Libya - Next 9/11?

[MediumTex]

I was reading the news this morning and thinking about the last time the U.S. bombed Libya back in 1986.  The Pan Am 103 bombing occurred two years later in retribution for the missile attack (never mind that the missile attack was retribution for the Libyan bombiong of a German club).

Is there any reason to think that the Libyans (including Qadaffi and his sons) would not be willing to use the same playbook this time around?

I am reminded of the series of columns that Harry Browne wrote in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in which he argued that as sad as the event was, it should not be considered a surprise--an activist foreign policy is always going to generate "blowback" that manifests itself in unpredictable ways.

I can easily imagine sitting here five years from now in the aftermath of a 9/11-scale attack in the U.S. with Libya's fingerprints on it wondering why no one was talking about this possibility when the decision was made to interfere with what is essentially a Libyan civil war.

I wonder what people would think if Obama went on TV and said "We are going to begin a mission of interference with the internal politics of Libya because we don't like the way the balance of power is shifting right now.  We may be successful and we may not.  Among the risks that we are running is another expensive, protracted and bloody foreign military commitment, and the possibility of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil or on U.S. interests in the next few years will be significantly elevated."

I wonder how people would react to that message?

It's ironic that Iraq was portrayed as this great enemy of the U.S. when Iraq never attacked the U.S. or any of its interests, all the while Libya sat right there in the same neighborhood with a dictator who was an open sponsor of terrorism against the U.S. and no one seemed to be troubled by it.

Perhaps all will go well, only the bad guys will be injured or killed and Qadaffi and his minions will be removed from power once and for all.  I can easily imagine things not going so well, however.  What seems more likely is that Qadaffi will do whatever is minimally necessary to stop the foreign military involvement, then he can begin a systematic extermination of his internal enemies and potential challengers (sort of like Saddam did after the 1991 Gulf War), and over the next few years he can plot a terrorist attack against some member(s) of the coalition that is currently attempting to set up and enforce the no-fly zone.  This theory would be consistent with Libya's past behavior.

[AdamA]

Why, exactly, are we bombing Libya to begin with?

[MediumTex]

Why, exactly, are we bombing Libya to begin with?

Because certain idealists in government think that the current internal Libyan political situation can be improved upon through foreign military action.

What could go wrong with that?

[Pkg Man]

Most troubling to me is that once again we're off to war without a Congressional declaration of war. At least Bush went to the Congress to get authorization, even if it wasn't a formal declaration, for Gulf War II.

I feel bad for innocent Libyans but not enough to trade American lives and treasure to get involved in something that is not really in our national security interests, IMHO.

[AdamA]

Why, exactly, are we bombing Libya to begin with?

Because certain idealists in government think that the current internal Libyan political situation can be improved upon through foreign military action.

What could go wrong with that?

Are there still really people who are so naive?

Is there a hidden agenda?

[MediumTex]

Why, exactly, are we bombing Libya to begin with?

Because certain idealists in government think that the current internal Libyan political situation can be improved upon through foreign military action.

What could go wrong with that?

Are there still really people who are so naive?

Is there a hidden agenda?

The world is full of them and always has been.

The essential problem that Harry Browne wrote about is that violence is a downward spiral and tends to feed on itself.

There are certainly situations where violence is appropriate, but I think those situations are far narrower than many politicians imagine.

War normally starts as a noble exercise based on high ideals.  From there it drifts more and more toward the ugly reality of the violence spiral of which Harry Browne wrote.

[MediumTex]

Most troubling to me is that once again we're off to war without a Congressional declaration of war. At least Bush went to the Congress to get authorization, even if it wasn't a formal declaration, for Gulf War II.

It was sort of sadly comical, but I heard on the news that Obama had informed congressional leaders of what the U.S. was going to do in Libya.

Apparently, few people are aware of what the Constitution actually provides when it comes to war.  As to the question of what "war" means, I would say that attacking another country with military forces always meets the definition of "war."

