Jacky Fisher: "The essence of war is violence; moderation in war is imbecility."

[PurityOfEssence]

Candy-assed incrementalism often costs more in lives, lives of the innocent and money than full-bore war itself.

Having said that, I must say that I still feel that we don't have the legal justification to intervene in a sovereign country's internal dispute, especially when it's evolved into a declared revolutionary government taking arms against the sitting power. Qaddafi's an asshole, but everyone fighting against him is not an innocent civilian, and they're not only engaging in peaceful protests. It's a civil war.

Still, I'd have to say that Wes Clark's instincts are pretty unquestionable here, as he stated yesterday that if it's going to be done, it should be done with overwhelming force to finish it off immediately.

This, of course, is nowhere near the M.O. of our President; he will find the most moderate of the moderate moderateness, and probably moderate that some more to non-fight the least objectionable non-war.

Those who puff and strut that what's going on in Libya and other countries in the area is perfectly simple and that anyone who disagrees with their position is a hater of people or not suitable for our community of progressive pluralists are doing us all a disservice. This is a very nuanced and complex mess, and I keep going back to the basic premise of intervention: what gives us the right to violate a nation's sovereignty, and does this rise to that level? It has nothing to do with the relative merits of Qaddafi; it's a question of what degree of plasticity we're willing to allow to get our way.

How do we justify not intervening in Bahrain? Their recent problems have been going on for LONGER THAN THE ONES IN LIBYA, AND HAVE NOT EVOLVED INTO A CIVIL WAR, thus, in my view, THEY are more deserving of an intervention than the Libyans are, and that would STILL not rise to a level of justification. Libya's protests started on February 15th, whereas Bahrain's started on February 4th; parts of Libya's military has defected, and the protesters have seized territory, declared themselves a viable government, and are demanding the ouster of the government. This means that they're in open revolt and a real, shooting civil war. The Bahrainis, on the other hand, are still peaceful protesters, who have been fired upon by the military, police and the invited military of a foreign power. THEY are innocent civilians being suppressed with lethal force, whereas the Libyans are now an armed insurrection.

Of course, we LIKE the Bahrainis, whereas we don't like Qaddafi. Therefore, we can contort any inconvenient laws and still wrap ourselves in the mantle of moral beauty and justify our acts of self-interest.

This was not a unanimous decision by the U.N. Security Council, and the whole body has not been asked for its opinion. To date, only 15 Nations have been asked for their opinion, and ONE THIRD of them declined from voting. They're not insignificant entities, either, they're CHINA, GERMANY, RUSSIA, INDIA and BRAZIL. The Germans went in there 70 years ago (almost to the day) and may possibly remember the ensuing events, but perhaps they just don't see the moral justification. Remember, too, that one of the heinous acts of Qaddafi that led to him being branded an international villain occurred on their soil: the bombing of the Berlin Disco.

My chief axe to grind here is that this IS NOT A SIMPLE SITUATION, AND THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT IT IS ARE DANGEROUS TO US ALL.

The region is being swept by emotional and historic forces that we are unable to discern even if we actually tried, which we, as a society, haven't. We're also siding with the forces of traditional Colonialism. (It's also worthy to note that the Italians are trying all they can to avoid involvement, while still trying to curry favor with the allies by providing airbases; that oil stuff is a mighty drug, isn't it?)

This is war. This is real war.

[Adsos Letter]

1. "The essence of war is violence; moderation in war is imbecility."

That's essentially what Sherman said.

[Maine_Nurse]

2. Absolutely correct. If it has to be done...

it should be done with extreme violence of force. War is horrible and it should be horrible to help prevent its indiscriminate use. But when the time does come, the damned American public and politicians need to stay the hell out of it and let the military do it correctly and quickly.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. I, for one, don't think that threshold has been reached

The point of it needing to be done decisively if done is one that we are obviously in agreement upon, but it all rolls back to the principal dynamic here: half-measures, clay-footed commitment, flexible morality, suspect motivations and general middling bullshit.

