The issue of a “just war” is rather simple when a nation is attacked and has to defend itself. Since the American intervention in Iraq, the question of preventive strikes has been widely discussed. The fact that Gadhafi has to use mercenaries to try to repress the uprising of his own people could be another case to consider: does the international community have the right to intervene in such a situation?
Yes, and for several reasons: the rebels have requested it; the Arab League and therefore the neighboring countries have asked for it, and our own awareness of the suffering of the Libyan people, and what awaits the insurgents if Gadhafi wins his war against his own people, requires it.
A half-baked attempt to separate intervention in Iraq (bad) from intervention in Libya (good). He fails. I do hope he realizes that he has no idea at all what is being ‘born’ in Libya.
carl
Overheard:
[i]Oh, look. Some belligerents are rising up in Britain, and the authorities are trying to put them down. I guess that means that the U.S. will have to go in and bomb the British authorities to prevent them from inflicting any harm upon the rebels. I imagine that France will shortly recognize these protesters are the new legitimate government of the U.K.
Oh, wait; no, that just happens to Middle Eastern countries . . .[/i]
Ok Bishop–so when are we invading Iran?
Or, Syria? And, why not Iran and Syria, if these are the criteria?
4., Because the UNSC, Arab League, OAU, EU, and the people on the ground themselves haven’t asked for intervention in Syria or Iran. Syria and Iran aren’t bombing their own people. That’s the criteria. This doesn’t seem very mysterious to me. We’re exercising power at the request of the rest of the world. The idea we can set immutable criteria for intervention across the globe absent context is absurd.
Ah, so bombing is the essential item? Shooting, basiji attacks, imprisonments and hangings don’t qualify. Good to know.
And come to think of it, even bombing isn’t the essential item. Southern Sudan and Darfur come to mind.
6., I don’t understand your point. In the Libyan situation we have a process by which a politically bankrupt state can be processed. What precisely is your objection? That the bar is too high? That it’s not being applied consistently? I don’t understand why bringing up Iran or Syria is cogent.
My point is that our stated rationale for bombing Libya is incoherent. My own feeling is that American military power should be used “kinetically” as they are saying in cases where there is a vital U.S. interest, and not otherwise. I was opposed, for instance, to the bombing of Serbia on similar grounds. I don’t think we should be bombing merely because a lot of people, some of whom do not have American interests at heart, asked us to.
9. I agree; the question is whether or not intervention for the sake of integrating states into the global economic and political order is in our vital interest. I tend to think that it is. Some countries go into meltdown and don’t need intervention. Some do; that’s why there’s a policy process involving the UNSC, EU, NATO, Arab League, G20, etc. rather than a codified, ‘coherent’ rationale to make the collective security decisions. For 40 years we had a codified, ‘coherent rationale’ for protecting US vital interests. We called it the SIOP. But it’s not the Cold War any more, so the definition of ‘vital US interests’ either needs to change or we run the risk of losing US global leadership in the long term to those who have broadened their own ‘vital interests.’
Its amusing to watch liberals who opposed the intervention in Iraq on absolutist grounds, now trying to wriggle out of the positions they cemented themselves in to!
I was going to back out of this, since Isaac and I don’t agree about when to deploy U.S. military forces. Reasoned disagreement is always going to be there, and mutual respect is called for. So perhaps it is the Devil who is prompting me to point out that the reason Europe, at least, can consider stability in Libya to be a “vital concern” is oil. This appears to me to be a clear case of “blood for oil.” I pray the loss of life, both U.S. and Libyan, is very low.
Isaac
What is the vital US interest that demands we intervene in Libya? I understand the European vital interest. I understand the Europeans are unable to protect their vital interests, and so are getting the US to carry their freight. What I don’t understand is why the US has an interest in re-integrating Libya into “the global economic and political order.” Especially since we have not a clue as to the actual outcome of this fight. Who exactly are we supporting? The people who are fighting Gadhaffi. What would they do if they came to power? We will cross our fingers and hope. That is the sum total of analysis that has gone into this adventure.
