The beginning of U.S. and NATO military attacks on Libya came as a surprise to most Americans -- not least anti-war and pro-peace voters like myself who have supported President Obama as a candidate and now as chief executive. I was at the start, and remain, deeply concerned about the path the president is choosing.
There is a strong anti-war case for staying out of Libya. These kinds of No-Fly Zones always end in troops on the ground. Intervening in a civil war is almost always a miscalculation of the situation on the ground. The American system of checks and balances does require congressional authority for the use of war powers. Adherents to traditional foreign policy logic would argue that there is no specific U.S. national interest at stake in the outcome of the Libyan uprisings. We seem to have entered the conflict without an obvious exit strategy already in place.
But I have come to believe that the alternative would've left many of us asking: why did we let another massacre of civilians happen again?
I believe that there is a pro-peace case for intervention in Libya based upon our responsibility to protect innocent civilians. If you are a pacifist this argument will never be satisfactory. But if you believe there are limited circumstances in which military force is necessary, this may be one of those circumstances.
The reality, which has yet to be explained directly to the American people by the president, is that the Army loyal to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was racing across the Libyan Desert intent on killing all of the rebels who have taken control of the Eastern part of the country and invade the opposition's capital city in the Libyan port of Benghazi.
Gaddafi was promising a bloodbath -- threatening, in essence, to murder the families of thousands of rebel fighters. On the eve of the United Nations Security Council resolution vote, the lunatic dictator said that, "We are coming tonight... We will find you in your closets... We will have no mercy and no pity."
When the U.N. voted and the U.S. decided to lead the coalition, Gaddafi had the means, motive and intent to murder thousands unless somebody stopped the Libyan Army's offensive. The president decided to stop that military attack on civilians. The question that President Obama was given was this: is this a genocide about to happen on my watch? Does the U.S. let Benghazi become another Srebrenica?
In Srebrenica, Serbian forces and paramilitaries murdered more than 8,000 Bosnian men and boys in July of 1995. The prosecutor found that even male babies were killed. It was the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II. The mass killing was followed by the forcible removal of nearly 30,000 women, children and elderly. This was after a United Nations Protection Force failed to stop the invasion of the town.
This was not the first time the international community has wrestled with these issues. President Clinton stated that the failure of the international community to intervene in Rwanda was one of the biggest regrets of his presidency. More than 800,000 people were killed in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.
Gaddafi's threat to the civilians in Benghazi was and is very real. The city of some 700,000 is the capital of the opposition Libyan government. Early during the rebellion, mercenaries were sent by Gaddafi to kill opponents of the regime -- murdering them and destroying their homes. Before the Gaddafi-loyalist mayor was driven from the city he was given the nickname, "The Executioner." More than 200 protestors were killed during one anti-government protest.
These events happened so quickly and with so little explanation of the facts on the ground that I had to go back and read newspaper accounts that I had missed.
While protecting civilians is the pro-peace case for the intervention, it is not a cut and dry issue. We have yet to see the international community successfully carry out a military intervention like this without greater commitment of troops and money.
The precedent is bad because the U.S. and the international community will not intervene in every rebellion against a dictator, probably not even every rebellion that threatens genocide. It is hard to believe that a U.S. president or the international community will agree that the responsibility to protect civilians trumps national security or traditional definitions of vital interests yet. Nor is there any clear exit strategy for the international community from Libya.
Complicating matters is that Libya is in a state of civil war. Civil wars are the worst possible place for a foreign military intervention. Often the divisions are along ethnic or tribal lines that are barely understandable by even astute outside observers. Victors will seek retributions that can be as horrible or more horrible than those they suffered.
In Iraq this manifested as sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia. The war, which was an American-led invasion and occupation, broke the Iraqi state, plunged Iraq into civil war and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have died in that war, according to some estimates.
Libya could descend into a similar pattern of attacks and retributions if either Gaddafi or the rebels win, although at least in Benghazi the new civilian opposition leadership of the city seems to be acting with restraint. The uprising seems to be routed in the new Arab democratic movements that swept Tunisia and Egypt.
Increasing numbers of observers believe that the most likely outcome is a stalemate with rebels in the East and Gaddafi forces in the West. This leaves more unanswered questions. Would there be a border between the two sides? Would there be a demilitarized zone? Or would there be a constantly shifting front line? What is the human toll of that war?
It is hard to see how this stalemate doesn't happen. The rebels don't seem to have the strength to defeat Gaddafi and the dictator continues to benefit from a base of loyalist support. Even if Gaddafi exits it isn't clear that ends the conflict. Saddam Hussein was captured, tried, convicted and executed; yet the war raged on in Iraq.
So with all of these Libyan quagmires on the horizon what exactly is the pro-peace case for the military intervention in Libya? It comes down to this: assuming a civil war is inevitable, stopping certain massacres and protecting civilians is the priority, even knowing that you have to figure the rest out later.
It is an unsatisfactory answer but the sad truth is that once the rebellion started, and Gaddafi decided to stay, the likelihood of any good outcome to the whole episode probably evaporated.
