The Libyan Non-Model

[Mister D]

2. The U.N. Libya was the first war since Korea in which an American administration had obtained some sort of authorization from the U.N. but not from the U.S. Congress. Strangely enough, Libya is often offered as a blueprint for U.N. internationalism. But the very opposite is more likely true: It is a guide for nothing, and won’t be repeated. We obtained resolutions to enforce an irrelevant no-fly zone and to offer humanitarian aid — period. We soon found both resolutions mostly immaterial to conditions on the ground, and therefore quickly praised the U.N. as much as we violated its resolutions by waging a bombing campaign. Russia immediately objected and has since conveniently cited Libya repeatedly for its later reluctance to join in a resolution against Iran or Syria. In most cases, the U.N. will not offer resolutions to remove a monster, and to the degree that it might, the resulting authorizations will upon trial prove irrelevant. Those who champion U.N. intervention usually must end up subverting it and thus do more damage to the U.N. than those who acknowledge its limitations up front. If one is disingenuous, and if one understands that there is only one chance at practicing such duplicity on the U.N., it would have been better to have snookered Russia and China on Syria or Iran rather than on Libya.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290966/libyan-non-model-victor-davis-hanson

[MMC]

So what do you think about it D?

[Peter1469]

Some admiral testified before Congress today and actually said that we are holding back on Syria because al Qaeda is helping the rebels. Well al Qaeda was helping the Libyan rebels too. They even flew al Qaeda flags in towns that they captured. The MSM somehow missed those flags.

[Mister D]

So what do you think about it D?

About what specifically?

[MMC]

The Libyan Non-model. Or This President and his Admin looking to the UN and not Congress.

[Mister D]

I think Hanson is correct in saying that Libya was by no means how things should be done. Moreover, I think he is correct in pointing out the weaknesses of the UN and noting that it will now be even harder to get Russia and China to cooperate.

[MMC]

Which we have seen with Russia. So do you think he is correct with what he states about our Allies? Does he not remind us that both(Hillary and Pelosi) were running around calling Assad a reformer?

He is correct there were plenty of good reasons to take Qadhafi out. Yet in 2011, this was not the right time to take him out. Moreover this gives credence to the Sunni Expansion thru that of the UN and or using of the Superpowers.

[Mister D]

With few exceptions, I think most civilized people agree that Qadhafi was a scumbag but the world is full of powerful scumbags. The only reason I can see for taking his ass out is revenge for Pan AM Flight 109. But I think you and Hanson are both correct that taking him out now benefited us little if at all. It further complicated more serious threats, such as Iran, and created a vacuum of power in a state that had been otherwise stable and out of our hair.

[Peter1469]

The War Powers Act says that the President must make his case to Congress.

Not to NATO or the UN.

[Mister D]

No doubt this is the hoped for model of the future at least for the elite. No dealing with us provincials.

[MMC]

I also agree with Hanson on the aspect to make our Allies. Specifically the UK and France as significant players in the big picture of things. When they are really not. Althought the Brits do have the technology to a point. Yet we see it is France that really likes to use that UN. Of Course so to all those Arab States. Specifically the Sunni Controlled ones.

[RollingWave]

With few exceptions, I think most civilized people agree that Qadhafi was a scumbag but the world is full of powerful scumbags. The only reason I can see for taking his ass out is revenge for Pan AM Flight 109. But I think you and Hanson are both correct that taking him out now benefited us little if at all. It further complicated more serious threats, such as Iran, and created a vacuum of power in a state that had been otherwise stable and out of our hair.

Then again though, one could say the same thing about Iraq, remember that Iran was actually heading towards a more moderate path in the early 2000s when Mohammad Khatami was in charge.... With Libya, even if the US didn't intervine, it seems likely that it would turn into a hell hole anyway, so I'd say that at least the US got the same result without at least spending the massive money of occupationing and rebuilding. and at least internationally gotten more goodwill out of it than ill

I'm pretty sure all but the Libertarians (which is a pretty small minority) would like to see the US retain a dominant role in the world, but a lot of annoyance comes with the territory so to speak. in Libya it seemed likely that Gadaffi woulda bombed sooner or later and the UN airstrikes simply made it sooner.

I mean really, if the US/ UN didn't go in, and say... Russia / China snuck weapons to the rebels and they eventually won... what then?

