Wolfowitz: Back before you had the chance to miss him
The humanitarian intervention caucus is back. For the first time since George Bush made the phrase “regime change” taboo, voices from both the right and left are again calling for intervention, this time to stop a bloodthirsty madman in Libya. Even Arab expats are joining the fray. The methods are familiar. The left calls for NATO and/or UN authorized no-fly zones and the deployment of peacekeepers, the right wants to arm rebels and recognize provisional governments.
The problem here is that the no-fly zone, while appearing to be a great idea, is unlikely to be terribly effective. For Gaddafi, fighter jets are inefficient at killing civilians on the ground, and pilots are unreliable—it's simply too easy to reroute to Malta. The planes are just instruments for fomenting fear. Tanks are an easy substitute, having worked just fine in 1956 Budapest and 1968 Prague. The no-fly zone is instead a slippery slope to full involvement in a conflict that America doesn’t understand, and doesn’t have will to see to the finish.
To clarify things, behind the acronyms “UN” an “NATO”, everybody means “US”. The only UN body that anyone takes seriously is the Security Council, and neither China nor Russia will support a popular movement against authoritarianism. NATO is more likely to authorize a no-fly zone, but it would require American leadership, planes, bases, and logistical support to in order to take any action.
Arming rebels and recognizing provisional governments is even more dangerous than a no-fly zone. Wasn’t this the failed Rumsfeld blueprint for Afghanistan and Iraq— cut off the head of the regime, fund the rebels, and everything takes care of itself?
The last part of the argument, and the most convincing one, is that the West has a duty to prevent wanton massacres and support the right to freedom of assembly. If not, then what do we stand for? This appeals to the collective security dreamers in Europe, and the “Team America” fantasists in the US. In reality, however, this is no more practical than using US troops to end hunger in Somalia. America has neither the ability nor the will to remake an unjust world.
It would be better if Egypt and Tunisia could tell Gaddafi that time is up, and be ready to use force if needed. These people speak the language, know the terrain, and have a lasting interest in a secure Libya—they are neighbors. I’m afraid, however, that the militaries of Egypt and Tunisia have their hands full at the moment.
So then, what should the West do? Keep denouncing Gaddafi, issue a warrant for him at the International Criminal Court, and enact sanctions. But the only sensible option, unfortunately, is unsatisfying: to wait and hope.
The problem here is that the no-fly zone, while appearing to be a great idea, is unlikely to be terribly effective. For Gaddafi, fighter jets are inefficient at killing civilians on the ground, and pilots are unreliable—it's simply too easy to reroute to Malta. The planes are just instruments for fomenting fear. Tanks are an easy substitute, having worked just fine in 1956 Budapest and 1968 Prague. The no-fly zone is instead a slippery slope to full involvement in a conflict that America doesn’t understand, and doesn’t have will to see to the finish.
To clarify things, behind the acronyms “UN” an “NATO”, everybody means “US”. The only UN body that anyone takes seriously is the Security Council, and neither China nor Russia will support a popular movement against authoritarianism. NATO is more likely to authorize a no-fly zone, but it would require American leadership, planes, bases, and logistical support to in order to take any action.
Arming rebels and recognizing provisional governments is even more dangerous than a no-fly zone. Wasn’t this the failed Rumsfeld blueprint for Afghanistan and Iraq— cut off the head of the regime, fund the rebels, and everything takes care of itself?
The last part of the argument, and the most convincing one, is that the West has a duty to prevent wanton massacres and support the right to freedom of assembly. If not, then what do we stand for? This appeals to the collective security dreamers in Europe, and the “Team America” fantasists in the US. In reality, however, this is no more practical than using US troops to end hunger in Somalia. America has neither the ability nor the will to remake an unjust world.
It would be better if Egypt and Tunisia could tell Gaddafi that time is up, and be ready to use force if needed. These people speak the language, know the terrain, and have a lasting interest in a secure Libya—they are neighbors. I’m afraid, however, that the militaries of Egypt and Tunisia have their hands full at the moment.
So then, what should the West do? Keep denouncing Gaddafi, issue a warrant for him at the International Criminal Court, and enact sanctions. But the only sensible option, unfortunately, is unsatisfying: to wait and hope.
