Anyway - I'm still struck by how many, both conservative and liberal, are determined to involve America in this conflict. For liberals this makes absolutely no sense - Obama is their man for the very reason that he seemed to embody the emasculation of American power that scorn for such martial crusading implies - he was the anti-war candidate who rose to prominence by eloquently opposing the Iraq war because, well, he was just too darn smart and refined and cultured to ever be sucked in to the mindless idiocy of violence - way above such nonsense - he was the anti-Bush, the refulgent pan racial Salesman in Chief of a new, gentler America who would talk to the embittered Muslims [who of course had every right to resent America for being so insufferably great while they malingered in the dirty ante-rooms of history], hell, he'd talk to the whole world so that all could share in the glory of his words and be raised up. Brave new world indeed [if the democrats are Miranda, is the GOP Caliban?] Not that it disappointments me that the stale intellectual poverty of wishful thinking and socialist fancy that underlies much of modern liberalism has been so laid bare by these upheavals - it's just that the hopeless audacity of pretending that such isn't the case is a bit galling [see today Obama announcing that after all the whining by liberals over the evils of Guantanamo Bay and all the high handed railing against it by Obama and promises to wash away this stain and redeem America in the offended eyes of the outraged world - see that today Obama announces military tribunals will resume at Guantanamo - it's as if the very essence of high minded liberalism made manifest in the grandiloquent posturings of Obama has been entirely undone - and yet liberals still parade about the court with well pleased smiles - galling].
Conservative support for American intervention, of which there is plenty, is possibly more understandable or defensible, but also possibly more troubling. I get how conservatives would want to use Obama's dithering, confused, at times incoherent handling of the Mideast crisis as a way of further undercutting his bona fides viz foreign policy - he's basically become the weak and watery presence that Hillary warned he was likely to become during their primary battle [although as I've said before her performance when it comes to foreign policy issues leaves much to be desired as well]. So I get that - except that conservative support seems for the most part real and not simply about politics - and that I don't get.
Just because you supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't mean you get to ignore the uncomfortable lessons learned form those invasion when it suits your purposes - or is it they haven't exactly learned the lessons? Gates certainly has, having stated recently in a West Point speech that only a fool would involve America in a land war in Asia any time soon - which may be to somewhat ill advisedly overstate or over dramatize the lessons learned - still, one gets it: lot of headaches involved with putting troops on the ground in these countries: better make sure it's something you want and more importantly need to do before committing.
Of course a lot of these people seem to making the assumption America can help the cause without involving ground forces - specifically in the form of a 'no fly zone' that impedes Qaddafi's efforts. Putting aside my great problem with the idea of helping the cause - ie what cause and whose is it? Just as with Egypt, there are no clear answers to those questions - putting that aside, there are serious problems with a 'no fly zone' that conservatives, who really should know better, seem determined to ignore. One, many seem to be making the assumption that a NFZ is a rather easy thing to do - it isn't, although there is some disagreement in military circles that Gates is making it sound harder than it actually is. Two, it might not and in fact probably will not work - you're assuming that Qaddafi needs his meager air force in order to successfully engage the rebels - that's not clear at all - the rebels are disorganized, poorly equipped and fraught by tribal divisions and rivalries - it's very far from certain that Qaddafi needs an air force to beat them down. Three, a failed NFZ implies the use of ground forces - what, once the NFZ fails to dissuade Qaddafi the cause is suddenly going to become not worth helping? A NFZ commitment implies a ground force commitment - and that goes even if the NFZ is successful because, four, the country is gonna be a mess post conflict - tribal animosities boiling up into further hostilities, even continued civil war - Islamists flooding into the country - insurgents wreaking havoc - civic infrastructure failing or dysfunctional and unable to supply basic necessities of life - a military presence will be required - it can't be American, but who else is there? And lets add a fifth reason here: if we support this uprising do we then support the Shiite one in Bahrain? 'Cause we definitely don't want that one succeeding.
So I have trouble understanding what conservatives anxious for America to involve itself in this mess are thinking - possibly I can see a rationale for it along these lines: a UN resolution where America's contribution clearly begins and ends with imposition of a NFZ - America's limited involvement has to be clearly spelled out - and if in agreeing to this China's duplicitous and unhelpful agenda is laid bare when it is forced to veto such a resolution - and if with that veto the 'international community' is once again reminded of what it sometimes so dearly wants to ignore ie that America is the only country in the world that can truly be trusted on these matters - then possibly I can see a rationale there - but that's a double edged sword - one, can we possibly rely on the promise of a UN resolution? - two, it's generally not in the interests of America to be legitimizing the UN when it comes to the use of military force.
[well, that was bit rambling and awkward - so let me just try and point form the way I see things:
- widespread unrest in the Mideast, but claims that this unrest is rooted in democratic urges are not supported by evidence, and the distinction is important as regards how America should position itself vis a vis the unrest - initial causes seem to center around youthful discontent over chronic unemployment, this easily morphs into calls for regime change which easily then gets confused with immature notions of democratic change - and then other forces move in to appropriate the 'revolution', as we saw in Egypt where the military wanted to get rid of Mubarak, used the protests for that purpose, but have no real interest in taking change too much further than that and in fact now seemed to have formed or are in the process of forming some sort of alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood for the purposes of establishing yet another autocracy lurking in the shadows of a sham democracy.