[Conley]

Then again though, one could say the same thing about Iraq, remember that Iran was actually heading towards a more moderate path in the early 2000s when Mohammad Khatami was in charge.... With Libya, even if the US didn't intervine, it seems likely that it would turn into a hell hole anyway, so I'd say that at least the US got the same result without at least spending the massive money of occupationing and rebuilding. and at least internationally gotten more goodwill out of it than ill

I'm pretty sure all but the Libertarians (which is a pretty small minority) would like to see the US retain a dominant role in the world, but a lot of annoyance comes with the territory so to speak. in Libya it seemed likely that Gadaffi woulda bombed sooner or later and the UN airstrikes simply made it sooner.

I mean really, if the US/ UN didn't go in, and say... Russia / China snuck weapons to the rebels and they eventually won... what then?

I can't speak for all Libertarians, and I don't know that I would even consider myself one, but I believe many who lean in that direction believe the U.S. can retain a dominant role in the world but just need to choose our battles more carefully. For example, not only in hindsight but even at the time it was obvious to many that there were significant problems with both wars, made all the worse by dividing our forces. Certainly it was a relief to see Libya be resolved relatively quickly, especially when early results suggested it could drag on for a very long time. Now we are seeing a similar situation unfold in Syria.

[RollingWave]

I can't speak for all Libertarians, and I don't know that I would even consider myself one, but I believe many who lean in that direction believe the U.S. can retain a dominant role in the world but just need to choose our battles more carefully. For example, not only in hindsight but even at the time it was obvious to many that there were significant problems with both wars, made all the worse by dividing our forces. Certainly it was a relief to see Libya be resolved relatively quickly, especially when early results suggested it could drag on for a very long time. Now we are seeing a similar situation unfold in Syria.

Some war are chosen some are not of course, and unfortunately the dominant military power is going to be dragged into a lot of conflicts, I don't think the US can back down from a serious regional level conflict, espeically if it relates to some of their core interest.

Whatever your opinion to the various issue, I think we can all agree that

A. Israel
B. Non-Proliferation

Are obviously core interest for the US.

[MMC]

As I mention Saadi Qadhafi is already speaking out in Libya. According to the AP he still holds sway over much of the youth groups there. I don't know where he stands with the rest of the Berbers. Which they themselves are not happy with what is taking place in Libya.

Nor do I see them bowing down to any Sunni Arabs. I expect there will be even more problems once the MB starts vocalizing in Libya.

[Mister D]

Then again though, one could say the same thing about Iraq, remember that Iran was actually heading towards a more moderate path in the early 2000s when Mohammad Khatami was in charge.... With Libya, even if the US didn't intervine, it seems likely that it would turn into a hell hole anyway, so I'd say that at least the US got the same result without at least spending the massive money of occupationing and rebuilding. and at least internationally gotten more goodwill out of it than ill

I'm pretty sure all but the Libertarians (which is a pretty small minority) would like to see the US retain a dominant role in the world, but a lot of annoyance comes with the territory so to speak. in Libya it seemed likely that Gadaffi woulda bombed sooner or later and the UN airstrikes simply made it sooner.

I mean really, if the US/ UN didn't go in, and say... Russia / China snuck weapons to the rebels and they eventually won... what then?

I'm not so sure we got any good will out of the Libyan operations. As Hanson points out, now Russia and China will be less likely to support proposed UN resolutions and I can't help but think the Libyan rebels used us cynically. I doubt they are reflecting now on what a great friend we are. Now if the Russians and Chinese were actively involved in Libya that could be a reason to become involved ourselves. Barring that, I don't see the point outside of oil market concerns.

[RollingWave]

I'm not so sure we got any good will out of the Libyan operations. As Hanson points out, now Russia and China will be less likely to support proposed UN resolutions and I can't help but think the Libyan rebels used us cynically. I doubt they are reflecting now on what a great friend we are. Now if the Russians and Chinese were actively involved in Libya that could be a reason to become involved ourselves. Barring that, I don't see the point outside of oil market concerns.

IMHO the geopolitical interest of the US will almost always be in conflict with that of the Russian and the PRC, at least much more often than not, so I don't think the US should care too much on that front, as long as they don't totaly cross their redline or something.

Let's just consider the situation they had on hand and what was on the US's interest.

1. return Libya to relative stablity quickly
2. preferablly without Gadhaffi being the leader and with at least a relatively more democratic (or at least sane) government
3. do it without having to go through the massive cost of occupation and rebuilding.
4. do it while ticking off as few folks as possible (such as the Europeans, and the other Arabs).

I'd think they achieved all of that, the Europeans certainly like this much more than Iraq which was massively unpopular there (remember the whole freedom fries fiasco?), and also to a lesser extend at least this one gives considerable less fuel for the Arab nationalist which at least is half of the whole anti-west Jihadi support.

