GERARD POWERS (University of Notre Dame): Thanks for having me, Kim. I think there are three broad questions. One is, were we morally justified in going in in the first place? The second is are the means that we are using morally justified, or are we proving through the means we are using that humanitarian invention, as some allede, is really just an oxymoron? And three, I think we have to think about what an ethics of exit means in Libya.
[KIM] LAWTON: Well, let’s unpack all of that. Were we justified in going in? The president said it was to protect civilians.
POWERS: I think humanitarian intervention in extraordinary cases to protect the civilian population is justified, and not only that, there’s a duty in some cases to do that. My concern is that that objective seems to be subsumed by other objectives.
[blockquote] I think humanitarian intervention in extraordinary cases to protect the civilian population is justified, and not only that, there’s a duty in some cases to do that.[/blockquote] If there is a duty to intervene, then there is also an obligation to develop the capability to intervene. As of right now, there is exactly one country in the world with the capability to intervene in anything but the most rudimentary circumstances. Some other nations .. (cough) Europe (cough) .. had better start cutting their National Health Service budgets and start buying guns so they can fulfill this duty to intervene. The US is not at all interested in colonizing the failed nation-states world to accommodate some intellectualized notion of duty – especially when its European allies are unwilling to pony up the resources to carry some of the burden. We do not want to hear “Hey, America. You have a duty to intervene over there.”
So who exactly imposes this duty to intervene, and who exactly is obligated to spend the blood and money to fulfill it? What follow-on responsibilities attach? What limits may be applied to the cost accrued. Are we expected to start a major war for the sake of this duty to intervene? Is it only triggered when the expected costs are relatively low? How many Americans are considered expendable before the cost becomes prohibitive? How many interventions does one country have a duty to perform in a given time period? When does the intervention stop? Is the intervening country expected to govern and reconstruct the nation in which it intervenes? For how long? Under what conditions may the intervening country shake the dust from its sandals and leave? There seems to be many unanswered questions behind this assertion that “Someone should just do something to stop that.”
carl
Carl wrote:
[blockquote] “As of right now, there is exactly one country in the world with the capability to intervene in anything but the most rudimentary circumstances.” [/blockquote]
This is complete fantasy.
I appreciate that for some people the only nation that really exists is the USA, and that they regard the USA as the sun around which the rest of the world revolves. But let’s deal with reality. Numerous intervention operations are carried out around the world on a regular basis without the mythical USA being involved. I suggest a short course in modern history.
[blockquote] “The US is not at all interested in colonizing the failed nation-states world to accommodate some intellectualized notion of duty – especially when its European allies are unwilling to pony up the resources to carry some of the burden.” [/blockquote]
If this is a reference to Libya, I suggest reading some general media articles – no-one is colonizing anything (where did you get that from?) and the US is not bearing the burden in Libya. It is providing some logistic and technical assistance. The risk is being borne virtually entirely by British, French, Italian and other (mainly European) personnel – pilots flying the attack missions, helo pilots doing the close air support, special forces personnel in Libya on the ground, and matelots carrying out the naval missions. These are the men risking their lives – yet now we are told that it is actually Americans flying the British and French jets, and Americans wearing Italian and British uniform on the ground in Italy. Extraordinary.
This is a new experience for me – an American taking the honour due to those actually running the risks, for his own people? What is next – will you now assert that it was the American people who endured the London blitz, or American soldiers who fought the Japanese on the Kokoda track?
[blockquote] “So who exactly imposes this duty to intervene, and who exactly is obligated to spend the blood and money to fulfill it?”
[/blockquote]
Anyone who feels a moral obligation and who actually risks the blood to fulfil it. USA doesn’t really fit into the latter category so I wouldn’t worry about it.
As for spending money, I suggest you do a short course in foreign relations – all western nations spend a lot of money on foreign matters, and they all have multiple motives for so doing. This is no different.
2. MichaelA
Umm, no, MichaelA, when I say “You do it” I mean “You do it all.” When I say “You must develop that capability” I mean “You must develop the capability to act without US assistance.” You don’t come hat in hand and say “Pretty please, Mr US, would you destroy that air defense system for us so we won’t get our planes shot down? We don’t have the ability to do that. And could we use your Air refueling planes? And your intelligence assets? And could you maybe spare us some munitions because we seem to be running out” This Libyan operation wouldn’t have made it off the runway on Day One without US support. If the Europeans decide to send troops to Libya, do they have the strategic lift capability to support the decision, or will they come to the US again and say “Could we borrow that?” This is of course the same Europe that had to beg the US to send forces to Bosnia. Europe couldn’t project power into Bosnia without US assistance. European military capability hasn’t improved in the 15 years since.
