TIA Daily • March 27, 2011
COMMENTARY
Yet President Obama has launched this conflict in the most incompetent way possible. He gave the go-ahead for a new war in Libya—then blew town for a week. He went to Brazil to play the international celebrity in a routine diplomatic trip, without presenting the case for war to the American people and to the US Congress and without defining—neither among our allies nor within the administration—exactly what the goal of the mission is or exactly who is going to be in charge of it.
I can understand that all of these things might not fall together right away when you have to act quickly. George W. Bush took about a year to iron out all of these questions before he invaded Iraq, yet it is still only six weeks or so since the beginning of the Libyan uprising. But what is most striking about Obama's approach to Libya is that he did not seem to regard any of these steps as necessary. And his administration is still refusing to admit that America is even fighting a war. Jake Tapper examines the evasive terms used to describe the Libyan conflict, from "kinetic military action" to "a time-limited, scope-limited military action, in concert with our international partners, with the objective of protecting civilian life in Libya from Muammar Qaddafi and his forces"—which, White House spokesman Jay Carney continues, is "certainly not...a large-scale...open-ended military action, of the kind which might otherwise be described as a war."
Except, of course, that if Obama knew anything about war, he would know that there is no military action that is not open-ended. The enemy gets a vote, as they say in the military, and once you start shooting, you have to be prepared to deal with whatever consequences follow.
Charles Krauthammer sums up the administration's core confusion:
As of this writing, Britain wanted the operation to be led by NATO. France adamantly disagreed, citing Arab sensibilities. Germany wanted no part of anything, going so far as to pull four of its ships from NATO command in the Mediterranean. Italy hinted it might deny the allies the use of its air bases if NATO can't get its act together. France and Germany walked out of a NATO meeting on Monday, while Norway had planes in Crete ready to go but refused to let them fly until it had some idea who the hell is running the operation. And Turkey, whose prime minister four months ago proudly accepted the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, has been particularly resistant to the Libya operation from the beginning.And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Gaddafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although on Tuesday Obama did add "unless he changes his approach."
A lot of Washington insiders are blaming this chaos on Tom Donilon, a partisan political hack and Biden crony who inexplicably got himself appointed as National Security Advisor. The job of the National Security Advisor is to make sure that national security policy from all of the different agencies and military branches is coordinated and integrated, and this is precisely what has not been achieved in the Libyan War.
But Krauthammer names a cause that is more fundamental—and goes higher up the chain of command.
This confusion is purely the result of Obama's decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command.... [A]t a time when the world is hungry for America to lead—no one has anything near our capabilities, experience, and resources—America is led by a man determined that it should not.
I definitely do not agree, however, with Krauthammer's final conclusion: "If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you're not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing."
This attitude explains why a lot of conservatives are beginning to drop their support for the intervention in Libya. Consider a recent column from military historian Victor Davis Hanson. As Jack Wakeland sums it up, "Hanson finds himself coming out against military intervention in Libya—but he can't figure out how to explain it. Instead of explaining it, he gives us a laundry list of complaints."
It really is a laundry list. I'm a fan of Hanson, but from the perspective of a writer, this particular column does not even look like a rough draft—it look like the first preliminary notes you scrawl hurriedly on a note pad, several steps before you have a rough draft. So why is this jumble offered as a case against the Libya campaign? Jack explains: "This is the Obama effect. American conservatives are beginning to line up against this war, not necessarily because they think military intervention is a bad idea, but because they think having Barack Obama in the office of commander in chief is a very bad idea."
For almost ten years now, I've seen the havoc this sort of thing has wreaked among Objectivists in their approach to foreign policy. If you accept this idea that a war has to be pursued according to just the right policies and that otherwise it is "better to do nothing"—well, then you will always end up advocating that we do nothing. You will talk yourself into being, in effect, so hawkish that you become a pacifist.
A number of years ago, Donald Rumsfeld got into trouble (somewhat unfairly) for citing an old military axiom: you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have. When war is necessary, your equipment, your training, the number of troops you have, cannot be changed immediately, so you have to do the best with what you have.
The same thing applies to political leadership. You go to war with the president you have, not the president you would like to have.
Wars are bigger than one man. This is America's war, not just the president's, and it is necessary because of American interests that don't cease to apply because the wrong man is in the White House. So if Obama's administration of the war is complacent or confused, we should offer a mixture of friendly advice and tough political pressure to push him to clear up the confusion and establish a better policy. This is the sort of thing the Democrats should have done—and what better politicians, like John McCain and Joe Lieberman did do—during the Iraq War.
And while we complain about the weakness of our leader, we also have to remember the pathetic weakness of the enemy. I learned my lesson on this in late 2001, when I wrote a column complaining about the totally inadequate level of military force we were using against the Taliban in Afghanistan—about a week before the Taliban lines collapsed and they were driven out of Kabul, out of Kandahar, and into the hills.
