Why Obama had to act in Libya

Posted By Marc Lynch Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 4:20 PM Share

"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen."  

This was the blunt, powerful heart of President Obama's speech last night explaining American intervention in Libya: had the international community not acted when it did, thousands would have been slaughtered as the world watched.   The effects of that decision would have been felt across the Middle East, where America would have been deemed to have abandoned the people struggling for freedom in the Arab world.  And it would have quite simply been wrong. I have long been conflicted about the decision to intervene militarily, primarily because of the absence of a clearly defined end-game and the risk of escalation. I doubt that Obama's speech will convince many of his critics. But I now think that he made the right call.

My conversations with administration officials, including but not limited to the one recounted by the indefatigable Laura Rozen, convinced me that they believed that a failure to act when and how they did would have led to a horrific slaughter in Benghazi and then across Libya.  There was no mad rush to war, and certainly no master plan to invade Libya to grab its oil.  The administration resisted intervening militarily until they had no choice, preferring at first to use diplomatic means and economic sanctions to signal that Qaddafi's use of force would not help keep him in power.  The military intervention came when those had failed, and when Qaddafi's forces were closing in on Benghazi and he was declaring his intention to exterminate them like rats.  

And my conversations with Arab activists and intellectuals, and my monitoring of Arab media and internet traffic, have convinced me that the intervention was both important and desirable.  The administration understood, better than their critics, that Libya had become a litmus test for American credibility and intentions, with an Arab public riveted to al-Jazeera.  From what I can see, many people broadly sympathetic to Arab interests and concerns are out of step with Arab opinion this time.    In the Arab public sphere, this is not another Iraq -- though, as I've warned repeatedly, it could become one if American troops get involved on the ground and there is an extended, bloody quagmire.  This administration is all too aware of the dangers of mission creep, escalation, and the ticking clock on Arab and international support which so many of us have warned against.  They don't want another Iraq, as Obama made clear.... even if it is not obvious that they can avoid one. 

The centrality of Libya to the Arab narrative about regional transformation is the main reason why I am unmoved by the "double standards" argument that we are not intervening in Cote D'Ivoire.  It did matter more to core U.S. national interests because the outcome would affect the entire Middle East.  Thanks to al-Jazeera's intense focus on Libya, literally the whole Arab world was watching, dictators and publics alike.  Not acting would have been a  powerful action which would have haunted America's standing in the region for a decade.  And many of the same people now denouncing the intervention would have been up in arms at America's indifference to Arab life -- it is all too easy to imagine denunciations such as "the dream of the Cairo speech died in the streets of Benghazi as Barack Obama proved that he does not care about Muslim lives." 

The double-standards argument applies more forcefully to Bahrain, where attempts to mediate a negotiated reform package fell apart in favor of Saudi/GCC intervention and a descent into nasty sectarianism.  Obviously the naval base in Bahrain and its strategic importance to Saudi Arabia are decisive factors.  And the U.S. is paying a price for that failure with parts of Arab public opinion and with many regional analysts, as it should (though al-Jazeera's limited coverage and the unfortunate popularity of the sectarian Sunni-Shi'a narrative blunt that edge slightly). The double-standards argument about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still there and strong.  One of the most frequent points I hear made in the Arab arena is still "where was the No-Fly Zone for Gaza?"  The U.S. pays a political price for that, and if a new Israeli war breaks out with Gaza or Hezbollah, and the U.S. is forced to take sides, then this may very well wash away all the administration has done to try to engage and build partnerships with the newly empowered Arab public.   Those are real problems -- but neither of them should mean that the U.S. can't at least get Libya right. 

That doesn't mean that there are no problems.  The administration hasn't done a great job communicating its position, particularly on the question of whether or not Qaddafi's departure is the goal (I personally think it has to be).   While I hope that today's London meeting will produce more clarity on a political path forward, I haven't seen much to suggest one yet.  I'm still very worried about the endgame, that Qaddafi might hold on and drive a problematic partition or that the U.S. and NATO will be tempted to escalate with ground forces to prevent such a hurting stalemate.  I worry about second-order effects across the region, including the likely terminal impact on the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program since Tehran can see clearly that Qaddafi's deal with the West did not buy him long term support. But I also see the potential upsides of a successful intervention.  And then there's the push to apply the Libya model to Syria or Iran or even Saudi Arabia, which most people understand would be disastrous but which may well soon confront the administration whether it likes it or not. But for all of that, I feel that the U.S. did what it had to do, when it had to do it. 

Official White House photo, Pete Souza, January 28, 2011

 

APPALLED MODERATE

7:32 PM ET

March 29, 2011

Dr Lynch: There's a

Dr Lynch:

There's a presumption in your post, as well as Obama's people, that, based on the current limited level of US intervention, Qaddafi cannot prevail. That assumes more about the opposition's military capabilities than we've really seen thus far. Is there a point where the USA might find itself forced to either take a hit to its reputation, or double down on the military force?

Also, isn't a bit troubling that our military force is essentially being dictated by a news network which is not exactly pro-USA?

 

ZATHRAS

3:16 AM ET

March 31, 2011

The Reason for Intervention

In Marc Lynch's telling, the reason is because the Arabs really want us to do it. There are other versions in which the reason given is that the French really want us to do it, or that the UN sort of mostly wants us to do it, but let's take Lynch's version at face value.

