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.