There is one, and exactly one, country that has the ability to put all this together on it’s own. It is an undeniable fact that without the US there would have been no liberation of Kuwait. The European military forces combined do not possess the capability to pull off an operation like Desert Storm. That’s why countries come knocking on our door when they want an operation someplace. They need those mundane capabilities we possess. That’s why every intervention suddenly becomes an American Problem. No matter who is involved, the US is always the critical player. The exception would be when there is such a gross disparity of forces that the intervening power doesn’t really need to do more than send in a regiment of troops. That’s what I meant by rudimentary cases. Obviously that wasn’t the case in Libya, because the US military was once again front and center during the dangerous initial parts of the fight in a useless pointless operation that never had a snowball’s chance in hell of working.
I know who is flying the mission over Libya right now. I also know who was flying the missions back in March when the Libyans could still shoot back. Or perhaps I should just let Gerard Powers speak:
[blockquote] I’m concerned that not only are our objectives expanding, but the means that we are using are not appropriate to meeting those objectives,because we are pursuing a zero-casualty war, at least zero casualties on our side, by an exclusively air campaign, and that raises serious questions about can we really achieve our legitimate humanitarian objectives through bombers, cruise missiles, drones, and now attack helicopters.[/blockquote] btw, how many NATO casualties have been suffered in this intervention in Libya? Why is NATO pursuing a ‘zero-casualty’ war? Because everyone knows that support for this operation will evaporate with just a few casualties. I will believe Europe can intervene on its own when it shows it can commit forces to combat in a significant operation on its own and sustain public support for that operation over time in the face of casualties. It’s been 30 years since a European power did something like that.
carl
Carl wrote:
[blockquote] “Umm, no, MichaelA, when I say “You do it†I mean “You do it all.†When I say “You must develop that capability†I mean “You must develop the capability to act without US assistance.†[/blockquote]
No, I was referring to what actually happens in the world, where many foreign interventions occur without US assistance or support of any kind. On the other hand, the US almost never engages in a foreign intervention without the assistance of allies.
[blockquote] “You don’t come hat in hand and say “Pretty please, Mr US…” [/blockquote]
Since nobody is doing so, you don’t have to worry! I am getting the distinct impression that you *want* the rest of the world to be grovelling to your country – but I regret we will have to disappoint you.
[blockquote] “This Libyan operation wouldn’t have made it off the runway on Day One without US support.” [/blockquote]
Yes it would. Some aspects would have taken longer to implement and more Libyan civilians would have been slaughtered, that’s about it. But hey, if you want to go telling yourself that the rest of the world has to be abjectly grateful to the USA, and grovel to you as to some great empire of the past, go right ahead. Just close your eyes and imagine that we are all doing that, right now!
[blockquote] “If the Europeans decide to send troops to Libya, do they have the strategic lift capability to support the decision, or will they come to the US again and say “Could we borrow that?— [/blockquote]
Since they have never done that in the first place, I doubt they will be doing it now.
[blockquote] “This is of course the same Europe that had to beg the US to send forces to Bosnia. Europe couldn’t project power into Bosnia without US assistance. European military capability hasn’t improved in the 15 years since.” [/blockquote]
No, the US wanted to be in Bosnia. Sure, it received requests to do so, just as, for example, the US requested the Egyptians and the Syrians to take part in the recovery of Kuwait.
[blockquote] “There is one, and exactly one, country that has the ability to put all this together on it’s own. It is an undeniable fact that without the US there would have been no liberation of Kuwait” [/blockquote]
I have news for you – the US did not in fact liberate Kuwait on its own. I suggest reading one of the books by Rick Atkinson or Norman Schwarzkopf.
[blockquote] “The European military forces combined do not possess the capability to pull off an operation like Desert Storm.” [/blockquote]
Nor did the US military even attempt to pull it off on its own.
[blockquote] “That’s why every intervention suddenly becomes an American Problem. No matter who is involved, the US is always the critical player.” [/blockquote]
I’m sorry, I just burst out laughing when I read this one. Dozens if not hundreds of operations all over the world in recent years, carried out by Australians, Indians, Africans, British, French and others, and all of them completely unaware of the critical part that the US played in each operation! No, the US did not play any part in any of them.
