As Obama talks Libya, neocons move on to Syria
REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly
Rebel fighters flee on trucks under fire after they were ambushed by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi some 75 miles east of Sirte on Monday.
Josh Muravchik, a charter member of the neocon movement of foreign policy hawks who prominently advocated for the war in Iraq, favors the U.S. military action in Libya, except he would have liked it sooner and more of it. Like many of the neocons, Muravchik is also drumbeating for the overthrow of the Assad government in Syria.
And, as he columnized in the Daily Beast, he fears that President Obama’s “obsession” with multilateralism in the run-up to the Libyan operation has created a “trap” that will make it harder for the United States to overthrow Assad. Wrote Muravchik:
“Seemingly obsessed with negating his predecessor’s unilateralism, Obama has made our humanitarian intervention in Libya the all-time model of multilateralism. First, we waited for the Arab League to invite us to take action. Then we got the U.N. Security Council to authorize that action. And then we insisted that the air war of still-murky goals and parameters be undertaken and commanded by NATO, not by ourselves.
"This is a triumph of diplomacy. And a trap.”
The trap, according to Muravchik, is this: Gaddafi is a nut with no friends, so no one tried very hard to block Obama from getting all the permission slips signed. But having set the bar high for multilateral support, the U.S. will never get U.N., Arab League and NATO support when it comes to Syria.
I found the argument alarming and breathtaking (not in a good way). I hope the Gaddafi era ends — soon and with a minimum of bloodshed. And I would be happy to see Syria democratize. But this neocon enthusiasm for U.S. interventionism gives me the willies. Someone will always be the worst dictator in the world and the neocons will always want the United States to overthrow him (unless he is the king of Saudi Arabia or certain other exceptions).
Big picture
Being the superpower in a one-superpower world doesn’t mean the United States should overthrow the bad-guy-of-the-month. And, in the really big picture, the U.S. needs to worry about giving the impression that we claim the right (because we have the power) to decide who is fit and not fit to rule everywhere in the world and to enforce those decisions with our almost unimaginable military superiority.
In the long run, that kind of attitude is a breeding ground for anti-Americanism around the world. The rest of the world will resent our arrogance and doubt our altruism — and with good reason.
Josh Muravchik
From past Strib days’ conversations with Muravchik, I remembered him as open-minded and intellectually honest and I still had his home number, so I called him over the weekend and asked whether he believes the United States has the right to blunder about the world, overthrowing regimes according to our preferences.
He assured me he does not think that. And that he thinks the United States should act multilaterally to the degree possible.
Those last four words are the rub and have been for a long while. The United States is happy to have allies and international legal authority when it takes these actions, but it is generally unwilling to submit its freedom to start wars or overthrow governments to the necessity of such legal authority.
Even Obama, who (here I agree with Muravchik) seems to attach more weight to international law and legitimacy than most presidents, has never, so far as I know, crossed the line. But — exactly the opposite of Muravchik here — I’m encouraged by the weight Obama attaches to multilateralism and respect for the world opinion.
'Obama Doctrine'
As Obama addresses us tonight on the Libya situation, I expect he will make much of the multilateral nature of the mission and the international legal authority it gains by the adoption of the U.N. resolution.
Almost every recent president has been assigned a “doctrine” to describe when the United States might use force. Wikipedia lists a bunch of them here. When you read them back to back they start looking pretty silly and transient. And it’s impressive how big a role oil and the Mideast plays in the overall doctrinal sweep.
Colin Powell was never president, but the war-fighting doctrine that is named for him after the Kuwait War seems to be the most-cited of all the recent doctrines. Its list of eight requirements for committing the U.S. military are here, starting with the requirement that a “vital national security interest (VNSI) of the United States” is at risk.
Journalists have had a lot of fun grilling administration officials about the VNSI in Libya. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been admirably blunt that there is no VNSI of the United States in Libya, but then he fuzzes a bit. Here’s how he did it yesterday on "Meet the Press":
Meet the Press Moderator David Gregory: Secretary Gates, is Libya in our vital interest as a country?