[AdamA]

War normally starts as a noble exercise based on high ideals.  From there it drifts more and more toward the ugly reality of the violence spiral of which Harry Browne wrote.

The link Craig posted essentially points to war profiteering as a motive for most wars.  Do you think that's what's occurring here?

[TBV]

This episode underscores an interesting historical pattern in American politics, which is that the two major political parties periodically switch sides on the great issues of the day.  The Republicans in the 19thy century were strong proponents of big government, easy money, and open immigration.  The Democrats (like Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland) were big supporters of the gold standard and states rights.  Issues like military intervention, have been a hot potato with Democrats advocating for it in the 1940's-1950, then again in the early 60's, then again in the 1990's, and again now. One may recall that Eisenhower got elected with promises of bringing the troops home from Korea and that Republicans opposed nation-building in Bosnia and Somalia before supporting it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's sometimes easier to understand this process in terms of who opposes whom, rather than why. For example, Arabs have recently taken to blaming the US for "allowing" civilian blood to be spilled in Libya because of alleged foot dragging in Washington.  As though Qaddafi's #1 long-term opponent (the US) was somehow responsible for what he does.  They've demanded US military intervention to overthrow a dictator who has killed innocent civilians.  This is the line delivered on Al-Jazeera, as well as in countless interviews with Libyan rebels.  Yet these same people have spent the last decade savagely criticizing the US for intervening for much the same reason in Iraq.  Indeed, some of the rebels who are calling for air strikes have only recently returned from duty as anti-American jihadis in Iraq.  The Arab League, which usually complains about American interference in the Middle East, now supports an air campaign (by "the West" of course.) And within 24 hours of it starting, they're already complaining about collateral damage.  The themes of simmering resentment against America (by Arabs) and of profound ambivalence towards Arabs (by Americans) explain this much better than some democracy vs. dictatorshhip story line.

[Pkg Man]

Well said TBV

[TBV]

It's ironic that Iraq was portrayed as this great enemy of the U.S. when Iraq never attacked the U.S. or any of its interests, all the while Libya sat right there in the same neighborhood with a dictator who was an open sponsor of terrorism against the U.S. and no one seemed to be troubled by it.

In the interests of historical accuracy.....
--Does Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to corner the world's oil supply qualify as an attack on an American interest?
--Evidently President Reagan was troubled enough to bomb Libyan military and political installations in 1986.
--For decades, the US pursued Libya in the courts over the Lockerbie bombing.
--Does an attack on the US serve as the only permitted predicate for declaring war?  If so, then why the war with Germany & Italy, or Serbia, or North Korea?  And if so, why aren't we at war with the Somali pirates?  You may recall that raids on American merchant ships helped get us into the War of 1812.

[6 Iron]

....Arabs have recently taken to blaming the US for "allowing" civilian blood to be spilled in Libya because of alleged foot dragging in Washington.....

 The Arab League, which usually complains about American interference in the Middle East, now supports an air campaign (by "the West" of course.) And within 24 hours of it starting, they're already complaining about collateral damage.  The themes of simmering resentment against America (by Arabs) and of profound ambivalence towards Arabs (by Americans) explain this much better than some democracy vs. dictatorshhip story line.

An excellent summary of why this action is likely to have a disappointing result, both politically and militarily.  I read an interesting statistic a few years ago, stating that more books are translated into Spanish in one year, than have been translated into Arabic in the last 100 years. They have purchased an insular culture with oil. The results speak for themselves.

[TBV]

....Arabs have recently taken to blaming the US for "allowing" civilian blood to be spilled in Libya because of alleged foot dragging in Washington.....

 The Arab League, which usually complains about American interference in the Middle East, now supports an air campaign (by "the West" of course.) And within 24 hours of it starting, they're already complaining about collateral damage.  The themes of simmering resentment against America (by Arabs) and of profound ambivalence towards Arabs (by Americans) explain this much better than some democracy vs. dictatorshhip story line.