[blockquote] “I know who is flying the mission over Libya right now. I also know who was flying the missions back in March when the Libyans could still shoot back.” [/blockquote]
Good, then you know that the risks run by European pilots are greater than anything run by Americans in Libya.
[blockquote] “I will believe Europe can intervene on its own when it shows it can commit forces to combat in a significant operation on its own and sustain public support for that operation over time in the face of casualties. It’s been 30 years since a European power did something like that.” [/blockquote]
And even longer since the US did something like that. I suppose you could stretch a point and rely on Grenada – a brigade+ sized operation over a few hundred miles, against light opposition. And that was a year after the British sent a division+ over 8,000 miles to fight against a much stronger enemy than the Cuban battalion.
Let’s stop huffing and puffing and get back to reality. The US has given some support to the Europeans in Libya, just as the US virtually always asks for support before it goes into any significant military operation. Most of the risk is being run by the Europeans.
4. MichaelA[blockquote] I’m sorry, I just burst out laughing when I read this one. Dozens if not hundreds of operations all over the world in recent years, carried out by Australians, Indians, Africans, British, French and others, and all of them completely unaware of the critical part that the US played in each operation! [/blockquote] That’s because you seem to think that something like the Australian intervention in East Timor is relevant to what I am talking about. It isn’t. I am talking about the ability to perform a significant intervention against a significant opponent. I am talking about moving an Army to the border or shore of an hostile nation possessing at least a semi-competent military capability, inserting that Army onto the territory of the enemy nation, defeating its military, governing the conquered country in the aftermath, and sustaining all of the above over a significant period of time
In terms of Libya, that means moving an Army to (say) the Gulf of Sidra or Tunisia, conducting an invasion, defeating Gadhaffi’s forces, establishing military rule, suppressing the nascent rebellion that will inevitably follow, and building the logistics train necessary to support all of the above. The combined nations of Europe could not safely launch the initial air strikes into Libya without American participation. They needed the US to suppress Libyan air defenses in order to make the skies safe for NATO overflight. Absent the US, the European nations had too few planes, and too little capability to perform the mission. Too many aircraft losses during the initial phase would have caused the whole effort to collapse. And what do we hear now? The US Secretary of Defense is saying that Europe is having trouble sustaining the effort after only three months. And this is just an air campaign. [blockquote] And that was a year after the British sent a division+ over 8,000 miles to fight against a much stronger enemy than the Cuban battalion.[/blockquote] Yes, remember when I said… [blockquote] It’s been 30 years since a European power did something like that. [/blockquote]I was referring to the Falklands campaign. Here is the important question. Could Britain perform that same mission today? Could Britain liberate the Falkland Islands in 2011? [blockquote] I have news for you – the US did not in fact liberate Kuwait on its own. [/blockquote] You are correct. That isn’t the point. The US had the capability to fight that war and win it on its own. All it needed was land access and bases. No other nation or combination of nations in the coalition could say that. Without the US logistics capability, there would have been no war to liberate Kuwait. Without the US military, there would have been insufficient military capability to liberate Kuwait.[blockquote] Good, then you know that the risks run by European pilots are greater than anything run by Americans in Libya. [/blockquote] It’s always interesting to see what you avoid answering, MichaelA. How many NATO casualties have been suffered in Libya so far? [blockquote] No, the US wanted to be in Bosnia.[/blockquote] Which US would that be? Certainly not the US I happen to live in. The only vital interest the US had in Bosnia was the integrity of NATO. That’s how we ended up involved in that conflict – to defend the reputation of NATO. It was yet one more exercise in random bombing and incoherent strategy in a war that was ended by tacitly allowing the Croats to do exactly what we were supposedly fighting the Serbs for doing – ethnic cleansing.[blockquote] I am getting the distinct impression that you *want* the rest of the world to be grovelling to your country – but I regret we will have to disappoint you. [/blockquote] No, I want the other Western nations to carry their own weight. And trust me on this. When people like me are beginning to question the value of NATO, then the alliance is developing a serious credibility problem with the American public. Personally, I would consider forming an alliance with only the UK and letting the whole of continental Europe go hang itself. You don’t soon forget your allies proposing to solve the Iraqi crisis by indefinitely setting the American Army in northern Saudi Arabia as a deterrent, while European nations bought oil from Iraq, and sold arms to Iraq. That kind of duplicity sticks in your mind.
carl
Carl wrote,
[blockquote] “That’s because you seem to think that something like the Australian intervention in East Timor is relevant to what I am talking about.” [/blockquote]
I responded to your plain words. That is all I can do.