This whole exercise is nothing but good intention turned into madness. We believe our motives are pure (at least formally) and so the outcome must follow our motives. How are you going to re-integrate anything without ground intervention if the whole state collapses into civil war? Most civil wars result in a worse outcome. Unless western soldiers intervene and enforce a desired order, you will get a ruthless competition for power. The winner will be the most ruthless, and Libya will find itself in a situation sevens times worse than before. The first thing the new gov’t must do is consolidate power, and that will be done with ruthless amounts of bloodshed.
As I said, this whole exercise is madness.
carl
The vital US interest is the development of a Libya that is moving towards being included within the economic and political order, an economic and political order characterized by free markets, free trade, transparency and collective security. In case you haven’t noticed, countries marked by those characteristics don’t shoot at one another. They don’t abuse their people. Their living standards and wealth rise. This, to me, is not an arguable point. Put simply, it’s in the US interests to have fewer poor abusive countries that don’t buy our stuff and have more richer, non-abusive countries that do buy our stuff.
Your scenario is one possibility, but it’s by far something set in stone. And I’m not interested in creating democracy overnight. I’ll leave that to the neocons. And the EU is more than capable of dealing with Libya in the long term with or without our boots. The UK intervened successfully in Sierre Leone and the French have intervened all over the place. They (the EU) do it quite well, actually.
Underlying this is a POV that seems to me to be ignorant of our own history. The US required intervention in our own revolution. We had our one-party revolutionary government for a generation. And we had our own civil war. We’ve come out OK all the same.
It boils down to this: either we choose to continue to be leaders within a context of collective security, or we can retreat and allow others to fill that vacuum. Retreat means retreating from everywhere, including our globalized economics. When you’re ready to go without globalization, then retreat makes a logical choice. Otherwise, I don’t see what other option is on the table.
13. Isaac
So you have just presented an argument for intervening in well over half the countries in the world. If that’s your opinion, well and good. Perhaps we should land an expeditionary force in Morocco and march south. However, the PRC does seem to present a rather powerful counter-example of a country that is well-integrated into “the global economic and political order” without benefit of either transparency or collective security. In fact, the Chinese seem quite capable of integrating modern economics with old-fashioned dictatorship. But that is off point. I am asking you why you think it is a vital US interest to intervene in Libya as opposed to (say) Zimbabwe. Abstract arguments about opening markets do not answer that question.
And one other thing. It would have been an historical catastrophe of monumental proportions for a European power to intervene in the US Civil war and thus prevent unambiguous resolution.
carl
Carl wrote:
[blockquote] “So you have just presented an argument for intervening in well over half the countries in the world. If that’s your opinion, well and good. Perhaps we should land an expeditionary force in Morocco and march south.” [/blockquote]
No, that was not Isaac’s argument. You are setting up a straw man. Isaac has pointed out why there is no impediment to military action in a particular case (Libya). It doesn’t follow from such an argument that he is advocating an invasion of Morocco, or Antartica for that matter.
[blockquote] I am asking you why you think it is a vital US interest to intervene in Libya as opposed to (say) Zimbabwe. [/blockquote]
I am sure Isaac can answer for himself, but in the meantime I will supply part of the answer: Libya is part of the Middle East, it is Arab, and it is an oil nation. That is a combination that is directly relevant to US (and indeed all western) interests.
Secondly, Libya closely borders the EU. It has caused problems there in the past. The US works closely with the EU in many ways and it has an interest in a stable EU.
There is plenty of reason for intervening in Libya. The nature, extent and duration of that intervention is a complex question depending on many factors.
[blockquote] “And one other thing. It would have been an historical catastrophe of monumental proportions for a European power to intervene in the US Civil war and thus prevent unambiguous resolution.” [/blockquote]
Firstly, this ignores the reality that European powers did intervene in the ACW at various levels, and that many actions of both the Union and the CSA were carried out with a view either to encourage or discourage future European actions. In particular, one of the factors in Lincoln’s declaration of emancipation was that this would favourably influence public opinion in Britain, which at the time was running significantly in support of the CSA.
But more importantly, even if your comment is accepted without any reservation, what is its relevance to this issue?