An excellent summary of why this action is likely to have a disappointing result, both politically and militarily.  I read an interesting statistic a few years ago, stating that more books are translated into Spanish in one year, than have been translated into Arabic in the last 100 years. They have purchased an insular culture with oil. The results speak for themselves.

A remarkable reversal of fortunes, given that medieval Europe borrowed a great deal of its cultural heritage from translations of Arabic texts concerning ancient Greece and Rome.

[MediumTex]

In the interests of historical accuracy.....
--Does Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to corner the world's oil supply qualify as an attack on an American interest?

As you may recall, Saddam was inclined to think that the U.S. was more of an ally than an enemy in 1990, after years of U.S. support in its war against Iran.  But just to make sure that the U.S. would not take exception to an invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein asked U.S. ambassador April Glaspie about the U.S.'s position with respect to this matter in 1990.  Ms. Glaspie's response was anything but clear, and appeared to say that the U.S. had no interest in the matter.

Here is a transcript and other material regarding the Glaspie-Saddam meeting:  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... april.html

--Evidently President Reagan was troubled enough to bomb Libyan military and political installations in 1986.

Right, but that was before the Pan Am bombing.  I am talking about the actions the U.S. took in response to large scale terrorist acts such as the Pan Am bombing.  The U.S. treated this as essentially a law enforcement matter and there were no further military actions taken against Libya.

--For decades, the US pursued Libya in the courts over the Lockerbie bombing.

Yes, that is part of the point I am making--after 9/11 if the U.S. had wanted to target a country in the Middle East for military action that was a known sponsor of terrorism against the U.S., Libya seems like an obvious candidate.  Instead, Libyan state sponsored terrorism continued to be treated as a law enforcement issue.

--Does an attack on the US serve as the only permitted predicate for declaring war?  If so, then why the war with Germany & Italy, or Serbia, or North Korea?  And if so, why aren't we at war with the Somali pirates?  You may recall that raids on American merchant ships helped get us into the War of 1812.

I think that having such a policy wouldn't be a bad idea at all.  I think that is probably the policy of the Swiss government, as an example.

To consider various alternate historical narratives if the U.S. had stayed at home:

--WWI would have remained one more in a long line of European pissing contests, except that the advent of machine guns and poison gas would have likely led both sides to quit much sooner had the U.S. not gotten involved.

--WWII would have likely found Germany breaking itself against Russia and Japan would have decided to stop fighting on its own had the U.S. stayed at home (and even if Japan had conquered China would it have been so much worse than China experienced under Mao?).  I view the Pearl Harbor attack as utterly preventable--I have no idea why such a large target was presented to a potential aggressor in the first place.  By entering the war, the U.S. set off on a path that continues to this day--anyone know why there are still thousands of troops stationed in Britain, Germany, and Italy?  Who are these troops defending these countries against?  There are also tens of thousands of troops still stationed in Japan.  Why?  Are we concerned that Japan is going to try to start fighting us again?  Are we defending Japan?  From whom?

--Korea and the whole "domino theory" in retrospect seems sort of silly.  Instead of staying home, though, the U.S. entered an undeclared war that is still underway almost 60 years later with 40,000 U.S. troops on the frontline.  What is the U.S. national interest in this matter?  If the U.S. had not gotten involved, I think Korea would probably be about as well off today (if not better).  Without an enemy in the form of the U.S., I don't know if North Korea's regime could have been maintained for this long.

--Vietnam was just a dumb and clumsy exercise by a group of fools led by Johnson and Nixon.  No troops still there, though.  BTW, Vietnam seems to be doing okay today.  Had we stayed out, I don't think things would be much different today, except perhaps a few million people would still be alive.

