More Musings on Libya

(Mysteriously my old dashboard for this blog surfaced so hopefully I can make this more readable.)

Rachel Maddow did a good piece last night on how Obama is trying to change the narrative on our interventions. She reminded us that since Reagan every President has addressed the nation from the Oval Office to announce the commencement of military actions. If you like the authoritarian male declaring America is about to save the world again ,then you might not like having the leader of the G-8 and G-20,French President Sarkozy announce when bombing begins.

Ann Applebaum wrote a good column about why President Obama should keep a low profile on the Libyan intervention because frequent and loud denunciations of Mu'ammar Qaddafi would raise expectations which we are unlikely to meet.

The usual suspects on the right are denouncing President Obama's actions. John Bolton says that we should have acted unilaterally. Mitt Romney backs the action but disagrees with President Obama's attitude because we're exceptional or something like that. I can't understand what Mitt says anymore because he seems to be imitating a hologram with programmed answers. Karl Rove topped them all by saying W would have been tougher with Qaddafi and acted quicker. Since W didn't act quickly on anything, that's unlikely. But Karl didn't tell his Fox audience that W granted a presidential amnesty to Qaddafi for his role in the Lockerbie terrorist bombing of an airliner, one of the worst terrorist acts until 9/11. He even sent Condi over to Libya to strike up the new alliance against terrorism. So I wouldn't believe Karl.

Steve Clemons, who is still skeptical, pointed out on Rachel Maddow that this is all President Obama's initiative. He was aided by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Powers but he directed the whole process. Obama faced with Qaddafi's refusal to back off turned on a dime and went to a military option. He also pointed out that the diplomatic alliance was put together in a record three days compared to the year or two years to achieve the same results for the humanitarian interventions of the Clinton years.

In fact, the Libyan intervention, even with the military strikes, might be seen as an example more of soft power than military power. The object of diplomacy is to persuade people to your own view as if it is in their best interests also. The shaky support of the Arab League is an example of this. Algeria, Syria and Yemen didn't sign on. Algeria because it is neighbor to Libya and is not sure how this will all come out. Syria because they have their own extensive opposition now. And Yemen because it is close to a civil war or coup itself. The fact that a UN Security Council Resolution of this magnitude got passed so fast is actually good news for America's standing in the world. We probably didn't have to bribe as many people or the bribes weren't that costly.

Richard Engel indirectly raised the some of the problems on the ground. Yes, we saved a massacre from happening in Benghazi. But the rebels on the ground do not comprehend what a No Fly Zone actually means. They tend to think we'll take care of all obstacles to their success. But the rebels are not professional soldiers. They started as a non-violent uprising and only resorted to military actions when Qaddafi unleashed his military. They have no training,they come from a variety of professions, and they lack any military strategic sense. Engel pointed out that the defectors from Qaddafi's army are no help because they are settling into the backlines. Even the defecting officers are going AWOL, even saying they are going on vacation and taking a few days off. Today, there is more news that Qaddafi's forces are gunning anyone that moves in areas they control.

As for all the nonsense that Obama didn't properly notify Congress or have the constitutional right to engage in this action, it's sad to point out that the last time Congress declared war was for WWII. All the talk about impeachment would have to apply retroactively to every President since FDR. The list of American military interventions around the world since then is endless. The noise in Washington about this is humorous since the Senate passed a resolution urging the creation of a No Fly Zone three weeks ago. Now Dennis Kucinich, who believes Obama can be impeached, is working on a law that no funds should be spent on the Libyan intervention. All of this would interesting and call for honest debate. But we have let the President of the United States do this for almost 70 years because Congress and the American People like it that way.

Our problem as a nation is that there are no effective checks on our military power. Neither party wants to make the President or the military accountable. Without a draft, we no longer have the type of stake in our interventions that we used to. And as to costs,neither party wants to restrict our military spending even though it is bankrupting us. When you read the blizzard of comments--wise and foolish--on the Libyan intervention,it is sobering to know that none of them matter. Public opinion doesn't matter. You could be debating Obama's bracket choices and it has the same value. We are the spectators. In the most extreme cases like the Iraq War, millions of Americans demonstrated,numbers that dwarfed the teaparty gatherings, and yet as Dick Cheney said, "So What?" Our military interventions are not influenced by the American citizenry anymore. In the words of W, you might as well go shopping.

So now it comes down to whether President Obama does war right. Bill Kristol wrote the other day that we don't invade Muslim countries, we liberate them. And that may be the difference here. I don't have the inclination to unpack that nonsense. But we should be somewhat assured that President Obama's body language shows he has an inherent reluctance to immediately go to the military option and that in deeds he wants others to share the sacrifice. His critics lament his nuance and the sophistication of his approach to problems. I view these as strengths. That he should deliberate on something is a positive trait, not a negative. We've run off to war many times without asking questions only to find years of nightmares and arguments that we can't stop or it will weaken our position in the world.

A leftwing blogger said that we could blame almost all current problems we have on the past administration but now Obama has created one of his own. Yes, but I have a confidence in him that we will not make a commitment for a decade to pacifying Libya in the name of democracy.