Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, March 18, 2011 - 10:57 AM
Share
The
UN Security Council has authorized
the use of force to prevent the loyalist forces backing Muammar al-Qaddafi from
moving on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Given some of the statements
Qaddafi has made in recent days -- in effect threatening some sort of bloodbath
against anyone who does not surrender to his troops -- this reaction isn't all
that surprising. It is one thing to decide that an authoritarian crackdown is
ultimately not worth the risk of war, but rather different to turn a blind eye
when a dictator with a very checkered past starts threatening mass killings. Nonetheless,
I have three comments to make about this latest turn of events.
First, as I wrote
a few days ago, this really ought to be a European operation, because Europe
has far more significant strategic interests at stake than we do. The United
States could provide both diplomatic and logistical back-up, but this is an
ideal opportunity for Europeans to learn that they should stop adopting lofty
moral positions and then expect Uncle Sucker to do the heavy lifting. U.S.
insistence that Arab forces participate in any future operation strikes me as
exactly right; the last thing that either Europe or America wants is to be seen
as replaying past colonial interventions in some new guise.
Second, the best hope here is that the onset of airstrikes
quickly demoralizes the loyalist forces, tips the balance of resolve back
toward the rebels, and maybe even convinces Qaddafi to blow town. This might
happen, of course, but there are some reasons to be skeptical. Back in 1999,
Madeleine Albright thought a few days of airstrikes would convince Slobodan
Milosevic to capitulate in the Kosovo War, but the war actually dragged on
weeks and he surrendered only after his Russian patrons withdrew their support
and convinced him to cut a deal. The problem is that Qaddafi doesn't have a lot
of attractive options besides fighting on, which is precisely why he's chosen
to act as he has.
Furthermore, using airpower against Qaddafi's army isn't a simple matter,
particularly if they taken some elementary precautions, like dispersing or
camouflaging equipment. We can bomb airfields and ground air assets, and
probably do a number on his command-and-control system, but it's not clear how
much that would affect his ability to conduct ground operations against the
lightly armed and poorly trained rebel forces. The U.S. Air Force had a lot of
trouble finding and destroying Serb military targets during the Kosovo war, and
most of the damage it did came from attacks on fixed targets like bridges and
power grids.
Let's also remember that we are going to miss some targets and inflict some
collateral damage too (remember that Chinese embassy in Belgrade?). As far as I
know, we don't have spotters on the ground to do laser target designation, and
sending special forces to perform that task has obvious risks of its own. If
Qaddafi's forces move into populated areas than even precision guided weapons
could kill a lot of innocent bystanders. In fact, going after his ground forces
is likely to require attack helicopters and other short-range aircraft (not
strategic bombers), and that means using carrier aviation. Which in turn means
Uncle Sam. My point is that this situation doesn't seem well-suited to the kind
of devastating air assault that we conducted with heavy bombers against the
Iraqi army at the start of Desert Storm, or even the adroit and successful air
and special forces campaign that ousted the Taliban in 2001-2002.
Third, this whole debate on Libya underscores the importance of
something that enthusiastic war hawks always forget: opportunity costs. Just
imagine how different this discussion might be if the United States hadn't
already fought a long, costly, and unsuccessful war in Iraq, and if we weren't
now bogged down in another quagmire in Afghanistan. For that matter, it would
look different if Barack Obama had wisely chosen to get out of Afghanistan back
in 2009, so that the U.S. military could start rebuilding itself after a decade
or war. If we do go into Libya, and it ends up being harder than we think, and
then something serious happens somewhere else (North Korea, the South China
Sea, Sudan, the Horn of Africa, Mexico, etc.), what do we do then?
It is obviously excruciating to watch a tyrant like Qaddafi defy a popular
uprising, and kill his own countrymen solely for the purpose of defending his
egomaniacal rule. Let us therefore hope that this politico-military equivalent
of a Hail Mary pass will work. Let us also give some credit to Obama's
diplomacy: instead of making this yet another impulsive American crusade, he
has insisted that the United States be part of a genuine, diverse international
coalition. He's not dragging the country to war; he's waited until others have
been positively begging us to do something. If it succeeds, we can all be
pleased. If it goes badly, or proves more difficult than we think, at least the
United States won't be bearing all of the responsibility or all of the costs. That's
something. But we will be bearing some of the burden, and it's by no means
obvious that it will be worth it.
