The case for limited intervention against Qaddafi
By D.J. McGuire | Thursday, March 17th, 2011 | International, Policy
I have been quiet on events transpiring in Libya, in no small part because I myself was undecided on the subject.
Contrary to most on today’s right, I am not averse to military intervention abroad. In fact, I think the role of a robust foreign policy in keeping domestic government small is highly underappreciated. Like most on the right, I hold no illusions regarding Mummuar Qaddafi (when I first heard of him, in the 1980s, it was spelled with a Q).
What held me back was a concern best stated by National Review‘s Victor Davis Hanson regarding the anti-Qaddafi forces:
We have no idea who exactly the Libyan protesters are or what they represent.
That sums up my worries quite well; there was also the fact that Qaddafi, for his virulent anti-American history, appeared chastened by the liberation of Iraq.
After some more thought, however, I came to the realization that America’s interests require that we provide some aid to the opposition. Here’s why:
- Qaddafi will certainly consider us his enemies again, thanks to President Obama’s demands that he step down. That Obama seems unwilling to do anything to back up his words will be seen as weakness, not the “real” policy (to quote a formerly iconic politician, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter”). As such, preventing Qaddafi’s triumph is critical.
- Even in the worst-case scenario (Qaddafi’s opponents are as anti-American as he is), it’s better to have them fighting each other than us. One of George W. Bush’s statements in his 9/20/01 speech to the nation on what he would do to terrorists is key here: “We will set them against one another.” History has shown the value in this. An argument between Beijing and Moscow in the 1960 led to the most dramatic Cold War switch a decade later. Saddam Hussein’s ambitions were greatly restrained while he fought Iran (the mullahs in Tehran have always been active in mischief, but far less so during their eight-year war with Saddam).
- Finally, there’s no reason the worst-case scenario must stay that way, and again, recent history pointes the way. In the early 1980s, the Communist regime in Ethiopia fell into disarray and civil war. At first, backing Communist rebels over a Communist regime seemed not worth the trouble, but we did it anyway, and by the time the rebels were in a position to topple the government, said rebels had left Marxism and anti-Americanism behind. Today, Ethiopia is our best ally in East Africa this side of tiny Djibuoti.
These reasons are why I have come down in favor of intervention. However, it must be the right kind of intervention, one that will minimize loss of bload and treasure while maximizing impact within my concerns (i.e., it needs to keep the opposition strong enough to hold Qaddafi in check, at least until we have a better idea of who they are).
That leads to one optimal solution: military aid, without military deployment.
I know a “no-fly zone” is all the rage, but those of us who remember the Afghan mujahedin of the 1980s know that Stinger missiles accomplished the same purpose without losing American planes or pilots. I suspect a 2010 equivalent of the Stinger will do just fine.
There are already plenty of Libyans willing to fight Qaddafi. At present, enabling them to keep up the fight is the most we need to do – i.e., the most that our interests compel us to do.
That is, however, something, making it different from the empty words flowing from the White House.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
6 Responses to "The case for limited intervention against Qaddafi"
I figured it was only a matter of time until the neocon war drums started beating again…
I’m coming around to agreeing with you on this. But I’d go with the “no fly zone” or a variation of it where we take the majority of Libyan air force out with a surgical strike while they are on the ground. I don’t think we need to put an boots on the ground there. Taking out his air superiority should be enought to insure that Qaddafi’s ousted. Apparently even the Arab League is supportive of this.
I think Qaddafi because of his overt terrorism against Americans should be put in a separate category. If this wasn’t the case I would be more cautious. On top of it the operational perp on the Pam Am bombing was released scandalously and it would be good to pick him up too.
Bahrain’s government has called in Saudi Arabian and its own troops in order to violently put down its own demonstrators. There is chaos, bloodshed, and loss of treasure. Would you also support military intervention to protect the protestors there?
Goes to show that Democrats love war too. The UN is typically more helpful with Democrats. Clinton didn’t have to beg in Yugoslavia.
Obama and Bush are looking alike more and more. Obama should have kept his nose out of it. We are already going broke. We already lost more Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan than we did on 9-11. Why do we need to waste more blood and treasure? Let the mighty UN do it. We pay THEM money, not the other way around.
Great arguments, D.J. — I agree we shouldn’t establish a NFZ, for a few reasons…
1) Iraqi NFZ’s were established after Desert Storm had decimated their Integrated Air Defense System — not just the fighters, but the early warning radars, intel facilities, ground controllers, surface-to-air missiles sites, and air defense artillery. Gaining and keeping air supremecy over Libya would not be the “walk in the park” that we saw in the 1986 Libyan strikes.
2) Now that the Libyan forces are so close to the rebel stronghold, the real threat from the air would come from Libyan attack helicopters. Flying low, for a relatively short amount of time to complete their missions, enforcing a NFZ against helos is a true “varsity move”, especially from a distance. Which begs the question,
3) where are the Coalition forces based? Across the Med? Tunisia? Sudan? Or are we going to rely on carrier-based aircraft? In 1986 we used multiple carrier battle groups to conduct a couple days worth of one-time strikes. To conduct 24/7 no-fly zone enforcement for an indetermininate amount of time would demand a substantial investment. The USN is already committed to supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Arming the rebels has drawbacks of its own — I believe Stinger technology found it’s way from the Mujahadeen to a variety of bad guys after the defeat of the Soviets. That being said, in the 80′s military technology was leading the commercial field — not so in 2011, so the transfer of hi-tech weapons may not be so problematic.
Leave your response