A Very Liberal Intervention

[oberliner]

NYT Op Ed:

In its month-long crab walk toward a military confrontation with Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Obama administration has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war.

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya’s civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates’s Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration’s more unilateralist methods. There are no “coalitions of the willing” here, no dismissive references to “Old Europe,” no “you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[ProSense]

1. Ross Douthat

is a conservative clown.

<...>

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration’s more unilateralist methods. There are no “coalitions of the willing” here, no dismissive references to “Old Europe,” no “you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

This way of war has obvious advantages. It spreads the burden of military action, sustains rather than weakens our alliances, and takes the edge off the world’s instinctive anti-Americanism. Best of all, it encourages the European powers to shoulder their share of responsibility for maintaining global order, instead of just carping at the United States from the sidelines.

But there are major problems with this approach to war as well. Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence. And because their connection to the national interest is often tangential at best, they’re often fought with one hand behind our back and an eye on the exits, rather than with the full commitment that victory can require.

<...>

He's basically arguing the McCain/Rumsfeld version of war: faster, ignoring the international community and an exit strategy.

He's also labeling this action a war, and that's a bogus assertion.

[oberliner]

4. Exactly so

It's amazing how the right has found a way to be against Obama in this.

[tridim]

2. Humanity does feel a bit more coherent lately. That's a good thing.

[Clio the Leo]

3. kick nt

[defendandprotect]

5. Mixed feelings about this -- all along -- just as the Libyan's have had ...

As I reflect back on this -- what was the US doing to relieve the situation for

citizens in Libya under Gaddafi -- nothing --

in fact, worsening things by arming Gaddafi-!!

And what of the last 4-5 weeks of uprisings by protesters as they advanced --

could nothing have been done to keep them from having to pick up arms?

Are any of us satisfied that a SUPERPOWER can only resolve problems with more violence?

Granted, Libyans reluctantly called for a No Fly Zone -- at the same time fearing it --

at the same time fearing the entrance of US or UK into their rebellion.

Time will tell --

but if the US is involved, I'm not optimistic!!

[Keith Bee]

6. K&R