bomber...
Another risk to debate is that maybe someone would make an uncomfortable comparison between Gadhafi's tactics and the situation in Pakistan. In Libya the titular government was using air power to attack rebels and causing "collateral damage" to civilians. The government was also using foreign mercenaries against its own people. In Pakhistan, the titular government has been using air power - namely, USA drones - to attack rebels (aka "Taliban") and causing collateral damage to civilians. The government has also used foreign mercenaries (i.e. the CIA's standing army in Pakhistan), to attack its own people. The moral distinction between what Gadhafi has been doing in Libya and what the USA has been assisting the Pakhistani government with might seem morally murky if an open debate on this had been held.
This is EXACTLY like Bill Clinton going into the Balkans without Congressional authorization. And that's also the reason we had Democratic hawks--like Biden and Hillary Clinton--vote for the Iraq War Resolution....because they believed the authorization was not needed and that the President had the "imperial" (my words) authority to initiate military action.
If we're going to be Sparta, let's at least be democratic about it and let the debate occur in Congress where the votes will be cast, We may not change our militaristic nature, but at least our representatives will cast votes that will either keep them in office or get them voted out....or ruin their presidential aspirations.
how many more thousands of brave people do you really want our increasing indolent 'Congress' to have killed??