- which brings us to Islam - I'm an uber skeptic here, which is why I've found myself mostly agreeing with Israeli conservatives during these weeks of unrest - I do not believe Islam mixes well with democracy and Western values, and think any attempt to imagine it does or can is wishful thinking built upon overly optimistic assumptions and willful myopia - I believe there are compelling reasons why Christianity and Islam seem so different in this regard, not the least of which being Rome and Athens preceding the rise of Christendom - but let's just say that as far as I'm concerned as long Islam is the sieve through which all ideas and activity, both political and social, must pass in order to be considered legitimate, true democracy will never take hold in these countries - the best you can hope for is Turkey, which is increasingly sliding back towards theocracy and away from Western notions of an open society - the worst is Iran or Hezbollah or Hamas - and I believe only great upheaval will ever shake these countries free of the smothering effects of their faith.
- given the above, I tend to believe the US should approach recent events in the region, that the quixotic seem determined to idealize, in a decidedly unromantic way - be cold, calculating, careful, practical, realistic - and brutal when and if necessary - if Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything it should be that. The model that has governed America's actions in these matters for 50 years is changing, if for no other reason than the rise of China significantly alters the balance between costs and benefits going forward - a fact totally ignored by those calling for America to step in is that the US had I think less than a thousand people working in Libya and got less than 1% of its oil for there - China had 30,000 and they weren't there for the warm beaches - begging the question, if America were to jump in to 'save the day', who actually would benefit? America hasn't played world policeman and destroyer of communism for the last 50 years simply out of a spirit of generosity. Strained by two wars, under severe budget pressures at home, the US military cannot afford to be running around willy nilly and involving itself in the world's various messes simply so that China can prosper and Islamists can go hoarse crying 'infidels!'
- and so Libya, the one uprising so far that has turned ugly - and of course when things turn ugly all those want to hold the US in contempt seem not at all embarrassed to call on it to step up and do the right thing. I was amused today to read a scornful article by a US Navy man concerning a bold plan by the Italians to blockade Libya etc etc - all very nice aside from the fact it's completely undoable without the US Navy - wonderfully ambitious plans being floated out there by Italy and France and England - and all entirely dependent on the US taking the lead - in other words, happy to gamble with other peoples money they are. But it's not the insipid foolishness of the wide world nor the disgustingly hypocritical idiocy of the American left that bothers me so much - well, actually, they do bother me quite a bit - but rather the number of American conservatives who seem so willing to involve us in this mess, and with justifications every bit as dubious as those proffered by the limp wristed progressives.
- here's why I think it'd be a mistake for America to move in: a 'no fly zone', every country who doesn't spend billions of dollars a year on its air force favorite plan for doing something, is not nearly as easy to implement as it may look - and worse, it implies the inevitable insertion of ground forces - no matter how many assurances the US military is given that it won't have to take the lead in any ground offensive, it will; Qaddafi might win - from the beginning the biased press has acted as if Qaddafi was doomed - but to those who understood how Libyan tribalism works and how the regular military is constituted - poorly - the idea that Qaddafi might win this has always been very real - therefore, would we be involving ourselves in a protracted civil war? - and who exactly would be our allies in this war? the completely unreliable and way too Islamist tribes of Libya? - and assuming our side wins the war, what then? - this country is completely incapable of governing itself - after Qaddafi is gone rival tribes might take up arms against each other, whose side will we be on then? - and let's not forget, Libya is bordered by Sudan - think of all the Al Qaeda loving crap that can flow across the border to stir Chaos' pot; but, hell, let's go ahead and assume the very unlikely best case scenario actually manages to happen - how are we helped by this? The democratic cause will only be served if some outside force takes control of the country - that can't be America - so who? - there is no one - therefore the country slips back into some for of dictatorship run by whatever tribe comes out on top - China moves back in - Islamists right behind them - if the Shia of Bahrain rise up in bloody revolt everyone will we be expected to help them as well even though that would serve only the nefarious designs of Iran?
- I can envision one scenario where I might support American involvement - any military action would require a UN resolution - China would be forced to veto that resolution - thus we could put China in a very awkward position, both in the Mideast and at home - long term, that may be a smart move - I'm not smart enough to think through all the consequences of such a move and therefore make a decision how smart it would or wouldn't be - but I'm willing to listen to an idea like that.
- on the surface I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with America taking a strong supporting role backing whatever brilliant ideas the European powers or the UN or the Arabs or the Africans might want to push forward - but of course the chance of thereby America getting sucked into a sinkhole is real because let's be honest none of these other powers is really capable of doing anything here absent active American participation.
- some may be tempted to suggest that failure to act in Libya amounts to America retreating from its super power status - but that would be hyperbole [although a cynic might suggest much that Obama has done in his presidency is predicated on that very desire and not be far from the truth - but personally I think Gates and Petraeus are calling the shots here - my guess is Obama is smart enough to know he fucked up in Egypt and has ceded de facto authority on Libya to Gates] - I would characterize inaction on Libya rather as an acknowledgement that economic pressures, the rise of China, the decline of Europe and the unavoidable fact that Islam will remain a largely intractable problem for years to come is forcing America to rethink the strategic framework within which it must operate]
