**UPDATED**
When Democrats join with neoconservatives like Bill Kristol on Libya, as well as Michael Barone who accused Obama of voting “present” on Libya, all I can see is the ghost of Iraq preemption dancing in my head.
Ms. Slaughter didn’t learn squat from her support for the Iraq war and its devastating results. Her op-ed in the New York Times today is remarkable, not only for the chasm in her much respected thinking of not gaming what can happen once we get embroiled in a country’s civil war, but for calling out Pres. Obama for “temporizing” on Libya.
No doubt Obama will want to squash her truth to power militaristic opinion like he did PJ Crowley on Manning, but Ms. Slaughter is now well out of his reach.
PRESIDENT Obama says the noose is tightening around Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. In fact, it is tightening around the Libyan rebels, as Colonel Qaddafi makes the most of the world’s dithering and steadily retakes rebel-held towns. The United States and Europe are temporizing on a no-flight zone while the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Gulf Cooperation Council and now the Arab League have all called on the United Nations Security Council to authorize one. Opponents of a no-flight zone have put forth five main arguments, none of which, on close examination, hold up.
IT’S NOT IN OUR INTEREST Gen. Wesley K. Clark argues that “Libya doesn’t sell much oil to the United States” and that while Americans “want to support democratic movements in the region,” we are already doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Framing this issue in terms of oil is exactly what Arab populations and indeed much of the world expect, which is why they are so cynical about our professions of support for democracy and human rights. Now we have a chance to support a real new beginning in the Muslim world — a new beginning of accountable governments that can provide services and opportunities for their citizens in ways that could dramatically decrease support for terrorist groups and violent extremism. It’s hard to imagine something more in our strategic interest.
Slaughter’s claim that it’s “time to act” would put the United States intervening in a country where a civil war is raging, when it’s been obvious for days that Gadhafi is likely to prevail.
But her most astounding claim is on labeling “Arab democrats.”
..Assuming that a no-flight zone can be imposed by an international coalition that includes Arab states, we have an opportunity to establish a new narrative of Western support for Arab democrats.
This assumes much more than is currently evident, especially when you look at Egyptian men and their reaction to women marching for their own freedom. There is also no evidence that any of the countries enjoying the Arab spring will end up secular, which is a prime tenet of “democrats.”
If the Security Council fails to act, then we should recognize the opposition Libyan National Council as the legitimate government, as France has done, and work with the Arab League to give the council any assistance it requests.
This is where militaristic interventionist Democrats always end up. When other countries refuse to lead the U.S. should always step in. This is the same thinking that made Democrats in the Senate jump on the band wagon for Iraq that led to more ill will inside the Arab world than we could ever predict, but also led to a economic quagmire from which we still cannot extricate ourselves.
If the U.S. engages to help the opposition Libyan National Council it should be as partners with the world and the Security Council, but absolutely under no circumstance with America alone in the lead.
Steve Clemons rebuts Anne-Marie Slaughter today as well.
After all we’ve learned, 20th century Scoop Jackson Democrats still want to write checks for war supporting interventionist policies the U.S. economy can no longer afford to cash.
As Sect. Clinton’s former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, Ms. Slaughter knows very well what it takes to impose a no-fly zone. So her “fiddling” slam is extraordinary given her respected stature in Democratic foreign policy circles.
Of course, former Pres. Clinton also supports a no-fly zone, as does John Kerry and others on the Democratic side.
Pres. Obama doesn’t have much company on his side, which should make everyone nervous on what may unfold.
UPDATE: Sen. Dick Lugar become the first to say any no-fly zone should be accompanied by Arab nations footing the bill. Amen.
[...] Given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame, the strains on our military, and other factors, it is doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. If the Obama Administration is contemplating this step, however, it should begin by seeking a declaration of war against Libya that would allow for a full Congressional debate on the issue. In addition, it should ask Arab League governments and other governments advocating for a no-fly zone to pledge resources necessary to pay for such an operation.