--To summarize, the U.S.'s involvement in military conflicts in modern times seems to have two features: (1) it enlarges the conflict, leading to much greater death and destruction, and (2) it results in more or less permanent deployment of U.S. troops in the countries involved with the military conflict, even decades after the conflict is over.  Both of these features seem silly and tragically destructive.  Instead of taking any of these lessons from history, though, the U.S. is now engaged in two wars that have been incredibly expensive and destructive (Afghanistan, now in its 10th year, and Iraq, now in its 8th year).  What will the value of these two conflicts be in retrospect?  The last nine years of Afghanistan fighting (and however many more years we continue chasing ghosts around those mountains) will be a complete waste of effort and Iraq will likely descend into civil war the moment the U.S. pulls out, which means that there will be a U.S. military presence there in the form of 40,000-50,000 troops for decades.  What will the effect of these troops' presence be?  It will motivate a whole new generation of Islamic extremists who will resent this military presence in their country, and the cycle will simply perpetuate itself.

The last 100 years of U.S. foreign policy is sort of the foreign equivalent of the domestic welfare state--the government props up entities and people who would not otherwise be viable on their own on the theory that with enough governmental support they may become viable at some point in the future.  The recipients of the aid, however, rather than focusing on how to become viable instead focus on how to keep the U.S. governmental aid coming, which ironically makes them less viable than they would have been had the U.S. never gotten involved.

Isn't it weird how screwed up things can get.

[TBV]

In the interests of historical accuracy.....
--Does Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to corner the world's oil supply qualify as an attack on an American interest?

As you may recall, Saddam was inclined to think that the U.S. was more of an ally than an enemy in 1990, after years of U.S. support in its war against Iran.  But just to make sure that the U.S. would not take exception to an invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein asked U.S. ambassador April Glaspie about the U.S.'s position with respect to this matter in 1990.  Ms. Glaspie's response was anything but clear, and appeared to say that the U.S. had no interest in the matter.

Here is a transcript and other material regarding the Glaspie-Saddam meeting:  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... april.html

The issue that you raised, and to which I was responding, was whether Iraq had ever attacked the US or its interests.  "Interests" in the geo-political sense has little to do with one's level of interest, but rather whether a nation's political & economic interests are affected by global events.  Saddam's seizure of Kuwait and the threat which that posed to Saudi Arabia clearly affected the interests of a country (the US) which gets more than half its oil from foreign sources.

--Evidently President Reagan was troubled enough to bomb Libyan military and political installations in 1986.

Right, but that was before the Pan Am bombing.  I am talking about the actions the U.S. took in response to large scale terrorist acts such as the Pan Am bombing.  The U.S. treated this as essentially a law enforcement matter and there were no further military actions taken against Libya.

Context is everything.  It's hard to know what to do when one day you're called a cowboy for wanting to confront evil-doers, and the next you're called complicit for wanting to mind your own business.

--For decades, the US pursued Libya in the courts over the Lockerbie bombing.

Yes, that is part of the point I am making--after 9/11 if the U.S. had wanted to target a country in the Middle East for military action that was a known sponsor of terrorism against the U.S., Libya seems like an obvious candidate.  Instead, Libyan state sponsored terrorism continued to be treated as a law enforcement issue.

I understand how frustrating it can be to see the full implications of the Obama Doctrine (using the courts to punish terrorists) play out, both now and in the situation you describe before he came to office.  Then again, we can't be expected to wage war against every ne'er-do-well can we?

--Does an attack on the US serve as the only permitted predicate for declaring war?  If so, then why the war with Germany & Italy, or Serbia, or North Korea?  And if so, why aren't we at war with the Somali pirates?  You may recall that raids on American merchant ships helped get us into the War of 1812.

I think that having such a policy wouldn't be a bad idea at all.  I think that is probably the policy of the Swiss government, as an example.

To consider various alternate historical narratives if the U.S. had stayed at home:

--WWI would have remained one more in a long line of European pissing contests, except that the advent of machine guns and poison gas would have likely led both sides to quit much sooner had the U.S. not gotten involved.