UPDATE: In an encouraging sign, the Qaddafi regime has reacted to the UN resolution by declaring an immediate cease-fire, which suggests that prospect of outside intervention has induced some second thoughts about his campaign to crush the rebellion by force. The offer has been rejected by the Western powers, who are reportedly demaind concrete steps (such as a withdrawal off his forces from Benghazi) and not just words. This diplomatic dance shows just how uncertain and open-ended this whole business could be: Qaddafi may be unable to retake the whole country now, but the rebels may not be able to force him out either in the absence of direct outside involvement (possibly including troops on the ground). And if that happens, we could be back in the business of occupying a Muslim country that is internally divided and has been severely damaged by decades of misrule and economic sanctions. For a good analysis, see FP's Marc Lynch here.
PATRICK BAZ/AFP/Getty Images
What does the U.N.'s decision mean for Libya?
It depends how the UNSC will be implemented. But I believe the West is determined to finish Gadhafi's rule. And the is what the Libyans need now!
Gadhafi has declared a "cease fire" after the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) approved a resolution to cut him down to size. He surely feels that his "pants are on fire" now. Suddenly, his bravado has evaporated, and he has switched on the "survival mode!" That's a 180 degree turn from his boasting message to the rebels in Benghazi on Thursday morning: "We are coming in tomorrow [Friday-today], and if you don't surrender, and hide in the closet, we are going to find you, and show no mercy," on quote! Well, it is Friday today, and Gadhafi ordered his foreign minister to declare a cease fire, and he went into hiding! He knows very well now that the Western powers are nor in a mood to show any mercy for him. He expects to hear the explosions
from bombers destroying his anti-aircraft defenses, and the thuds from the cruise missiles demolishing his possible hideouts! In short, Gadhafi suddenly found himself transformed from a boasting hunter on Thursday, to a dispirited and hunted coward on Friday waving an olive branch! I am sure there won't be any takers for his olive branch! His regime is slated for demolition!
Well, it is time for that murderous crook to meet his fate. He plundered the oil riches of Libya, stashed more than $ 100 billions abroad for himself and his family, his sons bought $ 15 million homes abroad, and one son, Saif , donated $ 2 million to the London School of Economics to pocket an easy Ph.D degree - while his TV interviews during this crisis revealed that his English grammar is just elementary.
Gadhafi took over in a military coup in 1969 with his buddy Ahmad Jaloud, and he behaved for 42 years like an emperor that owned Libya as his personal property. He saw all other Libyan as serfs - not as citizens that deserved a share for their country's oil wealth. And, to add insult-to-injury, he called all those Libyans who revolted against his brutish and rapacious rule "traitors" that deserve no mercy! Gadhafi want to keep Libyan control for his sons Saif and Saadi, and he has made sure over the years
that no one else has risen to prominence during his rule. Even his co-coup conspirator Ahmad Jaloud and second in command for years has vanished, and it is believed that he is either in prison, or in detention to prevent him from overthrowing or succeeding Gadhafi. His whereabouts are unknow - if he is alive. But the vote at the UNSC means that the world sees Gadhafi himself as a thief of Libya's wealth that has kept Libyans impoverished for 42 years, as a cold blooded murderer to save his rule, and as a pariah dictator determined to hold-on and pass control of Libya's governing authority to his children.
But with the UNSC Resolution to dismantle Gadhafi's regime approved, and with superior Western forces amassing on Libyan coast to implement it, Gadhafi and his mischievous children are now looking at the writing in the wall. And I don't have any doubt that what they see is the end of the Gadhafi family psychopathic grandeur as eternal rulers of Libya. I am sure they see their demise in the armada of warships massing off the Libyan coast. And I expect their rule to collapse like a castle in the coastal sand. Amen! Nikos Retsos, retired professor
I think those who abstained from the UNSC vote have most of my sympathy. While I would love to see the Libyan people "liberated" from their violently unpredictable dictator -- after all, I am a Westerner and not entirely immune to Western mythologies -- I have lived too long not to know that Libyans will pay a heavy price for Uncle Sam's rescue. "Humanitarian intervention" does not mean the same thing to Washington as it does to everyone else.
Then there are the inevitable "unintended consequences" -- and those often spin out over a number of years and trigger other "unintended consequences."
But given that Qaddafi promised mass slaughter and seems perfectly capable of delivering . . .
Apparently, "cease fire" doesn't mean the fighting has stopped.
