Intervention In Libya Is A Bad Idea

As of Monday, March 28, 2011

When I first heard of the growing rebellion in Libya, one of the first things I thought was, “Well, this must be a relief to the Obama administration.”

It wasn’t like Egypt, where, despite our support of democracy and freedom, we had to deal with the embarrassing fact that the corrupt and brutal dictator was a longtime ally. In contrast, we’ve never been fond of Moammar Gadhafi. In Libya, we know whom we’re supposed to hate.

Later, however, when I heard that the British and French were advocating a “no-fly zone” over Libya to keep the rebellion from being crushed, I thought, “Fine. Let them impose it.” We are, after all, a mite busy right now, what with trying to wind down one Middle Eastern war and simultaneously trying to get another war zone at least stable enough to hand it back to the people whose country it is.

I felt an increasing sense of dread, however, when I realized that practically every news report about the rebellion in Libya described the rebel forces as “ragtag,” because let’s face it, we Americans sure do love the ragtag.

The word evokes images of Colonials with their hunting rifles facing the British at Lexington and Concord, or Luke Skywalker and his plucky rebel pilots going up against the Death Star in their motley collection of obsolete fighters. Mark well: When the media start describing a force as “ragtag,” we’re going to be in on their side before too much longer.

And soon we were.

Those of you who are always wondering, often rudely, when I’m going to say something critical of Barack Obama, this is the day you’ve been waiting for. Mark it on your calendars, because I think this is a terrible idea.

Granted, Gadhafi, Qaddafi or Gadaffy, or however you spell it, is a brutal nutcase. He oppresses his people. The rebels were about to be savagely crushed. I grant you all of these things. But just like I said back before George Dubbya’s Wacky Iraqi Adventure, the world is full of brutal, oppressive thugs, from nearby Bahrain, to Africa’s Cote D’Ivoire, to North Korea.

Why Libya? Why not any of those other countries?

The only answer seems to be “because in Libya, we can, and at a low risk to us.” Their air force is relatively weak; in fact, British Air Vice Marshal Greg Bagwell was quoted by the BBC on Wednesday as saying it “no longer exists as a fighting force.” Great. No-fly zone accomplished. Can we come home now?

Of course not. That’s not how these things work. Now, with no air power against us, NATO warplanes and missiles are targeting ground forces loyal to Gadhafi. We have become, effectively, the rebel air force. Can you say “mission creep,” boys and girls?

And as for “low risk to us,” seems to me we’ve heard that before. Not just in Iraq, but back in 1999, when we and other members of NATO intervened in Kosovo. That started as an air war, too, a mission to save ethnic Albanians from massacre by Serbs. The goals seemed simple at the time: “Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back,” according to a NATO spokesman. At the time, I confess, I thought this was a great idea.

Time has proved me wrong. In the Balkans, as in the Middle East, nothing is that simple. “Ethnic cleansing” actually increased. NATO planes bombed civilian targets, some accidentally, others deliberately.

In the end, it’s true, Serbian thug Slobodan Milosovic stepped down. But we ended up sending in ground troops as “peacekeepers,” who nearly got into a shooting war with Russian “peacekeepers” over the airport at Pristina. Twelve years later, Kosovo is still a mess and still requires thousands of NATO peacekeepers on the ground.

Seems we never learn. Even so-called “limited” air campaigns invariably end up being a lot messier than we plan for. Add to that the fact that the president committing U.S. forces to a war without any authorization or even consultation with Congress is exactly the kind of exercise of “plenary executive power” that I detested in George Dubbya Bush, and which, lest we forget, was one of the things Barack Obama ran against.

I mean, jeez Louise, even the Bush administration had the decency to lie to Congress about WMDs to get them on board with an ill-considered war.

Airstrikes to aid “ragtag rebels” certainly may seem like the right thing to do. But then, most terrible ideas do.

Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

More like this story

JK 2 years, 2 months ago

Mr. Rhoades, I’m a little concerned right now. Just last night I was having a spirited discussion with one of your Pilot colleagues on the very same topic. I made my case using some of the very same points. Now, after reading your column I find I’m in complete agreement with you! Very, very scary, but you're spot-on with the analysis.

dustyrhoades 2 years, 2 months ago

Actually, James, it's well-documented that Bush knew the WMD intelligence was dodgy, even as he asserted perfect confidence in it, especially to the other people you name. You can't lie to someone, and then say "you said the same thing!" when they believe and repeat what you said. I'd provide cites on this, but you'd just handwave them away as you do all facts that don't support your bootlicking of the Bush Administration.

Other readers who care about the truth should Google the name "Tyler Drumheller."

But it seems we'd all agree that "this leader is a brutal thug and oppresses his people" isn't sufficent justification for military action. Right?

DaveyNC 2 years, 2 months ago

All intelligence is dodgy, Dusty (Dodgy Dusty? Hmmmm....). What wasn't dodgy was that Saddam had used WMD on the Kurds and the Iranians. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_... The Halabja attack killed more people than the 9/11 attack. Truly, the use of a weapon of mass destruction by any definition.