[Mister D]

IMHO the geopolitical interest of the US will almost always be in conflict with that of the Russian and the PRC, at least much more often than not, so I don't think the US should care too much on that front, as long as they don't totaly cross their redline or something.

Let's just consider the situation they had on hand and what was on the US's interest.

1. return Libya to relative stablity quickly
2. preferablly without Gadhaffi being the leader and with at least a relatively more democratic (or at least sane) government
3. do it without having to go through the massive cost of occupation and rebuilding.
4. do it while ticking off as few folks as possible (such as the Europeans, and the other Arabs).

I'd think they achieved all of that, the Europeans certainly like this much more than Iraq which was massively unpopular there (remember the whole freedom fries fiasco?), and also to a lesser extend at least this one gives considerable less fuel for the Arab nationalist which at least is half of the whole anti-west Jihadi support.

I agree with you and I think the more realistic US planners do as well.

1. Only if it would affect the oil market and lets presume it would. Agreed.
2. Gadhaffi was playing ball. No reason to topple him. Moreover, "democracy" may or not be in our interest. That's a roll of the dice as we have seen.
3. Thankfully, we did not commit troops on the ground.
4. I think Americans are overly concerned with being liked. A state exercises of power in its strategic interest. Not to be liked. Mind you, I'm, not proposing any Machiavellian scheming. I just think the focus on how the world perceives us is wrong headed. Worse still, a major power like the US is going to be disliked by and large. It's the way of things.

Again, the goal of a foreign policy is not to be agreeable to the rest of the world. It's to pursue your interests. Certainly you'd prefer to address your interests in the most agreeable way but one must balance that with the realization that the US is not goping to loved simply because it is so powerful.

[RollingWave]

I agree with you and I think the more realistic US planners do as well.

1. Only if it would affect the oil market and lets presume it would. Agreed.
2. Gadhaffi was playing ball. No reason to topple him. Moreover, "democracy" may or not be in our interest. That's a roll of the dice as we have seen.
3. Thankfully, we did not commit troops on the ground.
4. I think Americans are overly concerned with being liked. A state exercises of power in its strategic interest. Not to be liked. Mind you, I'm, not proposing any Machiavellian scheming. I just think the focus on how the world perceives us is wrong headed. Worse still, a major power like the US is going to be disliked by and large. It's the way of things.

Again, the goal of a foreign policy is not to be agreeable to the rest of the world. It's to pursue your interests. Certainly you'd prefer to address your interests in the most agreeable way but one must balance that with the realization that the US is not goping to loved simply because it is so powerful.

Yeah, Gadhaffi was on BETTER terms with the west after 9/11, but the situation they had on hand was that a rebellion was already happening, the US's option was fairly limited, they could either help the Rebel topple Gadhaffi or do nothing and let them get killed or someone else goes in and make things even more complicated, from the US POV I doubted that helping Gadhaffi kill the rebels was a realistic option.

IMHO being LIKED does help the US's strategic interest, at least more often than not, the USA's REAL geopolitical interest is essentially maintaining the status quo, so having people like you means they're less likely to challenge said status quo or more willing to help you maintain it (or at least not actively deterring you). is almost certainly with the US's interest. of course everything is a matter of balance, but with everything else being equaled it would certainly help if there's more good feelings on the US than ill. as we can see with say... Osama Bin Laden, carelessly ticking off folks can have longer term consequences.

And again, maintaining the morale highground is also obviously helpful towards US core interest in the same matter. preferring country to seek democracy should be a US morale highground, just not going to war and forcing it on someone.

[Mister D]

Of course helping the rebels was a very realistic option but assuming the ultimate result of a rebel victory would be a government friendly to US interests was a crap shoot at best. Our government officials assume "democracy" is inherently good and compatible with US interests. It's not. Why not just stay out of it?

My point is that a major power isn't typically liked and that being appreciated isn't the primary goal of a foreign policy. Yes, carelessly ticking people off is never a good idea. I agree. As for Osama, we supported him and his friends against the Soviets. Then we put a price on his head. The real world is complicated. Nations don't have buddies and pals. At best they have other communities or populations with a cultural affinities. No one in the Mid East qualifies and our government's main problem is that it's been trying to change that. We need to get rid of this democracy fetish.

It can be but only with particular people. I think Europe appreciates "the moral high ground" is likely to have the same notions of where exactly "the morale high ground" in a particular situation might actually be.