--WWII would have likely found Germany breaking itself against Russia and Japan would have decided to stop fighting on its own had the U.S. stayed at home.  I view the Pearl Harbor attack as utterly preventable--I have no idea why such a large target was presented to a potential aggressor in the first place.  By entering the war, the U.S. set off on a path that continues to this day--anyone know why there are still thousands of troops stationed in Britain, Germany, and Italy?  Who are these troops defending these countries against?  There are also tens of thousands of troops still stationed in Japan.  Why?  Are we concerned that Japan is going to try to start fighting us again?  Are we defending Japan?  From whom?

--Korea and the whole "domino theory" in retrospect seems sort of silly.  Instead of staying home, though, the U.S. entered an undeclared war that is still underway almost 60 years later with 40,000 U.S. troops on the frontline.  What is the U.S. national interest in this matter?  If the U.S. had not gotten involved, I think Korea would probably be about as well off today (if not better).  Without an enemy in the form of the U.S., I don't know if North Korea's regime could have been maintained for this long.  

Perhaps you should reconsider this one. Hard as it may be to believe these days, North Korea used to be the dominant part of Korea (both militarily and economically.) Without the UN intervention in 1950, South Korea would have been absorbed by Pyongyang.  Hell, they nearly lost even with UN intervention!  So, instead of becoming one of the most dynamic countries in the world, it would be an appendage of one of the poorest, most despotic countries the world has ever seen.  Hard to see how that would have been better.

--Vietnam was just a dumb and clumsy exercise by a group of fools led by Johnson and Nixon.  No troops still there, though.  BTW, Vietnam seems to be doing okay today.  Had we stayed out, I don't think things would be much different today, except perhaps a few million people would still be alive.

--To summarize, the U.S.'s involvement in military conflicts in modern times seems to have two features: (1) it enlarges the conflict, leading to much greater death and destruction, and (2) it results in more or less permanent deployment of U.S. troops in the countries involved with the military conflict, even decades after the conflict is over.  Both of these features seem silly and tragically destructive.  Instead of taking any of these lessons from history, though, the U.S. is now engaged in two wars that have been incredibly expensive and destructive (Afghanistan, now in its 10th year, and Iraq, now in its 8th year).  What will the value of these two conflicts be in retrospect?  The last nine years of Afghanistan fighting (and however many more years we continue chasing ghosts around those mountains) will be a complete waste of effort and Iraq will likely descend into civil war the moment the U.S. pulls out, which means that there will be a U.S. military presence there in the form of 40,000-50,000 troops for decades.  What will the effect of these troops' presence be?  It will motivate a whole new generation of Islamic extremists who will resent this military presence in their country, and the cycle will simply perpetuate itself.

This is quite a mouthful, and offers much food for thought.  But just for the record, our entry into World War I didn't enlarge the conflict or lead to greater death and destruction.  Quite the contrary.  Our entry into WW II certainly did widen the conflict and led to loss of life on a vast scale.  No doubt the war would have ended much sooner without our participation, but with different winners.  In hindsight, was that a mistake? Is that really your point? And while it's been said that we've stayed too long in some countries, it's also been said (often by the same people) that we abandoned others (like Afghanistan after the Soviet exit.)  What then is a reasonable person to learn from that?

The last 100 years of U.S. foreign policy is sort of the foreign equivalent of the domestic welfare state--the government props up entities and people who would not otherwise be viable on their own on the theory that with enough governmental support they may become viable at some point in the future.  The recipients of the aid, however, rather than focusing on how to become viable instead focus on how to keep the U.S. governmental aid coming, which ironically makes them less viable than they would have been had the U.S. never gotten involved.

Propping up national entities that aren't viable on their own may or may not be advisable, but it isn't always a recipe for doom and dependence.  Take for example: the Free French under Charles De Gaulle, the Marshall Plan in war-devastated Western Europe, Taiwan in the 1950's, or Israel in the late 1940's.   Of course, if you're talking Haiti or East Timor, then you've got a point.

Isn't it weird how screwed up things can get. You definitely got that right.  And by the way....thanks for the banter.

