Skip to main content

The intervention in Libya

I'm not the full non-interventionist that Daniel Larison is.  I have to say that the failure of the West to intervene in Rwanda was a terrible mistake.  But I also think that clear-cut situations like that are extremely rare, and I am not remotely convinced that we face something similar in Libya.  So far the situation there is mildly encouraging in that it wasn't a completely unilateral rush to war.  I remain thankful that at least McCain isn't in charge of things.  Lord knows he would have gone off half-cocked and invaded Iran, Egypt, and Tunisia by now.

Setting that aside, my cocktail-napkin theory of humanitarian interventions is that if they're going to be done, they should be done right.  There needs to be a clear and obvious rationale (like genocide) and clearly defined objectives.  There needs to to be strong international support consisting of massive, overpowering force with more than token forces from at least a half-dozen great powers, and of course there should be UN authorization.  Most importantly, there should be a clearly defined exit strategy.  What, precisely, are we going to accomplish, and when can we declare victory and leave?  Or, if we cannot easily accomplish the objectives, do we then wash our hands and beat feet, or take ownership of the whole country?  We're at maybe 40% of that list with Libya.

It should be obvious that with these preconditions I oppose practically every proposed intervention.  What's more, I don't believe that most people currently pounding the war drums care that much about humanitarian problems.  How else to explain the complete inaction over the atrocious problems in Ivory Coast?  It is true, per Chait, that our glaring hypocrisy there doesn't necessarily invalidate the humanitarian rationale in Libya.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  But what it does say to me is that there isn't much of a humanitarian case to be made for intervening in Libya and instead it's all about democracy promotion, Libya's two percent share of world oil reserves, and loopy ideas about America's "credibility."  As Yglesias says:
If everyone cares as much about the loss of innocent African life as Libya interventionists say, then what on earth are they doing ponying up so little in foreign aid and doing so little to dismantle ruinous cotton subsidies? These aren’t really points about Libya. And why should they be? What do I know about Libya? What does Chait know about Libya? These are points about the United States of America and the various elites who run the country and shape the discourse. Exactly the kinds of subjects that frequent participants in American political debates know and care about. I see no particular reason to think that Libya will have any impact on malaria funding, but I do think the level of malaria funding is impacted over the long term by the existence of a substantial number of people (of which Chait is one) who seem to advocate for humanitarian goals in Africa if and only if those goals can be advanced through the use of military force to kill other Africans.
Emphasis mine.  It may well turn out that the intervention will go swimmingly. But right now I see a huge and completely unconsidered downside risk. Let's hope Obama and Sarkozy have the wisdom to avoid getting sucked into another Middle Eastern ground war.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall provides a more detailed argument along these lines, and James Fallows also chimes in.


Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actually b

Varanus albigularis albigularis

That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard , a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here ). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment. When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves tha

Caffeine Is Not a Bioweapon

I got into a discussion with Yves Smith about caffeine here , and somehow my comment got eaten, so I'd like to finish it up here. She said about this Raw Story piece about a girl who allegedly died from drinking two Monster drinks in two days, "The FDA lapse here is terrible. Caffeine is extremely toxic. We just happen to get highly diluted doses in coffee and tea." I commented: Yves, your implication about caffeine is incorrect on several levels. Most Monster drinks have about 10 mg of caffeine per fluid ounce, which is much less than even drip coffee (18 mg/oz) and WAY less than espresso (51 mg/oz). ( Source ) The whole idea of dilution is misguided in any case. The relevant measurement for caffeine intoxication (and most poisoning generally) is the total amount taken, not the concentration. Concentration is something to worry about, as it can make a lethal dose easier to take on, but the main concern there is pure caffeine pills, not energy drinks which are mostl