The intervention it has produced is carefully calibrated to avoid steps that might divert us from the path that leads to popularity on the Arab street. That evidently includes killing Qadhafi, which might have been done easily a couple of weeks ago when he was still making televised public appearances. The carefully calibrated intervention President Obama has chosen instead will kill a great many more Libyans, but that's OK. We do not know how its careful calibrations will keep the war from extending its life for weeks, months or even longer. That is also OK. The important thing is what the Arabs want us to do now. They say, we do. That's what is called clarity in the conduct of American foreign relations.

Could I throw in a point about the role of fantasy in Arab political thought? The idea, or at least the slogan, is popular in certain circles, that democracy can't be installed at gunpoint. Iraq was said to prove this, the problem with the proof being that there was no way -- none, zero, an absolute goose egg -- that the Baathist regime in Iraq was going anywhere before the American army blew it up. There was also no way, as in absolute zero, that domestic opposition alone was going to get Qadhafi to go anywhere. The Arab fantasy is that Arab countries can build democracy as long as America and the West do not prop up Arab dictators. This is baloney. It's just dumb. Building the justification for an American war around it is even dumber.

Qadhafi, who has been in power nearly a generation longer than Saddam was, is certainly peculiar by our standards, but he's not that far outside the norm of Arab political culture. The question is, what should be done about him now? If the Arabs talking to Marc Lynch are representative, the answer is to have America attack Qadhafi's servants until Qadhafi's enemies are strong enough to overthrow him in a way that looks (well, may plausibly be said to look) like they did it themselves. The Arabs say, Obama does. The idea of having an American reason for intervening in a civil war that does not involve trying to make a foreign audience like us is evidently not circulating in Washington. Such is the power of the Arab Spring.

 

LEEN

7:46 PM ET

April 1, 2011

Obama Bull

When Obama gave his speech about why he chose to ignore Secretary of Defense Gates, Vice President Biden and I believe Admiral Mullens argments for not taking military action in Libya. I thought to myself well the 'wave of change" argument holds some water. Tunisia on one side of Libya and Egypt on the other. How Gaddafi's actions could undermine that change and then his threats against his own people. But when Obama started going off into the American myths of we are "different" and we do not turn a "blind eye" to humanitarian crisis. He went over the bullshit cliff. The Gaza "massacre" (just using their words) during his administration and then the Iraq "massacre" that was implemented by the Bush administration and blessed by then Senator Clinton, Kerry and almost all of the Republican Senators. Now I know that they as well as the MSM do not looking over and acknowledging the massive piles of dead, injured and displaced Iraqi people due to that deadly invasion. But Obama went off the cliff in the land of American myths.

The evidence just gets in their way. Just stick to Gaddafi is in the way of the wave of change defense.

And by the way. When they start mentioning that Gaddafi might have to be held accountable for his war crimes. He would have to get in line behind Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bush, Rumsfeld etc. Get in line Gaddafi.

Here in the states we take our MSM puts our war criminals their Sunday news programs. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc Enough all ready!

 

NUR AL-CUBICLE

4:24 PM ET

April 2, 2011

Flashmob

Looking more like a flashmob has been taken for a revolution. I recommend a look at James Harkin's "Cyber-Con" article in the LRB of 2 Dec 2010.

BTW, NATO took out 15 rebels today and an ambulance. As their fighting force is 1,000, that's a big friendly fire hit.

 

SOUTHMPLS

4:42 PM ET

April 4, 2011

Libya

If the case for bombing Libya is as Mr. Lynch says it is, then let's be all about humanitarian efforts. But let's not ever think that the speechified reason for going to war is humanitarianism. It's about oil. Always has been, always will be (it's, you know, a national security - in the interests of the U.S. - issue). If it were humanitarianism, we would have intervened to stop the slaughter of millions of Africans a long time ago. If we can go to war anytime, anywhere we feel like it because we're the US of A, then I don't want to hear about not being able to provide healthcare for every single American. The yearly cost of healthcare for all is about the same amount of money as a single day in Afghanistan or Iraq. Or the 9 or 10 billion we give to Israel every year. I completely reject the arguments as singularly presented. Our national security policy must be consistent, transparent, and uncompromising with every encounter, and the citizens of the U.S. deserve equal treatment. No more wars for oil without healthcare for every American. enough, already...

 

SCOOP

4:56 PM ET

April 7, 2011

Win, Lose or Draw?

US General: Libya stalemate more likely now by Lolita C. Baldor, AP – 7 Apr

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, the U.S. general who led the initial phases of the Libyan mission says the operation is largely a stalemate and is more likely to remain that way now that America has transferred control to NATO. In a new tactic, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging military forces and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques. Recent bad weather and threats from Gadhafi's mobile surface-to-air missile systems have contributed to the stalemate. Ham told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that a stalemate isn't the preferred solution."

 

S.Q.AFZALRIZVI

6:55 AM ET

April 12, 2011

US's Libya's inervention: a futile attempt

Having been partially moved by the Lynch thesis, I would simply add that the US sponsored operation in Libya may accompany numerous challenges.The intervention that quests for an extending US's regional role may not be inferred as a 'pragmatic initiative' taken by the US and its coalition partners-the UN-the EU and Nato.

 

Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Read More