The uncertain future -- the quagmire -- is what is so unsettling now. In this regard the president's strategy becomes compelling. If we can build a real international coalition, at least the U.S. has an exit strategy even if others stay. That has to be a U.S. goal now.
But even then the case for a pro-peace military intervention balances on this unspeakable moral question: would the prolonged civil war be more costly to civilian lives than allowing the Libyan Army to enter Benghazi? We risk terrible hubris to try to address that question, but the answer is that you must try to both stop the massacre and then the stop the prolonged war.
That is the decision that was made by President Obama. Whether it will save lives is something we must hope for. For now, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a limited intervention with the goal of disabling Gaddafi's ability to wage war on the Libyan people.
While I can make this case for a U.S. military intervention to save lives, there are important roles to be played by opponents of the decision.
Congress should assert its authority over war powers and ask tough questions about the policy and the costs. That is a necessary part of the American system of checks and balances.
Anti-war and pro-peace constituencies should ask the tough questions and agitate for non-violent solutions.
Republican opponents should make their case (hopefully without partisan aims). Let the American people hear all the arguments.
In fact, we should have a national debate about Libya -- the human cost of war is too high to happen without debate.
In the end though, the decision is more clear-cut than it looked from afar: the U.S. acted so that Benghazi would not become another Srebrenica.
I can support that.
Follow Tom Matzzie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tommatzzie
Scott Atran: Why War Is Never Really Rational
OTOH, maybe the Libyan "intervention" is just being done to soften up public opinion so that they will favor "intervention" in Iran.
More proof of the worthiness of his Nobel Peace Prize.
You also conflated Protesters with Rebels. The Rebels looted some Libyan armories. How are you going to get those weapons back without going door to door and checking a few closets?
Why is Gaddafi crazy? Are you implying our politicians are sane? How can you tell?
Who is protecting the civilians from US forces in Iraq or Afganistan?
Very loose reasoning.
Oh and surely this guy won't do EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS and murder people!
Very loose reasoning.
If you want to know how America delt with Rebels:
Look here-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea
If you want to compare apples to apples, try looting an American armory and see what happens.
Western oil companies operating in Libya have privately warned that their operations in the country may be nationalised if Colonel Muammer Gaddafi’s regime prevails.
Executives, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the rapidly moving situation, believe their companies could be targeted, especially if their home countries are taking part in air strikes against Mr Gaddafi. Allied forces from France, the UK and the US on Saturday unleashed a series of strikes against military targets in Libya.
“It is certainly a concern. There are good reserves there,” said one executive at a western oil company with operations in Libya.
Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67d1d02a-5314-11e0-86e6-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1I0L9xn4J
“We have lost some of our production [because all operations have stopped] but our bigger concern is what will happen to the exploratory work as that gives you a future rather than the immediate impact,” he added.
Most of the world’s large international oil companies have producing assets in Libya, including Spain’s Repsol, France’s Total, and Italy’s Eni, which is the largest single investor there. Germany’s Winstershall – a unit of BASF –and OMV of Austria are also present."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67d1d02a-5314-11e0-86e6-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HuG9EEKT
The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"
If you use your reasoning we should also be in Syria and Bharain as well as Darfur. What about Burma? How about Ivory Coast? etc... Sorry but no sale.
As for your being sick about hearing about Darfur this and Congo that, I pray for your non-speedy recovery.
MoveOn's record on NOT opposing the Iraq War is disgraceful.
"Sadly, it has come to this. Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the online powerhouse MoveOn.org – which built most of its member base with a strong antiwar message – is not pushing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. "
Never really anti war just anti Bush.
The reason Obama chose this opportunity to go to war is because he knew that the French and Brits would back us wholly because of their dependence on Libyan Oil. It was also an opportunity to do what Obama always had hoped to accomplish militarily and in the arena of foreign policy-relinquish the role of lead actor in the world. By pushing and "Internationalist" approach to the Libyan action, he can hand off the leadership to the UN and NATO and get closer to his vision of creating a world where America does not lead-but is merely one of many nations on equal footing.
Obama does not believe in the exceptionalism of America. He wants us to be just another equal partner on the world stage.
This is your theory, or Glen Becks? Why would he want this?
I think that you covered all of the bases: the fact that to the west, not all genocides are seen equally, the fact that the removal of Ghadaffi may not end the war, the fact that the human cost of our intervention may ultimately be higher than the numbers killed in Ghadaffi's proscriptions, the fact that our precedent for sticking to limited goals is pretty bad, the fact that the best we can optimistically hope for is a stalement, and the fact we lack a clear exit strategy.
We can add to that list that this war may very well make us more enemies than friends among the Muslims and Arabs, and that with our economy stagnant and our military overstretched, this is hardly the best time to expand operations into another country.
Still, even when confronted with all of this information, it's not easy to casually brush off a civilian massacre as it happens right beneath our noses...I think I see why the President had such a difficult time reaching his decision. I certainly can't say off the top of my head what I would do; I'll just hope we stick to our time table and that this all ends as well and as quickly as possible.