In Libya is Europe's Job by Donald Snow at the Atlantic Council, the author makes an argument for minimalist US intervention in the Libyan crisis. Some key quotes with my comments follow.
Before I go further I must make a quick disclaimer: I love the Atlantic Council. Granted my love is a shallow one based only on the events which I have attended thus far, but I look at them as the Lexus' of the think tanks. Their events are shiny and well run, with a solid open bar and substantial hors d'ouevres. And selfishly, I love them because they invite me or let me attend their events--if you are a mere LT in DC this means alot. This town is full of egos and it's refreshing when an organization is accessible.
"Why should Europe lead? In mulling the situation from afar, I can think of four very obvious answers, although there may well be more: Europe is closer, it has historic ties to Libya, the beneficiaries of Libyan oil are mostly European, and any refugees who cannot be absorbed by Egypt or Tunisia are going to head for Europe."
His four reasons are good ones, however from a logical standpoint they don't provide criteria that can be used for interventions elsewhere in the world. In other words, if we went with the Snow doctrine, here is when we would intervene:
1. If the country in question is close to us
2. If we have historic ties to that country
3. If we benefit from them economically
4. If they pose an "immigration" threat/crisis
This would mean the United States would pretty much intervene in Mexico, Canada, and Latin America. So while I agree that we shouldn't lead the intervention, I don't whole heartedly agree with his reasons for abstaining from a global perspective.
"Libya’s other top five trading partners are, according to CIA Factbook figures, Germany, France, Spain, and Switzerland; the United States finishes a distant sixth in receiving exports from Libya. The pattern of Libyan imports is similar, headed by Italy and Germany, in that order. The U.S. has no personal economic stake in Libya."
This type of analysis grinds my gut a little. Surely it can't be hard to put in the actual facts and figures here. I certainly could go look them up myself, but if I knew I was writing for 'publication' I would take the time to put the facts and figures in my article. One man's 'distant sixth' is another man's 'top ten countries receiving Libyan exports.' I'd also like to see further analysis of US oil (and other) infrastructure investment.
"Presumably these experiences give Europeans a sense of understanding of Libya that we lack (although ignorance has rarely stopped us from bumbling into situations aboyut which we have no clue, e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan)."
Ignorance has also never stopped us from agreejus spelling and tpying errors. 'About' not 'aboyut'. Do my blog posts contain myriad errors, yes, but it's my blog. If I am writing for 'publication' elsewhere I will hit the spelling/grammar check. My real gripe here is that this jab on Iraq and Afghanistan is a distracting and unnecessary comment.
"How can the United States be the champion of bringing Qadhafi to justice before a tribunal whose jurisdiction we refuse to accept without appearing hopelessly hypocritical?"
This is an important and cogent point! I touched on it myself last week.
"The case for European, not American, leadership in dealing with Libya is, in my judgment, overwhelming. That does not mean that European NATO will step up to the plate and accept that responsibility, simply that they should. If they do not (as they well may not), Libyan blood will be much more on their hands than ours."
Ugh, when I read that last sentence I got an icky feeling in my stomach. Go ahead, read the sentence aloud. Yuck. This is not the way to wrap up this argument, diddling over degrees of culpability/collective residual guilt: 'there will be more blood on their hands than ours.' If we intervene to prevent human rights abuses/mass murder then we should do it as a rule and not when it's convenient or when we have overwhelming military superiority...
The Arab world isn't clamoring for our help by Anne Applebaum (sister of Bonita) is an article I enjoyed reading from a FAO perspective. It is in these types of possible interventions and the planning process for them that experienced FAOs are essential.
Following are some key quotes and my comments.
"Why the Arab anxiety about American and Western help? Why the reluctance among our allies? The answer can be summed up in a single word: Iraq. Far from setting "an example for the entire region," as Krauthammer put it, Iraq serves as a dire warning: Beware, for this could be the fate of your country. When the U.S. Army entered Iraq, we knew nothing about the Iraqi opposition, except what we'd heard from a couple of exiles. Our soldiers didn't speak Arabic and hadn't been told what to do once they got to Baghdad."
Agree. I direct you to Abu's Doctrine (with the FUUO corollary) (to be fair, as he points out, it's not actually his doctrine, but a set of questions one of his colleagues come up with) on this issue. Had we (the international community) taken this measured approach, alot of conflicts could have ended better. In the case of Libya, I must stress the FUUO corollary: What is our exit strategy? What is the end state we seek to achieve? In other words what will be the tripwires that cause our departure? The last thing the US needs to get caught in the middle of is a creation of a new government, constitution (i.e. nation building) in Libya.
"In truth, the time to contact the Libyan opposition was a year ago - or five years ago - back when Tony Blair was shaking hands with Moammar Gaddafi inside desert tents and Western oil companies were going in to do business. But the British didn't. We didn't either. Now we don't even know who they are."
The time to develop contacts was a long time ago; this is a great point. I would only add that we should learn from this gap. In what other countries are there intelligence and relationship shortfalls? Let's start developing those now before a crisis erupts.
"We should enforce sanctions in Libya, offer humanitarian aid and put in place a no-fly zone, to be activated if the rebels really begin to lose."
"But being right, even morally right, isn't everything. It is also important to be competent, to be consistent, and to be knowledgeable. It's important for your soldiers and diplomats to speak the language of the people you want to influence. It's important to understand the ethnic and tribal divisions of the place you hope to assist. Let's not repeat past mistakes: Before sending in the 101st Airborne, we should find out what people on the ground want and need. Because right now, I don't hear them clamoring for us to come. They are afraid of what American "assistance" might do to their country."
My hats off to the author for her final paragraph. FAOs, cut and paste the first three sentences of her paragraph, print them out and put them up in your cubicle! I haven't read wiser words than this in a long time! I will include a post that expounds upon this last paragraph in the context of the DOD FAO community later today or tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment