Libyan Intervention?

***Update*** Fareed Zakaria wrote an interesting piece in TIME that speaks to the reasoning behind Obama's strategy.

I've also included a "Clarification" post on the subject to set things straight.  

 

Since the implementation of the International Coalition's (European nations, the United States and now several Arab nations) no-fly zone as a result of UN Resolution 1970 there has been the fierce debate of whether the actions are justified. I've talked to different friends and family, as well as readers as far out as California, Lebanon and even Egypt to get their opinions on the issue; the debate is far from partisan with support and opposition coming from many different political followings in the spectrum and sometimes, seemingly, from them all. Even John Stewart spent his most recent show overwhelming attacking the intervention (for the first 3/4th of it).

I've met Arabs who have come out in support of the no-fly zone, and others against it. I've decided to contribute with a post to this extremely important debate about my own opinion and reasoning. Please feel free to reasonably disagree in the comments below.

Before going forward, I would like to make an important assumption: That  those who partake in this debate  want Libyans, Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, and Iranians (etc) to live in free societies and have the freedoms we all value. The ultimate goal is freedom for the people, and any arguments against that are irrelevant because we have fundamental philosophical disagreements.

_________________________________________________________________

Ever since the uprisings began in Tunisia, 2011 has been an extraordinary year. More people have found their voices in such a short period of time (a few months) than I've seen in my short years of consciousness. It has reminded and humbled me in appreciating the free society I live in and the luxuries I have to assemble, speak and more.

With this appreciation of my freedoms I openly supported UN Resolution 1970 and even nicknamed it "Sweet Justice" in a previous blogpost. The debate that has begun has only reaffirmed my support of the initiative led by an international coalition. I do not base my opinion on fear of being named a "flip-flopper" (what people in the U.S. call politicians that use their reasoning)  nor on some kind of Western arrogance or pride in "America the Great." My support for the initiative stands strong because of my conviction that what the coalition is doing is the best thing we can do to help the Libyans.

Allow me to point out some important facts that seem to be lost in the discussion, followed by my affirmative reasoning for my support (I've been writing this for a while and have a 1001 thoughts going on, so forgive me if I miss any good points on either side).

My Case:

"Inconsistency:"

The changes in the region are historical in scope but also in speed. With such fast changes, the world seems to assume that nations like the United States have predetermined outlines of what actions to take given these once in a lifetime events.

This assumption has led many people to attack the President's administration on "inconsistency." The argument is made by all sides (inside and outside the U.S.) yet doesn't recognize the historical and real-world situation. The point still remains that there is no plan that any President could have prepared for such a situation. If the issue is of "inconsistency" then it must surely be true that the only consistency that U.S. foreign policy has ever had, has been its persistent support of these dictators. This "wobbling" policy is not weakness or a sign of no leadership, it is a sign that the government is changing it's position.

On, Jan 25th, the Obama administration met to discuss the developments in Egypt. According to the LA Times article. During the meeting, Obama recognized that a change in policy was needed to have human rights and freedom as a more central goal. I talked about the change in policy in a previous post titled "U.S. Changes Foreign Policy." With the change in policy, it is no wonder that there have been mixed messages as well "inconsistencies" in front of probably the most important time in the Arab World's history. There is no doubt that Obama is walking a fine-line with Qaddafi, but it is to act reasonably, not emotionally as they establish a better policy for the region.

History by who's side?:

With accusations of inconsistency, others have pointed out to historical evidence that international interventions have not worked in the past. Look at Bosnia, Somalia, and (what opponents call) a never ending list of failed intervention. I do concede that there is an interesting list of international interventions that haven't lived up to people's expectations, however, we must also remember times when the international community didn't  intervene, most infamously: Rwanda. What was the response? Complete and utter outrage (and rightfully so). The United States is in a lose-lose situation with opponents of military intervention. No intervention means the death of thousands (in Libya's case) and millions in Rwanda. Intervention breeds accusations of imperialism and "oil hunting."  With no options that will appease their opponents, what should we do? Not intervene at a time when President Clinton said it was the largest mistake in his career? Or jump in and try to help out where we can? I choose the latter.

"Other Options":

The history debate is surely an interesting one, and is usually followed when opponents say that the United States could have used it's other means first before considering military action. Oh how short our memories are! We forget that days before France and England began their push in the U.N. for a resolution, Qaddafi declared all out war on "drugged up protesters." We forget that he was gaining ground using his army that had supreme weapons over the rebels (with minimal help from the air-force). We forget that the SAME people opposing a no fly zone were the loudest protesters complaining to the international community of Qaddafi using his air-power to bomb the uprising. We forget that just a day before the U.N. Resolution 1970 was passed, Quaddafi's army was moving swiftly to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold, and would have destroyed the uprising in its place. We forget how "taking our time" would have led to accusations of "acting too late!!!" We forget how military intervention WAS the last option given the time constraints.

We even forget how the same "other option" proponents were outraged when the United States didn't publicly respond to what was going on in Egypt (as it quietly was pressuring Mubarak to make changes, and eventually go using their diplomacy). Hypocrisy is all I see, as well as a severe case of Alzheimer.  Oh how we forget!