I am not sure why you are referring to East Timor in particular, but yes it was a larger operation than Grenada, at least in terms of ground troops involved, and fortunately it didn’t deteriorate to intense combat although no-one knew that when we went in. But this is just one of many interventions run around the world that have nothing to do with the USA.
[blockquote] “I am talking about the ability to perform a significant intervention against a significant opponent. I am talking about moving an Army to the border or shore of an hostile nation possessing at least a semi-competent military capability, inserting that Army onto the territory of the enemy nation, defeating its military, governing the conquered country in the aftermath, and sustaining all of the above over a significant period of time”. [/blockquote]
Which the USA itself has not attempted alone, in over 30 years, and which has no relevance to the Libyan operation, in any shape or form.
[blockquote] “In terms of Libya, that means moving an Army to (say) the Gulf of Sidra or Tunisia, conducting an invasion, defeating Gadhaffi’s forces, establishing military rule, suppressing the nascent rebellion that will inevitably follow, and building the logistics train necessary to support all of the above.” [/blockquote]
The only western nation to have done anything like this alone, in recent memory, is Great Britain. Certainly not the USA.
I also don’t understand why you are wanting to conduct an operation which no-one else wants to do, and to conduct an invasion from the Gulf of Sidra when you can just land in a port. You do realise that Qaddafi holds less than half the country, don’t you?
[blockquote] “The combined nations of Europe could not safely launch the initial air strikes into Libya without American participation.” [/blockquote]
Even if this were correct, it does not assist your argument – you seem to think that various sorts of military capacity are interchangeable. But in any case it is not correct: The European nations were capable of launching initial airstrikes, but they all agreed at the particular time that getting those airstrikes in within the space of a few days and with minimal risk needed certain American assets that were nearby.
[blockquote] “I was referring to the Falklands campaign. Here is the important question. Could Britain perform that same mission today? Could Britain liberate the Falkland Islands in 2011?” [/blockquote]
I don’t know and neither do you. But Britain already has, and the USA hasn’t. Why ask hypothetical questions about an operation on a scale that the USA has never itself attempted to mount?
[blockquote] “The US had the capability to fight that war and win it on its own.” [/blockquote]
No it didn’t. War is not just about material and technology. War is primarily about the WILL to engage and win – essentially why the US lost to a much weaker opponent in Vietnam. Coming back to modern times, the USA doesn’t have the will to act on its own, which is why it has hardly ever done so, and why it was never going to go into Kuwait without allies.
[blockquote] “Without the US logistics capability, there would have been no war to liberate Kuwait.” [/blockquote]
And without the British, French, Saudis and others there would have been no war to liberate Kuwait.
[blockquote] “It’s always interesting to see what you avoid answering, MichaelA. How many NATO casualties have been suffered in Libya so far?” [/blockquote]
Ahhh, yes, I “avoided” answering an irrelevant question, in circumstances where you knew that there is no available answer; how evil of me! YOU brought up the issue of risk, not me. YOU asserted that all the risk was run by American pilots, when in fact it is clear that US pilots have run far less risk than their European counterparts.
[blockquote] “It was yet one more exercise in random bombing and incoherent strategy…” [/blockquote]
I don’t follow you. Earlier you cited Bosnia as an example of Europe requiring US help; now you seem to be complaining about the incompetent manner in which the US ran the operation. I don’t know what your point is, let alone how it relates to the topic.
[blockquote] “No, I want the other Western nations to carry their own weight.” [/blockquote]
If that was really all you wanted, you could have said so in a few sentences. Rather, your long posts seem to indicate contempt for all other nations, a desire for them to acknowledge the might of the USA, and not much else. Just substitute “Great Britain” for “USA” in your posts, and they would have been very popular with George III!
[blockquote] “And trust me on this. When people like me are beginning to question the value of NATO, then the alliance is developing a serious credibility problem with the American public.” [/blockquote]
Whatever. I will very surprised if USA gets out of NATO, because US leaders know that they need NATO as much as it needs them. It maintains relations with allies and the USA virtually never conducts any significant operation without several allies in support.
[blockquote] “Personally, I would consider forming an alliance with only the UK and letting the whole of continental Europe go hang itself.” [/blockquote]
You would need the Brits to agree to such an arrangement, and I doubt that they would have the slightest interest. Britain (and other countries) are strong allies of the US, but that is because the leaders of the US for the most part have different attitudes to those outlined by you in a series of posts on T19. If they did, the US would be likely to rapidly lose its support.