This is not unprecedented. More than $50 billion in foreign contributions were received to offset U.S. costs in association with the first Gulf War in 1991. Much of this came from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. …
Agree 100% with your analysis.
I have major problems with the way Pres Obama has governed-the sellout of core Democratic platform principles, staying and continuing the disasters in Iraq and Afganistan when the majority of the country want us out of both,his weakness as a negotiator, et all.
But on the Libya intervention issue – have to give him kudo’s for keeping the US out of Libya- so far he has resisted the Repub/neocon/Dem Hawks clarion call for more war from the USA by intervening in Libya. Given his history of a general lack of a spine in fighting back against this thinking/cadre of folks, I hope this lasts.
Mornin’ LJ.
As Sect. Clinton’s former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, Ms. Slaughter knows very well what it takes to impose a no-fly zone.
The “fiddling” slam is extraordinary given her respected stature in Democratic foreign policy circles.
Of course, former Pres. Clinton also supports a no-fly zone, as does John Kerry and others on the Democratic side.
Pres. Obama doesn’t have much company on his side, which as you rightly point out should make everyone nervous on what may unfold.
My thinking on Pres Obama folding to the pressure to interevne in Libya basically is the following:
He is waiting until after both the debt limit and budget negotiations(if thats what you call the ongoing Dem concessions w/o Repub concessions)are completed. I think even Pres Obama would have a hard time asking the Dem caucus and the country as a whole, to accept more cuts to social programs, while asking for more money for another military venture w/no cuts to the DOD budget, and no end in sight for Iraq and Afganistan.
Also,factored into this is the union busting and gutting of social programs in the states. The lack of engagemnt by Pres Obama and DC Dems on this issue would add to the disgust by the Dem base( and those “moderates” Pres Obama and DC Dems seem to love) of Pres Obama and DC Dems lack of forceful support of unions and the middle class. Asking for more money for another intervention would be toxic, especially w/o the support of the american people.
As such I believe if Pres Obama does decide to intervene he will wait until the budget and debt issues are completed, and ratified by votes in Congress.Thats the safe/less risky political move at this time for Pres Obama if the Qaddaffi/Libya events haven’t resolved itself by then. He’ll bet that whatever uproar/clamour will die down by the 2012 campaign and election gets into full swing.He’ll bet/calculate that if the US does intervene it will be a short one, or not become a disaster. And he’ll hope that the Repubs will love him for it(fat chance).
Given Pres Obama’s lack of spine in fighting against all things Repub/neocon-thats the sceario I see playing out for intervention if the fighting continues in Libya.
Or maybe I’ll be proven wrong and we won’t intervene at all under any circumstances while the fighting is going on.
“Squash(ing)… truth to power” is, more and more clearly, a bipartisan position. I don’t think that’s actually new, of course. Generally, “power” insists on defining “truth” for its own purposes. And will quickly attempt to “squash” anyone who challenges them — or use whatever method is handy … ignore, demean, belittle, manipulate, use, abuse, etc.
I’m feeling snarky here if that can be excused. If the Arab League wants a no fly zone, let them lead on it, and let the Saudis and whomever use the fancy hardware (and expensive pilot training) they got from us, for that purpose. Heck we even sold the Saudis AWACs to control and direct those kinds of missions didn’t we??
Unless they are saving it for Iran… or their own protestors…
Sunlight,
Well said.
As far as Democrats appearing on Fox News TABLOID network, I have zero use for them and that goes for Obama as well.
Interesting that a former appointee of Madame Secretary Clinton is on Fox News pushing a No Fly Zone and mocking POTUS as weak. Considering a couple of days before, Hillary’s husband was touting the same BS alongside Dubya Dumbo. Would it be reasonable to arrive at the conclusion, Hillary wants same and is defying her boss? I think so. I’d fire her *hawkish* sorry *ss in a NY nanosecond.
He would fire her and hire the likes of former Sec. Colin Powell.
Eddie,
Well the SoS position is obviously a Republican job.