Listening to Sarkozy saying that he's targeting Libyan armor that's attacking unarmed civilians is pure bullshit: Qaddafi's quite focused on the ARMED REVOLUTIONARIES at the moment; the LAST thing he's going to waste his energy on is killing innocent civilians. He's probably more aware of the consequences of attacking civilians than ever; his urgent need is to destroy his enemies' war-making ability, and as such, he's on a pure Clausewitzian bent right now, leveling every weapon at MILITARY TARGETS.

Qaddafi knows that time is of the essence; he needs to defeat the rebels immediately.

This is not the simplistic world of swaying and chanting sweet, innocent, banner-holding cafe patrons appealing to the goodness of power to redress their grievances. This is--even though motivated at least partially by honorable and idealistic desire--an armed insurrection. It's not cruel tankers mowing down babies in the sand, it's a determined defense force of an authoritarian regime crushing an armed rebellion. It's civil war. It's also an internal affair, and twisting the UN charter to justify messing in a country's internal problems is fraught with DANGEROUS consequences. What is to prevent us from inviting ourselves into any other particular bit of strife? Who else do we want to invade and dictate their future through force of arms?

It's a VERY complex situation, and I don't like the convenient manipulation of international law, especially when greed over oil underlies much of the decision-making.

[Maine_Nurse]

5. I agree. We need to let the world deal with itself for a while unless it directly...

threatens us. Uncle Mo perhaps should have been taken out back in the 80's, but now I'd just as soon leave it alone.

[BOG PERSON]

3. wow

good post. k&r

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Recommended. It's thought-provoking. Critique:

First of all, you appear to be embracing the Powell Doctrine. There's nothing wrong with that. If the US must go to war, which is far less often than some would have us believe, that's how it is to be done. A direct attempt was made during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to repudiate the Powell Doctrine, and it just cause headaches we didn't need by fighting a war on a budget with no exit strategy. Take that, Rummy.

The other failure of the Iraq invasion and occupation is that there was no clear purpose for it. All the horse pucky about weapons of mass destruction and conspiracies between Iraq and al Qaida that we were told was obviously not the reason. The Bush junta came to power in a stolen election, acted dictatorially and treated the Consitution as a "God damned piece of paper." The idea that they were spreading democracy in the Middle East was ludicrous.

As for the matter of Libya, it's not so much that the lack of a clear purpose is evidenced by telling lies, as it was when the Bush and the neoconservatives manipulated us into Iraq, it's evidenced by the lack of discussion about a clear purpose. I'm not even sure why the UN Security Council is discussing this matter.

While I would be delighted if Colonel Gaddafi were dancing under a lamp post when this is over, it must be the Libyan people who put him there. This must under no circumstances be mistaken for another act of Western imperialism under the guise of supporting democratic values. It must not be that or simple revenge against Bother Colonel for his various and sundry acts of terrorism over the last forty years.

The Libyan rebels have not requested any assistance from the west. They desire no more assistance overthrowing Brother Colonel than the French people had overthrowing the Bourbons. This is their revolution that will give birth to their democracy.

Power to the people. Down with all dictators, military and corporate.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. To be clear: I am AGAINST this intervention

We seem to be in accord: he deserves to dangle, and it should be his own people who do it if it happens. Ceaucescu was the only despot in the fall of the Soviet Bloc who paid for it with his life, and it seemed appropriate to me that Qaddafi would be the one this time, but it's not for the UN to intervene in a domestic struggle unless it REALLY becomes a sizable human rights issue.

The consequences and implications are too easily perverted for further abuse in the future, and it really shouldn't be our "right" to pop a cap in those we just don't particularly like or who happen to be in the way of profitable quenching of our addictions.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. To be clear, I am also opposed

You made it clear than you were opposed. If was appeared to be questioning your stance, then I apologize.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. These are very pivotal times, aren't they?

It'd be fascinating to read a book from the comfort of a far removed few decades, and I hope the outcome isn't too ugly, but many different good and bad things could happen all at once right now.