Americans are more emotional and sentimental about these events than the Libyan protestors and that distorts the whole business. Until you put the soppy stuff aside you will never resolve these ‘should we do this, should we do that’ questions. Rather than pity people, better admire their strengths and envy their preparedness to sacrifice themselves for their cause. Instead of footering about with no fly zones, all these well wishers could have put their tactics where their hearts are and done what Sarkozy did. The French don’t even like their President but they are proud of what he did.
The same fight is going on in Bahrain with the regimr supported by Saudi forces whose intervention has surely to be with US assent. There the US already has several thousand troops and need only stage a military parade to end the bloodshed if that is really what they want. But Americans do not feel the same about Bahrainis. The whole thing is dotty.
Having read Mr.Walt's comment this is what I think.Global leadership is the curse on the earth currently.It in fact is an incubator for total oppression and suppression of liberty.For the various communities of the world to think and act in there own best interest is not something the big global bullies accept, in fact they reject that.They take turns in keeping there petri dish cultures in check.I think that the UN acts in a great many things identical to American actions of violence as America acts toward Israels violence we support it.Glodal regime is tyrannical western rlule. There is in The Quran a verse that states " a group of particular people say we only want peace,but habitual spread mischief".How long has America made this claim? And in how many places have we fostered just the opposite of our claim while knowing that in fact was what we where doing?
EU lofty moral positions - from Sarkozy, Cameron, Berlusconi? They are US stooges, one and all. They do what they are told.
All this resolution does is freeze the status quo. Neither the government nor the rebels will be allowed to fight on - after all how do pilots flying at 30,000 ft or whatever distinguish between the two? The Libyan government is held responsible for it people's welfare. Where's the money going to come from? Oil sales - that's all there is. The west gets the oil. Libya is frozen in limbo - just like Korea. The rebels are stuffed.
The Important Subtext is the Presidential Authority to Wage War
A president should never be permitted to unilaterally engage America in selective, offensive military operations without the explicit consent of Congress.
Libya is a good opportunity for the Congress to re-baseline what Article 1 - Section 8 of the Constitution means. And repeal or amend the atrociously ambiguous War Powers Act.
Some Ron Paul Tube videos outline how logically and constitutionally corrupt the War Powers Act is. Here is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUs3F1LFTNg
Both Drs. Paul, as members of Congress must have legal standing to challenge the President on the Libyan operation. Even if they were to lose in court, it is important to get this issue on the table for the American people to consider.
The Imperial Presidency has to end somewhere. Might as well start here.
The terrain of Libya is utterly unlike that of the Balkans in every way that matters. The Balkans are mountains, forests, and broken country well suited to hiding things. Libya is as open as a place can get, with long empty stretches of road along the edge of the desert down which forces and their fuel and ammo must pass in plain sight for long distances.
Past experience suggested this difference was vital before both ventures. Air support had very limited effect in past Balkan conflicts, but it was massively effective in repeated campaigns across Libya in WWII.
Forces actually in contact can mix to confuse things, but that is exactly where a few people on the ground attached to friendlies are best able to clarify things.
We will not be hunting a broken countryside blind looking for hidden and dispersed vehicles. They will either be wide open, or in plain sight of our forward air control.
That part of this article is simply wrong. This can work very well. It is one of the places best suited to it, in all the world of possibilites.
I want to restate my prediction, that the oil/resource poor states are the most vulnerable. On that note we're seeing unrest in Syria, Morocco, and Bahrain--the first two I named. Bahrain stands in an interesting position, being oil poor, but home to the US 5th Fleet. We are fighting to help stability there. Libya is the only resource rich country that is in real tumult. The British and French are leading this adventure--note that (French) Total and (British) BP are the big operators there.
So, my prediction holds fast, the rich countries of Saudi Arabia and Algeria seem to be weathering this wave just fine, the poor are shaky. We're willing to protect our core interests in Bahrain, so one can imagine we will in Jordan too. So, the Libya unrest runs counter to my narrative, I will say it's the exception that proves the rule--and run before anyone questions that dubious defense.
Lessons for International Org Reform
You say the operation should be primarily European because of the greater strategic interest of the EU in Libya. Point taken. However, you are assuming that the world can rely on case-specific constallations of interests to oppose dictators who have turned on their own people. In my essay (http://thewordenreport.blogspot.com/2011/02/corp-political-risk-analysis-and.html), I contend that beyond strategic geo-political and economic interest, international org reform can come out of this case that could improve the world's mechanisms for responding to such cases in the future. In short, we tend to have difficulties moving from the particular case to draw lessons to apply more generally. As a result, we progress in baby steps in terms of political development.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(9)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE