Juan Cole’s “Open Letter To The Left On Libya”
University of Michigan professor Juan Cole writes a blog called Informed Comment. He is an expert on the Middle East. He has lived in the Middle East and speaks Arabic. Cole is a fierce critic of Bush and his Iraq adventure but supports the intervention in Libya. On his blog, he has written “An Open Letter to the Left on Libya” hoping to generation conversation about split in the progressive movement regarding Libya. The whole post is worth reading but there are some excerpts below.
The intervention in Libya was done in a legal way. It was provoked by a vote of the Arab League, including the newly liberated Egyptian and Tunisian governments. It was urged by a United Nations Security Council resolution, the gold standard for military intervention. (Contrary to what some alleged, the abstentions of Russia and China do not deprive the resolution of legitimacy or the force of law; only a veto could have done that. You can be arrested today on a law passed in the US Congress on which some members abstained from voting.)
Among reasons given by critics for rejecting the intervention are:
1. Absolute pacifism (the use of force is always wrong)
2. Absolute anti-imperialism (all interventions in world affairs by outsiders are wrong).
3. Anti-military pragmatism: a belief that no social problems can ever usefully be resolved by use of military force.
I’ll have to admit to very mixed feelings on the intervention. Doing nothing seemed wrong, but doing something also seemed wrong. If I have to be in a category above, I’d put myself in the anti-imperialist camp though I would never call myself absolute on any subject. Right now, it’s looking like the intervention was successful. It stopped Gaddafi’s momentum and rebels have taken back territory and are advancing.
Cole takes on the anti-intervention arguments one by one. You’ll have to judge for yourself whether they are persuasive or not. This is his argument about hypocrisy (why Libya and not other countries):
Many are crying hypocrisy, citing other places an intervention could be staged or worrying that Libya sets a precedent. I don’t find those arguments persuasive. Military intervention is always selective, depending on a constellation of political will, military ability, international legitimacy and practical constraints. The humanitarian situation in Libya was fairly unique. You had a set of tank brigades willing to attack dissidents, and responsible for thousands of casualties and with the prospect of more thousands to come, where aerial intervention by the world community could make a quick and effective difference.
Armed humanitarian intervention (of which this is a very armed example) is a serious matter that ought never be decided upon hastily, even when the particulars of the event seem to merit it. The Libyan example is a worthwhile instance that has been legally authorized, but it does set a precedent that will allow a less savory regime to use the language of armed humanitarian intervention as a cover a more nefarious policy of naked aggression. This is not to say that we should not be undertaking this Libyan mission, but it does mean that we need to be vigilant against those who would trump up an “armed humanitarian intervention” in order to justify their actions. Sovereignty and the norm of territorial integrity may well be legal fictions, but they do offer a level of protection to less powerful societies.
I kind of see this as the first time obama jut did something. bypassed the fustercluck that is congress (made up of spineless democrats and republicans who care not for the well being of the country, but only for the destruction of obama) and just led.
think about it. since he took office, everything has been the complete opposite of GWB. He has let way too much discussion take place (once it moves from actual debate to calling each other nazis, the legitimate discussion is over). He’s waited to hear whatever extremist Right wing ideas the republicans have…. that they refuse to compromise on. The result has been slow progress, watered down reform and seemingly failed policies… although dont tell anyone, but they are starting to work.
My pro-obama side is happy that he has changed tactics, but the side of me who was genuinely afraid of the Bush administration is ancy over the fact that a president just went out and did something without consulting his co-equal branch of government. Yes, i accept now that the action was legal, which makes things a little better. I cant wait to hear what the president has to say tonight.
Cole’s analysis of the the types of citics is overgeneralized and misses some subtlety in some critics’ positions. One doesn’t have to be a pacifist, an absolute noninterventionist or an anti-military pragmatist in order to think the USA should not have enter into the conflict. Arguably, someone should have but not the USA. With waging two wars already in the region and its undeniable hegemonistic tradition, the USA can ill afford the long term reputation it will gain (reinforce) from its involvement, particularly in that region.
How is Obama different from Bush on foreign policy? He said, he would end Iraq…50,000 troops still there and killing continues. Afganistan: escalated it even though he knew he had no real partner in Karzai. He had no authority whatsover to attack Libya with no fly zones or for anyother reason. “There will be no ground troops we are going to protect the brave Libyan rebels”! This is another war against another muslim country. “As I pledged we are not putting any ground forces into Libya transferring this to allies and Nato”! Really. Truth is, we have american boots in the air…we have boots on the ground they are the special forces! We have seen this script before, its been clear all along. All countries except Libya are “uprising”, Libya is an insurgency. Obama delivered weapons to Khadafy this year! The UN vioated their own resolution, it was and is an act of war! This is about regime change. No matter what Obama and his foreign policy people say, “the noose is tightening around Khadfay”. This is precisely what Bush said about Saddam. Obama says nothing that has not been vetted by his handlers…Noose is another word for kill him. Its a bold faced lie. Obama has lied from day one, he violated every single major pledge he made as a candidate…not the little ones but the big ones. He is now rogue and a war criminal representing power and privelege. He does nothing for humanitarian reason, we do everything for imperial reasons. The world knows very well, “you cant do business with America, cuz tomorrow they will wage war against you”. Special forces and CIA are there right now. The French and Brits (daily mail) “we have officially confirmed by the UK govt that 350 British commandos are in the country working with the rebels! There are 450 marines off shore waiting to go in. How will they fanagle this..”Khadafy is murdering innocent civilisan? Kill them to protect them is what we are doing. B52 stealth bombers loaded with missles? Just like they liberated Koreans, VietNam, Iraq and Afganistan…we are going to liberate the Libyans. What absolute hogwash. Better get some AlJazera if you want the truth.
The problem, of course, is that Obama did not follow the US Constitution before entering into this elective war for oil. As such, impeachment and removal is the appropriate course of action — and should be supported by both parties.
Especially since the coalition is made up of seven of the eight top consumers of Libyan oil — and the eighth (China) holds a large part of the debt of the other seven and would be adversely impacted if that oil supply was disrupted.
Can we hear folks say “No Blood For Oil”?
Please cite, Joe, wherein the blessed Constitution that the President doesn’t have that power. Mind you, I’m thinking of cut&run Raygun in the Grenadas and more recently the good Bush pushing Saddam from Kuwait. Now, you want to mouth off about what?