That's very nice, and there's no need to apologize; you were very productive and neighborly. I was just trying to underscore my position, since it wasn't that clear whether I had been obvious.

War is a horrible thing, and people and governments seem to be bandying the concept around with sheer frivolity; it's dangerous to see.

Amid the acrimony, though, there have been quite a few people who have been calmly expressing and arguing their stances on both sides of the issue on this board, and for that, I'm rather proud of the bunch. There are always far too many whose egos are linked up with being right, and they shriek "genocide" when nothing of the sort is going on and cite massacres that don't seem to be findable on the web, while conflating innocent flower-carrying protesters with armed insurgents.

Smart people know how stupid they are, and decent ones admit how ignorant they are; certainty, although a virtue when contrasted to the ultramoderate soft-soaping of many politicians, is also a bane to civilization itself, and times like these can get quite heady.

Thanks again for the thoughtful discourse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Actually the nfz was requested by the rebels

Just to add to the nuance

[chill_wind]

9. Strongly recommend. And I believe this last sentence, especially,

applies not just to us in the commentary here, but clearly to the political deciders, who were in no way uniformly aligned with each other on what intervention to take.

"The region is being swept by emotional and historic forces that we are unable to discern even if we actually tried, which we, as a society, haven't."

[chill_wind]

10. Kicking. I could swear I saw this on the GP.

I don't think it deserves to be buried.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. k&r

[Catherina]

13. Great post. Great thread (so far). Highly rec'd. This revolution belongs to Libya's working class

It is the task of the Libyan working class, leading all of the oppressed sections of society, to overthrow the right-wing dictatorship of Gaddafi. That is the precondition for replacing it with a genuinely democratic government that will attack the entrenched power and privileges of the native bourgeoisie and its imperialist masters.

The aim of the US-backed intervention is precisely to abort any genuine revolution and install a regime even more subservient to Washington and the oil companies. Libya is then to become a base of military and political operations to suppress the revolutionary upsurge of the working class throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/liby-m19.shtml

Shock and Awe II. Full scale war. The govt went from non-commitment to a no-fly zone to being on board for a full-scale war in a matter of days.

[chill_wind]

15. Pivoted on a dime toward war.

"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one."

It's hard to disagree with that.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war

[Catherina]

16. I saw a week ago that this was heading to full scale war and it sickened me

Pivoted on a dime and dragged our entire country into war without any public or congressional input & against the advice of the Secretary of Defense who already has too many wars on his hands.

"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself.

Thanks for that link. Pivoted on a dime indeed.

[chill_wind]

17. It's a worthwhile read. Details and insights that will get lost or muddied soon enough

in the fog of war, probably. I've read it several times, trying to understand the less obvious dynamics.

It was a bit like reading The Fall of Greg Craig in the early months of Obama's first year.
After that, nothing his that his Holder DOJ/national security apparatus did surprised me.
I knew who was going to win going forward. And who the losers were going to be every time from
then on: Us.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1940537,00.html

[Prometheus Bound]

14. "THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE SITUATION, AND THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT IT IS ARE DANGEROUS TO US ALL."

Yes, those words deserve emphasis.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Full effort should be put into achieving objectives. The objectives may be screwdriver or hammer

in their design to achieve the best effect.

There is no need to ever put a solitary boot or role a single tank to use the full resources available.

Those fervently against should be a bit more honest and state that what they are really calling for is exercising our Security Council veto which in effect would be affirmative support of the current regime. You lose the passive crown when you take action and a veto would be a substantial action.

[joshcryer]

20. Bahrain deserves military intervention because not as many people have died?

And yes, you're saying that, you're saying that "civil wars" don't merit intervention, yet the Responsibility to Protect says that war crimes against ones own civilians are a reason to intervene. In Bahrain there's ample reason to intervene, in Libya, moreso, because thousands were massacred.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. "Thousands" have not been "massacred"

Please cite your sources. It is disingenuous to equate all deaths with the deaths of peaceful protesters. Those who have taken up arms against their government are no longer innocent victims, and their depiction as doe-eyed protesters is calculated deception to shout down dissent.