I don't doubt that there was some evidence countering the idea that Saddam had WMDs but I understand that it was not enough to outweigh the evidence in favor of WMDs. In a perfect world, we have perfect proof but Hussein's Iraq was a far from perfect world. Hussein had it in his power the whole time to put an end to the impending invasion and one of the great mysteries will always be why he did not allow inspectors.

Bush waited out 17 UN resolutions and 18 months to go into Iraq. Hussein used that time to hide or destroy his WMDs. All he had to do was show us which. The world is an undeniably better place because we took him out and an argument can be made that doing so has led directly to the Arab Spring we are currently seeing.

dustyrhoades 2 years, 2 months ago

So., Davey, you're behind Obama in this Libyan adventure, I assume. The world will undeniably be a better place if we take Ghadaffi out, no?

DaveyNC 2 years, 2 months ago

That was dodgy, Dusty. I was responding to your out of context attack on Bush lying, not commenting on Barack and Hilary's Excellent Adventure.

But since you asked:

Gaddafi was no threat to the US. If anything, this is Europe's problem. Libyan oil mostly goes to Europe (France in particular) and it is a pretty safe bet that Libyan refugees would make their way to Europe, so let them handle it. The world will be a better place if THEY take Kaddaffy out.

I don't have a problem with providing support functions to our allies, but I think firing off several hundred million dollars' worth of cruise missiles and providing air support is a step too far. Provide intel and materiel and leave it at that.

CC85 2 years, 2 months ago

I think the question is, was it worth over 4,000 american lives? Specifically, diverting the vast majority of our military's resources away from the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, the people who were actually responsible for 911.

Bflat 2 years, 1 month ago

Right..a nutcase leader, and add to that the one in N Korea!

Ross 2 years, 2 months ago

Jimmie - You had better write all your republican leaders and let them know how you feel because most of them espouse even more intervention.

Call old newt - but call him two days in a row - so you can get "both" his opinions :)

dustyrhoades 2 years, 2 months ago

"Call old newt - but call him two days in a row - so you can get "both" his opinions :)"

Heh. Good one. Newt's the only one of the OP frontrunners with fewer actual principles than Romney.

dustyrhoades 2 years, 2 months ago

Ah, Jimmy, but Newt WANTS to be President, so his flip flopping is relevant, however you want to pretend it isn't.

Obama has indeed made his opinion known...that we have to intervene with NATO for humanitarian reasons. . "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy," etc. I don't agree with it, but to say he "hasn't made his opinion known" is more of your trademark dishonesty,

marathonman 2 years, 2 months ago

Actually, we might find the WMD's that were in Iraq and then after 18 months of debating whether to attack or not, disappeared, in Syria after we go into to prevent Assad from killing 'his' people. Wait, there is no oil to be salvaged and so we might not....... The Arab League will likely not ask for help there as they did in Libya since they do not hate Assad as bad as they hate Kaddahfy. About the same logic as is being espoused here by the Bush haters. Given, the middle east is much more comfortable with Obama than with Bush since the lefties operate without real conviction. In the middle east a non decision is a good one for then there is an ability to wiggle down the road and perhaps maintain the status quo. Nepotism is an epidemic and one in which the folks there are getting a bit tired of tolerating. Heres hoping North Korean folks get the same feelings.

Ross 2 years, 2 months ago

too funny........"since the lefties operate without real conviction" - versus simply invading a country with NO justification or facts but "real" conviction.

I wonder how the family of the 4,000 troops that gave their lives for all that "baseless" conviction feel!

dustyrhoades 2 years, 2 months ago

Boy, the wingnuts are particularly incoherent today, aren't they?

mcg2010 2 years, 1 month ago

It confuses them when the one person who they have been rebuking for 3 years suddenly does what they kind of wanted to do. Case in point: Newt.

Ross 2 years, 1 month ago

And making republicans look like idiots is what republicans do best........

Bflat 2 years, 1 month ago

ROTFLOL.

dustyrhoades 2 years, 1 month ago

Just got contacted by a producer for the BBC. They read my Libya column and want me to be one of the commenters on a show called "World Have Your Say" this afternoon.

There'll be no living with me after this.

marathonman 2 years, 1 month ago

You are a newsmaker, DR! Blithering and blustering is what the BBC like. Insulting is not something that they like, so be careful since that is your biggest offensive move.

moonchild7 2 years, 1 month ago

What is President Obama's job title? COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, with the weapons manufacturers and defense contractors right in step with our ARMED FORCES to keep our WAR FRONT always busy. Have you read about ROLLING STONES new article about the military group of "KILL TEAMS" in Afghanistan? Another ABU GHRAIB, but this time in Afghanistan. Not a good idea Dusty? Yes, but looks like it's gonna be that way until the people are in the streets like WE were in the 60's and 70's marching against THAT WAR! We get to pick and choose who AMERICA tries to save now based on what kind of ties they have to OIL! The oil, gas and auto companies have kept us addicted to oil, not that the people are addicted to oil. They have the answers and have had the answers to get us off having to use so much of it but then they become EXPENDIBLE. The LIES and CORRUPTION runs very deep and until our President(no matter who it is)has a total and complete backing of the people to put those corporations in their place, then America will forever be at WAR. Tell the BBC that one, Dusty.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
28	29	30	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1