Myself, I remain ambivalent. I don't like the idea of going into this operation without a solid way out, but as Thomas Ricks explained yesterday:
I grow weary of talk of an "exit strategy." It is a canard and a false concept. Can anyone remember the last time there actually was an exit strategy going in that actually worked? Military actions aren't interstates.
What he's saying is true. Battle strategy lasts only up until the moment you make contact with the enemy. You can't dictate how that's going to go any more than how you're going to leave. Any illusions to the contrary are the products of deluded minds who've never fired a shot in battle.
Oh, and for the record, I've never fired a shot in battle either, so...
At the same time, despite Smeagol's calls for Impeachment, Butters' demands that we "take the lead" or general Congressional demands that the President get Congressional permission first (which wasn't needed...Congress having abrogated its responsibility in these matters years ago), there's another thing that's escaped the attention of the Pundit-class:
What if Qaddafi had succeeded? What if we had another Rwanda or Balkans on our hands, and we sat on our hands and did nothing?
One of the things that annoys me about all the Congressional demands in this matter, is that it's not about process, it's about C.Y.A., covering (your...or in this case their) ass. They're only questioning it now because the outcome is uncertain, but you can bet your ass that if the Libyan mission comes off successfully (definition of success, TBD), Congress-critters and Senators will be lining up to take credit.
If the President had done nothing, these same people would be lining up to demand he take action. Why did he let this happen? (Notice, there wouldn't be any discussion of Congressional process after blood had been spilled). Why did the President let all those noble Libyans die in the streets like dogs?
But in the meantime, the President was faced with a choice. I don't think he wanted to interfere, for good or for ill in Libya. Then he started getting pressure from the French (and I'm pretty sure, the Italians) both of whom do major business in Libya. And then Qaddafi started to mow down civilians, and threatened to have his own apocalypse in Benghazi.
So the President acted. American Planes and Tomahawks are doing the things that the French, Italians and maybe Qataris can't do. We're paving the way. We're taking out Qaddafi's Anti-Aircraft batteries and support systems. We're making it impossible for him to shoot back. We've stopped the slaughter in Benghazi. We're providing logistical support and I do believe that by this weekend, we'll be done. Partly because there won't be anything left to shoot at, and partly because it'll be up to the rebels at that point.
Funny, I wrote all that...then I clicked over to watch Rachel Maddow's interview with Steve Clemons (Publisher of the Washington Note), and he pretty much said the exact same thing. But credit to him and the other Foreign Policy-types on the Left. Methinks they said it better, and said it first.
Switching gears ever so slightly. Of all the people I'd thought would be against this thing, Juan Cole was at the top of my list (as an Ohio State Fan, I'll forgive his unfortunate association with that University). To be fair, he's not cheerleading this thing from the sidelines. At the same time, he seems rather clear eyed about what's been going on in Libya, and the differences between it and Iraq:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last “days, not months” before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
If Reason No. 10 is true, then I do have to ask, why isn't it the mission of the United States to take Qaddafi down, especially if it imperils the Arab 1848 we've all been watching from afar?