Defense Secretary Gates: No. I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States, but we clearly have interests there, and it's a part of the region which is a vital interest for the United States.
Obama will address the nation tonight on Libya. He has a lot of balls to juggle and I can almost guarantee that what he says will displease the necons. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the media, at least, tries to derive the first draft of the Obama Doctrine from what he says.
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
27 comments
-
27 comments
-
26 comments
-
24 comments
Comments (16)
There is no doubt that Syria under the Assads has been one of the world's most repressive regimes for decades. A change in government would certainly be welcome, if only for the sake of the Syrian people.
Nevertheless, should we take the advice of the neocon element and enter into yet another nation-building misadventure, waste more precious blood, spend more treasure we do not have, and allow our stature to sink even lower in the world than it already is? The Bush Doctrine has been soundly repudiated - those of the neocon persuasion need to get a clue!
The neocon argument comes down to 'we must spread democracy, using military means if needed'. Isn't that exactly what we're doing right now? The only difference between our current actions in Libya is that those in charge would be embarrassed by the neocon label. The bombs are just as real.
And isn't there an enormous danger in giving the Arab League a veto on our actions? Especially since they've proven to waffle so quickly once action is taken? The same is true of UN, but at least it's a marginally more responsible organization. And while we're throwing around terms like 'unilateral', let's note that the current coalition is much smaller than the ones that started either Iraq war, and so far much less stable.
New rule: Get out of at least one war before starting yet another.
Veteran diplomat and peace negotiator Cyrus Vance was asked what it took to get opposing sides to settle a conflict. He said they must come to understand that war is inherently immoral, and ultimately not in any country's self-interest.
I don't believe I'm an isolationist, but I can’t help but ask the most obvious rhetorical question: Where does it all end?
Our deficit is in the trillions of dollars, corporate profit-taking running roughshod over the necessity of having a functioning economy (i.e., jobs), with some of the same neocons (nationally and locally) repeating “free-market” bullfeathers that demonstrably doesn’t work, and has never worked. What are the chances, when all is said and done, and assuming the United States survives ethical and financial bankruptcy, that we’ll have any genuine friends among the peoples of the Middle East? How forgiving would you be if Americans destroyed your house and killed some members of your family in the name of “democracy,” an abstract principle that you haven’t asked for, and don’t really understand?
We’re bankrupting ourselves fighting two wars, so adding a third strikes me as the act of a lunatic.
Sure, Kadhafi – whatever the approved spelling of his name might be – is a nasty guy. So is the guy in North Korea. So are a lot of thugs in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Can we afford, and more importantly, is it truly in our national interest, to embark on a Quixotic quest to rid the world of nasty rulers? Maybe it’s time to go back and read William Fulbright’s “The Arrogance of Power” again.
Personally, I’d like to reinstate an old, old rule. You start a war, you have to be leading the charge, in person. No sending the neighbors’ kids to die for your gasoline, or food, or aluminum beer can. If Mr. Muravchik isn’t willing to put his own life on the line, then I’m going to be skeptical about the degree to which the course of action he’s advocating represents a genuine “vital national interest.”
Eric,
I am sorry to read of your tacit endorsement of our President’s war in Libya.
You seem to be more concerned about “multilateralism” and “world opinion” than authorization from the U.S. Congress.
Muravchik is a person that believes the protection and promotion of Israel should be the centerpoint of American policy, up to and including the bombing of Iran.
I feel it is more helpful to think of Libya in the context of Bosnia than it is to think of it in the context of Iraq. I am for intervening when a dictator is preparing to kill innocents on an industrial scale.
Gates is right that this intervention has little to do with the vital interests of the US. I am of the mind that we have a duty, regardless of current deficits, wars, etc. to do what we can when innocent people are to be slaughtered.
There was nobody inviting us into Iraq, the Chalabis of the world excepted. In Libya, there are impassioned pleas from thousands asking for protection from a dictator that has demonstrated he will stop at nothing to hang on to power.