15. MichaelA [blockquote] You are setting up a straw man. [/blockquote] I did no such thing. My statement was exactly on point. Isaac’s entire opening paragraph is a generic argument that could applied to any country that fits Libya’s criteria. [blockquote] Put simply, it’s in the US interests to have fewer poor abusive countries that don’t buy our stuff and have more richer, non-abusive countries that do buy our stuff.[/blockquote] If one one less abusive country is in the US interest, then two is even more in the US interest. Since most every country in Africa would fit this criteria, I suggested the logical conclusion for his argument would be to intervene in the whole continent. Morocco was simply chosen as a convenient entry point.[blockquote] in the meantime I will supply part of the answer:[/blockquote] If the interest is oil, that would best be served by letting Gadhaffi win. The fact that Libya is an Arab country, and in the Middle East is true but irrelevant. Zimbabwe is a Christian country in Africa. What has that to do with defining vital interests? The fact that Libya borders Europe is the true answer, as I have said many times. I don’t see any reason to aid the Europeans in a war that is being fought simply to keep Libyans in Libya. The Europeans are a big continent. They shouldn’t need US help. [blockquote] even if your comment is accepted without any reservation, what is its relevance to this issue[/blockquote] You obviously have a different definition of intervention than I do. I would have defined intervention along the lines of (say) the Royal Navy attempting to break the blockade. [blockquote] But the relevance is that Isaac said And we had our own civil war.[/blockquote] This coalition is intervening in a Civil war. The consequences are not predictable for the country involved. A Confederate victory might have served British interests in 1863, but it certainly would not have served the long-term interests of the US. We don’t know what we are doing in Libya. We are seeking to destroy a gov’t while simply hoping for something positive to replace it. This is a fool’s mission.
carl
Hrmmm. This is what happens when you hit ‘submit’ instead of ‘preview.’ That should have been:
But the relevance is that Isaac said [blockquote] And we had our own civil war.[/blockquote]
carl
I’m so pleased that Obama finally agrees with the invasion of Iraq. Deposing the brutal dictator whose sons raped women, tortured people, and bombed (with chemical weapons!) entire villages of his own people, slaughtering them.
Thank heavens he finally agrees with Bush!
And I guess that goes for Isaac and MichaelA, too! Welcome!
[blockquote] I did no such thing. My statement was exactly on point. Isaac’s entire opening paragraph is a generic argument that could applied to any country that fits Libya’s criteria. [/blockquote]
On the contrary, this is exactly what you did.
And there is only one “country that fits Libya’s criteria”, and that is Libya.
[blockquote] “Since most every country in Africa would fit this criteria, I suggested the logical conclusion for his argument would be to intervene in the whole continent.” [/blockquote]
This is mere reductionism – you read a very brief statement of someone’s position and then treat it as though it is exhaustive. Not a valid response.
[blockquote] If the interest is oil, that would best be served by letting Gadhaffi win. [/blockquote]
Since I have no idea what your reasons are for this assertion, I can’t comment, except to say that I disagree.
[blockquote] The fact that Libya is an Arab country, and in the Middle East is true but irrelevant. [/blockquote]
This is oviously untrue.
[blockquote] I don’t see any reason to aid the Europeans in a war that is being fought simply to keep Libyans in Libya. [/blockquote]
Since no war is being fought “simply to keep Libyans in Libya”, then you don’t have a problem.
[blockquote] The Europeans are a big continent. They shouldn’t need US help. [/blockquote]
They don’t. However, European matters do concern the US and vice versa.
Tomb01,
No need to welcome me, I was here long ago! On my worldview, both the invasion of Iraq and the intervention in Libya are justified.
Nevertheless, thanks for the welcome.
RE: “integrating states into the global economic and political order . . . ”
Heh.
Large enough to drive a truck through. Which, of course, is what is needed for those who don’t particularly care if the US military is used for solely humanitarian reasons.
It’s the new description for the old “humanitarian reasons.” . . . We are helping to “integrate states into the global economic and political order.”