The only sources I've seen you cite are from Wikipedia, so look at this, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_uprising

There was a protest in Tripoli where there was alleged to have been sniper fire into the crowd and something like 24 were killed; the reference has been changed in Wikipedia since this afternoon and is no longer there. Government buildings were also set on fire in these protests, so it's not like they were swaying to the music and holding flowers, either. That, and two protests in Benghazi were the only ones where deaths were in the teens or twenties of people. The number of 334 you claimed in another thread are listed as "The Battle of Benghazi", not the "Big Benghazi Love-In".

Wikipedia has "Clashes in Tripoli" responsible for 300 in the opposition, and the complete total for other "protests" in four cities is between 16 and 24. THAT'S IT. Those are the only deaths stated for non-combatants, and "clashes" aren't quite "peaceful protests". The others, such as the 300+ in Benghazi are from ARMED fighting with insurgents after it had graduated to a civil war. What about the 34-100 who died in the blast at the munitions storage facility? Are they also nuns and orphans that Qaddafi shot in the back while they were singing folk songs? Sounds to me like they were taking government ammunition to use against the regime in acts of violence, but they apparently got blown up in the process. Are these on your innocent victim list? The rest of the deaths are attributed to military engagements between armed rebels and government troops.

Some troops who mutinied and were captured were killed; that's not uncommon in this world, since it's pretty much considered treason on their part. Rebels executed some African mercenaries that were captured, but that's a bit of a war crime, unless ANYTHING the opposition does is by definition "good". Rebels also hanged 2 police officers who were alleged to have fired upon protesters. Nothing was stated about a trial or the strength of witnesses, either.

People on this board have repeatedly cried "genocide", which is, by definition not applicable. People have referred to the use of artillery against civilians, yet there is no evidence of this that has been cited or that I can find. People have referred to protesters being machine-gunned, but again, no citations or proof that I can find. Those who take arms against their government may very well be honorable and decent heroes against a repressive regime, but they aren't "civilians".

Please back up the claim of "thousands" who have been "massacred". A massacre is to kill unnecessarily or indiscriminately, with heavy connotations of the victims being innocent; it is not a word to be applied to armed combatants.

How much death is now going to be meted out by the coalition forces? How much influence are we going to bring to bear with the rebels should they prevail?

[joshcryer]

24. I've seen the video of the "rebels fighting." They're mostly unarmed.

I'm sorry but I don't buy this bullshit that the rebels are "combatants" and that they shouldn't "count" because of that. It's obscene when given the context.

You also didn't answer the question, you completely diverted. You are effectively saying that once a lot of people start dying (be it civil war or what) that interference shouldn't be done.

You're advocating military interference in a situation where few people have died.

It's sickening.

But to be clear if the UNSC votes for such a thing in Yemen or Bahrain I would be against the US vetoing it.

[joshcryer]

21. BTW, did you purposefully pick the country with the least amount of deaths to rile people up?

I mean, why not Yemen?

[PurityOfEssence]

25. No, I picked one that's been going on longer and where all deaths are unarmed protesters

I've mentioned Yemen elsewhere, as well as Syria. The body count on Friday of 40 in Yemen is greater than any single "massacre" in the Libyan revolt. The biggest single citation I find ANYWHERE for Libyan protesters being killed is 24. There is one more for 24 and one for 10, although the first reference is no longer up on Wikipedia.

The Bahrainis are truly unarmed public protesters who are being killed. Although this happened on three instances I find reference to in Libya, it's been a month since then, with an armed provisional government that has sought--and gotten from France--recognition as a government-in-being.

Yemen certainly deserves mention, as I note that I have elsewhere, because their "government" is one of our "allies", and they are in the process of seriously clamping down on their people. It doesn't bear as much mention as Bahrain because it hasn't been going on for 6 weeks and they haven't called in foreign troops to kill unarmed protesters.

[JCMach1]

22. 100% agreement about Bahrain...