Fiscal Responsibility:

Opponents has even gone so desperate as to make the fiscal responsibility argument: We can not afford to fight.  I call the argument desperate because it seeks to play on the outrage of overspending governments, especially in the United States and Europe, but moreso because the argument lacks good intent. If you are worried about fiscal responsibility (in the U.S.), everyone knows that what needs to be addressed are major programs like Social Security and Medicare. Yes, military spending should also be looked at (and cut in certain places in my opinion) however, the costs are expected to total a mere billion dollars. I use the word "mere" because a President Obama was scrutinized earlier on in the U.S. for making small "billion dollar changes" that didn't truly address larger fiscal issues in his 2011 budget proposal.

It is also desperate because of what it means. What if the United State decided not to get involved because of this argument? What would we have told the world? "Sorry, we didn't want to chip in?" or "Although priceless, human rights could not be paid for today."  I certainly don't want to imply that we should be spending non-stop in military funding and further increasing our national debt. What I'm saying is opposition to an operation that will take a little over a billion (or even 2) is not a viable argument. Where we can, I think the United States and others, should fund and support the establishment of free societies. With U.S. involvement significant, but poised to decrease over time, funding shouldn't be an issue soon enough.  The same applies here and fiscal responsibility can no longer stand as a strong argument (if it ever was).

Constitutionality of Actions:

A new argument has arisen against U.S. intervention in Libya: Obama's decision to get involved was unconstitutional and is a power that isn't delegated to the President.  I certainly don't know enough about the discussion to tell whether it is or isn't, however, I can predict that it will center around words like "war" and what they entail. Furthermore, the discussion may become less extreme and simply concentrate on discussing transparency to Congress by the President on such a major decision. However, as seen on the John Stewart show, a Constitutional scholar once said:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"

 The scholar was Barack Obama as an Illinois Senator in the early 2000s. 

Regardless of where this smaller debate goes, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. His actions may have been constitutional or not but it is irrelevant to the larger debate of intervention in Libya and other places. The legality doesn't dictate the ethics of the decision, which is what we are discussing. One of the first things I learned in my legal classes is that just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical and vice verca.

The rest of the arguments I've heard:

There have also been (reasonable) outrage concerning the United States' long held double standard. Support for some dictators, opposition against others based on who the U.S. deems should stay in power. This outrage is certainly reasonable and although I don't believe that the Obama administration is going to switch decades of consistent policy within the next few months, I do see his change in policy to be a positive one. I'll speak about what I'd like to see in a bit.

Opponents have also argued, that if you support military intervention in Libya then you must support it in the horrible crackdown in Bahrain, Algeria, Yemen and more. Conversely, if you support no intervention, then no military intervention should ever be on the table (such as U.S. rhetoric against Iran). I think this is a very 1 dimensional approach and one that is a bit illogical. To say a copy paste approach should direct foreign policy is not considering the extreme differences in circumstances. Different countries have different relations with different powers, so where possible, the U.S. should take advantage of close diplomatic ties, and where not, consider military action.

This debate is extremely important because it discusses what exactly U.S. foreign policy should be based on. My arguments supporting intervention in Libya is usually followed by the argument that the U.S. shouldn't have its policy to spread democracy around the world. While I strongly disagree with the statement, I will say that no nation should be in the business of fomenting or forcing regime change or democracy down anyone's throats. Support for locally inspired uprisings is what is necessary.

My Vision:

This is what I'd like to see out of a revamped U.S. policy for the region:

1. Keeping military intervention as a last option (as I believe it was at a critical point in the Libyan conflict).

2. A centralization of human rights and improving living conditions (and freedoms) for all people in the region.

3. Where possible, nations should use their diplomatic efforts as well as possible sanctions to pressure governments to change (as they did with Mubarak, and applied to Qaddafi).

I support a U.S. goal to spread democracy and improve living conditions wherever possible for several reasons (Joe Klein makes his case for U.S. aid for Egypt- post revolution). First, poor living conditions help create a pool of recruitment for terrorist organization. Second, political reformation allows for other much more peaceful channels to alleviate political, social and economic frustrations. Such a policy is similar to basketball promotion in dangerous U.S. cities. Give them the alternative and they will stop selling drugs, shooting each other, etc. Third, the support of democracies at early stages places the United States in good faith with the newly elected governments. Fourth, America's image will improve around the world as well as our influence.

Fifth, the chances of a nation electing "Islamic radicals" may vary from nation to nation, however, with a democratic system in place, we can be assured that at some point (especially with fresh pro-democracy protests), no one will stay in power for too long. As Professor Fouad Ajami said concerning Libya:

These people have known hell for four decades. We should not worry about the vacuum that he would leave behind."

"We should not worry about the so-called jihadists will somehow fill the vacuum. All these are really boogeymen in a way. We should focus on what this man has been, on the terror he has been, on the crimes he has committed, on the Lockerbie -- on the attacks on civilian airliners, on all of this, his whole track record. That's what's in front of us."

Finally, democratic nations tend to go to war far less (because declaring it is much more difficult) and tend to have far less trouble with accepting terrorist organizations on their grounds. We are stuck with the only conclusion (and one I've been advocating for some time now) that it is in the United States' and the world' interest to promote democracy, freedom, and economic opportunity wherever and whenever possible. At no other point have I seen these two interests come together so well; we must take advantage of it. I want to see a foreign policy where books and jobs are used to fight the guns and bombs of terrorists.


Perhaps the strongest argument I have in support of intervention in Libya are the sound, pictures, and videos of celebration by Libyan rebels in and around Benghazi that rejoiced at the last minute vote and airstrikes that saved them; the Libyan protesters calling for international intervention; the jubilation and confidence born in the bloggers, fighters and protesters. These are the real world truths of the power of the coalitions' intervention. Study them well.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!