In this conflict, Gaddafi's forces have now been driven back from Ajdabiya, a key crossroads, and back through Brega, a key oil port. Reports indicate that Gaddafi's troops have been abandoning their fatigues, their vehicles, some of their weapons, and truckloads of ammunition, for fear that these things will slow down their retreat or make them targets of air attacks along the open coastal highway. Meanwhile, rebels in the besieged city of Misurata report that they have been able to hold out only because of Western air strikes. There is a good chance that we are seeing, or are about to see, a collapse in Gaddafi's defenses that will drive his forces back into Tripoli and cause a renewed stampede of defections. So yes, we can win this war even with an incompetent president, and even if we have to fall back on relying on British and—quelle horreur!—French leadership.
So let me repeat our compelling reason for getting involved in Libya. It is not just for humanitarian reasons—though Libya is a place where things like this happen. Our purpose is to make sure that the wave of Arab revolutions topples anti-American regimes and not just our decrepit "friendly dictators."
The basic dilemma we're trying to deal with is that the regimes who have been our allies are not the worst, most oppressive regimes—and therefore are the most vulnerable, because they are less likely to put down protests with massive, deadly force. The only way to even the odds is to help out rebellions against the anti-American regimes, in countries where the government is willing to use massive force to suppress all political opposition.
Today, the target is Libya, but this is just a step toward a bigger agenda. The next step is beginning in Syria, where a conflagration of protests across the country over the past week has seen protesters replacing the standard government slogan, "God, Syria, and Bashar only"—a declaration of personal loyalty to dictator Bashar Assad—with "God, Syria, and freedom only."
Yes, there is something to the idea that people in these countries do not understand or embrace the full meaning of freedom as much as we do here in America (though our understanding of freedom these days is not that great, either). That is an important point to keep in mind—after the regime falls. It will also be a good thing to pay attention to in Libya, where one minor rebel commander has been identified as an Islamic militant previously detained for fighting against the US in Afghanistan.
But on the level that is relevant to the Libyans and Syrians now, the difference between freedom and dictatorship is not some subtle abstraction that requires years of study to grasp. It is visceral and concrete. It is presented in forms as stark as this one, recounted by Syrian dissident Ahad Al Hendi, who describes the origin of the Syrian revolt.
Why are those in Daraa so determined? There, Syrians watched as 15 children were arrested earlier this month simply for drawing graffiti on the wall of their school that said, "The people want to take down the regime." The kids that did this were in the fourth grade. They had no idea that this tiny act of rebellion would lead to their arrest by the secret services—from their classrooms.On Wednesday, they were released after more than two weeks of being detained. My friend who saw them told me, "It's horrible. There were scars all over their bodies. And their nails were pulled from their hands."
If this were happening in your country, would you give in—or would you rise up and fight to the death? Would you be satisfied with anything less than the blood of tyrants? The Daraa case seems to have galvanized the country, with protesters across Syria appropriating another regime slogan and giving it new meaning: "We sacrifice our souls and blood for you, Daraa." So I don't expect the Syrian uprising to be suppressed any time soon, no matter how much force the regime uses.
Note, then, how the Wall Street Journal is able to use the military intervention in Libya to agitate for vigorous support for the opposition in Syria.
Syria is important because what happens in Damascus doesn't stay in Damascus. Richard Fernandez has some good details about the Syrian uprising, including two telling observations. First, there are reports that some of the forces firing on protesters were speaking Farsi instead of Arabic, which means that they are imported from Iran. This is actually good news, in a perverse way: it means that the Iranian regime is now being forced to send some of its forces out of the country in an attempt to keep control of its Syrian satellite. This means that the forces of oppression will be stretched a little bit thinner inside Iran—and if the Egyptian uprising revived the Iranian opposition, a Syrian uprising will give them even more hope. This will also prevent Iran from importing goons from outside, since Hezbollah enforcers will suddenly be needed back in Syria and Lebanon. And speaking of Lebanon, Fernandez notes how the fall of the regime in Syria—where protesters are already chanting "No to Hezbollah"—would tilt the balance in Lebanon.
If the wave of revolutions in the Arab world were to sweep away all of the regimes we have traditionally cooperated with and leave all of the hostile regimes intact, that would be a serious setback—not least because it would put those hostile regimes in a very good position to influence the new governments in Egypt and elsewhere. But if the wave of revolutions means that all of the region's dictatorships are swept away, including the most evil and hostile ones, then it will represent an enormous opportunity for the US.
That is the big picture, and Libya is not the biggest element in that picture. Syria is much bigger, and Iran—the power behind Syria—is much, much bigger. But Libya is the first test of whether we're willing and able to turn the wave of revolutions in the Middle East in our favor. We need to do it, even if we're forced to have an incompetent leader like Barack Obama in charge.—RWT
One-Year Subscription — $74
Six-Month Subscription — $38
Copyright © 2011 by Tracinski Publishing Company
PO Box 8086, Charlottesville, VA 22906
No comments:
Post a Comment