[6 Iron]

As you may recall, Saddam was inclined to think that the U.S. was more of an ally than an enemy in 1990, after years of U.S. support in its war against Iran.  But just to make sure that the U.S. would not take exception to an invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein asked U.S. ambassador April Glaspie about the U.S.'s position with respect to this matter in 1990.  Ms. Glaspie's response was anything but clear...

This interview affords a more complete historical perspective of this meeting, that on its own is hard to fathom. One should not underestimate Saddam's culpability.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... son/1.html

[MediumTex]

As you may recall, Saddam was inclined to think that the U.S. was more of an ally than an enemy in 1990, after years of U.S. support in its war against Iran.  But just to make sure that the U.S. would not take exception to an invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein asked U.S. ambassador April Glaspie about the U.S.'s position with respect to this matter in 1990.  Ms. Glaspie's response was anything but clear...

This interview affords a more complete historical perspective of this meeting, that on its own is hard to fathom. One should not underestimate Saddam's culpability.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... son/1.html

I think it is impressive that Saddam bothered to ask us before invading Kuwait.  For a monster like that, he must have really respected the U.S. to think it was necessary to ask first.

It's important to remember, too, that in modern times our worst enemies can become our best friends (e.g., Germany and Japan) and our best friends can become our worst enemies (e.g., Saddam Husein and Osama bin Laden).

I can understand how Hussein might have thought the U.S. would not mind if he attacked Kuwait since the U.S. had spent eight years helping Iraq attack Iran.

[moda0306]

TBV,

To be fair regarding WWII, I believe that after we were attacked by Japan, and then declared war on them, Germany then declared war on the U.S.

[TBV]

Correct, but the back story is that British intelligence had convinced the Germans that the US would eventually declare war on Germany anyway, so Hitler thought he'd cut to the chase.  Imagine how complicated WWII would have been if we had been at war with Japan, but not Germany or Italy.

On the matter of the Japanese attack, this occurred after the US had imposed an embargo on the sale of oil and scrap metal to Japan.  Eighty percent of Japan's oil came from the US, and the US refused to reconsider unless Japan withdrew from China.  That was not going to happen, and we knew it.  One could say that if the US policy toward Japan had not changed so abruptly, Japan might not have attacked us.  It's really hard to say, since the Japanese surely saw us as little different from other non-Asian potential adversaries who controlled territory in the Far East.  I am NOT saying that any of what later happened was our fault, just that the American policy undermined the civilian cabinet in Japan and led to its replacement by a military cabinet led by Tojo.

[AdamA]

I have heard the argument made that we are bombing Libya to simply distract from our thumbs up on what's going on in Bahrain.  Any opinions?

[MediumTex]

I have heard the argument made that we are bombing Libya to simply distract from our thumbs up on what's going on in Bahrain.  Any opinions?

I doubt it.

I think the whole world is just ready for Qadaffi to go.  I can't say I blame them.

[AdamA]

I think the whole world is just ready for Qadaffi to go.  I can't say I blame them.

Is the whole really that concerned about Libya? 

[TBV]

Poor old USA! Criticized for doing things. Criticized for not doing things. Criticized for rushing into things. Criticized for not doing things soon enough. Criticized for doing things for oil, even when we don't take any oil.  Criticized for not respecting the sovereignty of other nations.  Criticized for reluctance to violate the sovereignty of other nations.  Criticized for not following the lead of the "international community."  Criticized for not acting sooner than the "international community."  Gee, wouldn't it be great to be Russia or China and not have to do anything?

[MediumTex]

I would just like to see the scope of U.S. foreign policy narrowed a bit.

I think it would be cheaper and fewer things would get blown up.

[MediumTex]

I think the whole world is just ready for Qadaffi to go.  I can't say I blame them.

Is the whole really that concerned about Libya? 

I think he is sort of like the Fidel Castro of Europe.  Take a look at a map of the Mediterranean and you will see what I mean.

I think Europe is probably more tired of him than the U.S.