Carl, don’t you see? There is no American interest in invading Libya through the skies. But those arguing that there *is* have recognized that they need *something* — anything — to claim that there is, other than “humanitarian interests.” Only now their massively broad excuse also involves a pretense of *control* over the outcome. As if we can guarantee that the rebels in Libya actually desire to be “integrated into the global economic and political order.”
Hey, let’s go help North Korea “integrate into the global economic and political order.” As Carl rightly points out — just as with the old “humanitarian” explanation — that applies to scores of countries with brutal murdering thug leaders, only now the political liberals are even more pretentious than when they used the “humanitarian” reason.
20. MichaelA [blockquote] On the contrary, this is exactly what you did. And there is only one “country that fits Libya’s criteriaâ€, and that is Libya.[/blockquote] So let’s look at what Isaac actually said. [blockquote] The vital US interest is the development of a Libya that is moving towards being included within the economic and political order, an economic and political order characterized by free markets, free trade, transparency and collective security.[/blockquote] Of course, there is no evidence that any of that will happen, and the Coalition has no ability to influence the direction since it doesn’t have any control over post-war events but I digress. Isaac argues that it is a vital US interest to move Libya into the western political & cultural orbit. Just Libya? Well, no. The appeal he makes is more general. He does not make any argument that is specific to Libya alone. Instead he makes arguments that apply to a class of countries that includes Libya. [blockquote] In case you haven’t noticed, countries marked by those characteristics don’t shoot at one another. They don’t abuse their people. Their living standards and wealth rise.[/blockquote] That’s where he defines the class. Those characteristics Isaac listed above (a lack of free markets, free trade, transparency and collective security) characterize a large number of countries. He is arguing that it is in the US interest to intervene in the specific case of Libya because Libya is a part of that general class of countries. [blockquote] Put simply, it’s in the US interests to have fewer poor abusive countries that don’t buy our stuff and have more richer, non-abusive countries that do buy our stuff.[/blockquote] We could replace the reference to Libya with a refererence to Zimbabwe or North Korea or Sudan and the argument would still hold. There is nothing unique to Libya in the entire first paragraph here presented. So where is the strawman? It is excluded. I shall now prepare myself for another of MichealA’s ipse dixits.
[blockquote] Since I have no idea what your reasons are for this assertion[/blockquote] It was a direct response to this statement by you.[blockquote] Libya is part of the Middle East, it is Arab, and it is an oil nation.[/blockquote] Presumably you included this assertion because Libya is an oil supplier and nations have an interest in the free flow of oil. Why else would anyone care that Libya is an ‘oil nation.’ If the interest is in maintaining the free flow of oil, then gov’t stability is a necessity, and the national interest would follow maintaining the gov’t in power. The chaotic civil war were a inducing will not provide for high levels of oil production. But then you knew all this.
[blockquote] This is obviously untrue.[/blockquote] Neither race nor region by themselves make a country a vital interest for the US. Algeria is not a vital US interest. Morocco is not a vital US interest. There are always other criteria. Remove oil, and most of the Arab nations would be internationally irrelevant.[blockquote] Since no war is being fought “simply to keep Libyans in Libyaâ€, then you don’t have a problem.[/blockquote] Oh, that’s right. I forgot. This war is being fought to “protect civilians.” Or perhaps to integrate Libya “into the global economic and political order.” If Gadhaffi falls, we’ll see just how anxious the Europeans are to “protect civilians” and “integrate Libya into the global economic and political order.” I suspect their commitment to human rights will take them all the way to Washington to plead for the US to introduce the Third Division.
[blockquote]They don’t.[/blockquote] Right. Which explains why the US is so heavily involved. If the US had stayed out of this operation, the European Air forces would have sent a few sorties, got some aircraft shot down, failed to produce any tactical results on the ground, and watched the whole operation collapse in political humiliation. That is the one vital interest that might have induced the US to participate since such a fiasco would have grievously harmed NATO. Since none of that can be said out loud, we talk nonsense about ‘protecting civilians.’
carl
22. Sarah[blockquote] Carl, don’t you see?[/blockquote] Oh, I see, Sarah. I see very clearly. 😉
carl