Richard Haass: The U.S. Should Keep Out of Libya

[babylonsister]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703386704576186371889744638.html

The U.S. Should Keep Out of Libya
Gadhafi might survive the current civil war. But the U.S. does not need the burden of another vaguely defined intervention in a country where American interests are less than vital.

By RICHARD N. HAASS

snip//



There are many reasons to avoid making Libya the center of U.S. concerns in the region. Libya is far from the most important country in the Middle East—both in terms of political influence and its impact on the oil market. American policy makers would be wiser to focus on what they can do to see that Egypt's transition proceeds smoothly, that Saudi Arabia remains stable, and that Iran does not.

Intervening militarily in Libya would be a potentially costly distraction for the U.S. military. It is already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing it needs is another vaguely defined intervention in a place where U.S. interests are less than vital.

To say that U.S. interests in Libya are less than vital is not to argue for doing nothing, but rather for making sure that the actions we take are commensurate with the stakes. In the case of Libya, asset freezes, arms embargoes, threatened prosecutions for war crimes, and the creation of humanitarian safe harbors inside the country or just across its borders would be appropriate.

Under this set of policies, Gadhafi could well survive the current challenge—regimes that are willing and able to attack domestic opponents often do. But, over time, such policies would weaken the regime while strengthening the opposition.

Such an approach will not be enough for some. But it does have the advantage of being consistent with the scale of U.S. interests in Libya and what can realistically be done to promote them

Mr. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[bigdarryl]

1. I agree 110% let them kill each other we have far to many problems in this country

[Mass]

2. Which politician wants to intervene in Libya? I have seen nobody yet.

I may of course have missed something, but this reminds me why I dislike Haas: realpolitik without any concern for human beings (why should we want to make sure Saudi Arabia is stable and Iran is not?

[babylonsister]

3. Here:

The neocons are trying to talk us into war -- again

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/08/lind_libya_no_fly

[Mass]

4. Well, in this case, Bill Clinton was a neocon. as is Haas.

"no-fly zones" in Libya, along the lines of those in Iraq between the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, in order to prevent Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi from using his air force to bomb the rebels seeking to overthrow his regime. Another suggestion is to help Libyan rebels establish secure enclaves, from which they can capture the rest of the country from forces loyal to Gadhafi.

The no fly zone was used by Clinton both in Bosnia and in Iraq. Haas proposes enclaves. Two of the things Lind calls neocon talks.

This said, I agree with Lind on safeharbours in Libya. How you do that without sending troops on the ground is unclear to me. However, preparing for a no-fly zone in case Khadafi starts to massacre his people is just human decency (or do we care less of them because they live in Africa?). You may debate whether it is efficient or not, and as easy to establish as some think (I have doubt about that given the size of Libya). But dismiss it because they dont matter is just pure racism.

[center rising]

5. There really isn't much we could do in Libya!!

A No-Fly zone has its drawbacks. We are not putting any boots on the ground. The people of Libya are going to have to get rid of Gaddafi.