It is possible to overlearn the lessons of Iraq.
Here is a link that I found insightful.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0223_libya_hamid.aspx
Eric--
The beginning of the second sentence of your last paragraph made interesting reading ;-)
"I am for intervening when a dictator is preparing to kill innocents on an industrial scale."
Always and in every situation, not just when there is oil? I also noticed the loaded words "dictator", "innocents" and "industrial".
In Libya the US is taking sides and providing air support in a civil war. I tend to think we should have a discussion and even a vote before deciding to commit to such endeavors. I also believe that if we are going to make such a commitment we are implicitly jumping into nation building and all that comes with it once again.
Add up the $$ spent on wars and military aid in that region, it explains a large portion of our deficit. What did we get for that money and at what opportunity cost?
Wow. Eighteen paragraphs about the neocon view of the Libyan situation and nine comments and only one person even mentions Israel, which is what PNAC is all about. Which means that most of you don't know what you're talking about.
"Always and in every situation, not just when there is oil?"
I'm sure I could think of a hypothetical in which I wouldn't intervene, but I am certain that the presence of oil has nothing to do with my feelings on this matter. Perpetrating acts of war on a civilian population requires intervention. Debating the method of intervention is needed, but I can't imagine a scenario in which the US would be morally justified to sit this one out because we are too busy or poor.
In the opinion of people like Muravchik, I think the presence of "vital interests" is a key factor in this equation.
I think this is the fundamental distinction that may be missed by opponents of our actions in Libya. Just because I, or the administration, agree with people like Muravchik on this issue, it doesn't make them hawks or neocons. I see a situation where it would be wrong to not do anything.
I also noticed the loaded words "dictator", "innocents" and "industrial"."
I am not sure what words better describe Ghaddafi, the civilians that happen to live in the neighborhoods he is attacking, or the scale in which he is attacking them.
Pray, please enlighten those of us in the unenlightend masses with your nuanced foreign policy views, Mr. Tester. For one, what's PNAC?
Dennis T (#10). Israel is not THE issue in most of the current citizen movements in the Middle East. Oil, however, is still definitely a big part of everything in the Middle East, as is Israel in almost everything.
The US is currently urging Israel to allow oil companies (IBI, Iramco, IOC Israel, and probably one that Dick Cheney is part of) to use the same kind of WATER-INTENSIVE methods now destroying a huge part of Alberta, Canada's forests and a major river the indigenous tribes of that area rely on for fishing and drinking. Google "Alberta Tar Sands" for pictures.
The areas in Israel to be "oiled" are the valley where David fought Goliath and perhaps the Negev Desert. If Israel bows to US pressure, the next war in the Middle East could be Israel again assaulting Lebanon in an attempt to steal its Litani River for itself. Wonder what US policy would be then.
Dennis:
Assuming that PNAC refers to the Project for a New American Century (a neocon operation which went out of business in 2006), WTF does that have to do with this post?
"Neocon" is code for Jewish conservatives whose primary concern is the preservation of the state of Israel and using American force and other assets if necessary to defend her from those arab states that want to push her into the sea.
That said, Muravchik is naive if not stupid, to think that helping the "rebels" overthrow Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, etc. will help his cause. All that will happen is the the Muslim Brotherhood, aided by Al Qaeda will fill the power vacuum and there will be nothing anyone will be able to do when they array their forces against Israel.
The fact that we don't know, or the press isn't telling us, who these heavily armed "rebels" are and where they got their weaponry should be a red flag for everyone.
Paul (#14): PNAP dropped its web site, but not its mission to cleanse the world of whatever and whoever "hates our freedoms." Its successor, with William Kristol, Robert Kagan and other original PNAP members, is called the Foreign Policy Initiative (www.foreignpolicyinitiative.org).
Its European branch-off is called the Committee for a Strong Europe. I'd guess Sarkozy is a member, but don't know for sure.
An "independent and nonpartisan" view that stresses development and diplomacy over military action --but which includes military members -- is provided by the Center for a New American Security (www.cnas.org).