A Philosopher's Blog

What Should Our Goals be in Libya?

Posted in Politics by Michael LaBossiere on March 26, 2011
The leader de facto of Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Image via Wikipedia

Now that we have entered into an undeclared war in Libya, we should probably determine our goals. After all, without knowing what we should be doing, we won’t know when we should stop doing it.

At this point, we seem to have the goal of enforcing the no-fly zone. This is, on the face of it, a clear goal: we just do what it takes to keep Libyan air assets from operating in the specified areas. So far this has involved attacking Libya’s anti-air capabilities and their command and control abilities. It also involve, obviously enough, engaging aircraft in the zone. We have also engaged and destroyed some of Libya’s armored units.

Of course, there is the question as to the purpose of the no-fly zone. The stated goal is to keep Qaddafi from slaughtering his own people, or at least those people who are rebelling against him. Preventing death is, in general, a laudable goal and hence it can be argued that this is something we should be doing.

If our primary goal is to prevent Qaddafi from killing his own people, then it would seem that we will have to expand our operations in the region. After all, while air power is a critical part of combined arms operations (and no sensible commander would operate without such an approach), Qaddafi can use land forces quite effectively against rebels and civilians. As noted above, we have already struck Libyan armor and would thus seem to already be on the way to a broader sort of operation in the area rather than simply maintaining a no fly zone.

Assuming that our goal is to prevent Qaddafi from killing his people, it would also seem that we are committed to stay for as long as Qaddafi is willing and  able to engage in that activity. On this assumption, once the killing has stopped (and seems to have ceased on a permanent basis), then our goal would be achieved and we should depart. This would seem to be a rather open ended sort of goal in that we could be there a rather long time as the conflict drags on. As it now stands, the rebels do not seem capable of winning on their own anytime soon and as long as the United States (and her allies) remains involved, then it seems unlikely that Qaddafi will decisively defeat the rebels. As such, we are serving to prolong the combat rather than end it. This seems to be a somewhat undesirable side effect of our current approach to the stated goal. As such, perhaps there needs to be a change in goals or methodology.

One option is to aim at removing Qaddafi from power. Given Qaddafi’s long link to terrorist activities and the fact that he is an increasingly erratic dictator, it does make sense to see that he is no longer in power. Of course, this goal does have some problems.

First, this would involve the United States in another Iraq style adventure in regime change. Since we have yet to finish up our current adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, starting a third adventure might not be the wisest idea.

In reply, someone might argue that it will be different this time. Perhaps we could just kill him and depart, leaving the people of Libya to sort things out. No doubt this would result in a pro-America democracy in no time.

Second, there is the fact that we would be involving ourselves fully in a civil war. Qaddafi. While Qaddafi is being opposed by rebels, he still enjoys considerable support from a significant portion of the population and is, on the face of it, the legitimate ruler of the country who is facing what seems to be a rather disorganized collection of rebels. As such, we would not so much be liberating the people of Libya as taking sides in a civil war without really knowing much about the side we are backing.

In reply, some might be inclined to point out that it is hard to imagine a worse situation than having Qaddafi in power. As such, we should back the rebels and take out Qaddafi.

The obvious response to that is that the situation could be worse. For example, Qaddafi could be “replaced” with a situation of complete chaos in which the various rebel groups fall into fighting against each other for control. It seems well worth sorting out who replace Qaddafi. This is something we did not properly consider when we launched our war in Iraq and, at the very least, we should have learned to look before we depose.

No doubt it is because of these sorts of problems that Obama has been reluctant to commit to regime change. In any case, we are in a rather difficult situation. We should not simply sit aside and let Qaddafi kill the rebels. However, removing him from power does not seem to be an appealing option. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only effective solution to the problem.

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on March 26, 2011 at 6:07 am

    Did we really need to start a third war? Two wasn’t enough?

  2. T. J. Babson said, on March 26, 2011 at 6:17 am

    This is nice:

    Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

    Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

  3. T. J. Babson said, on March 26, 2011 at 6:24 am

    And this in Egypt, obvious to everybody but our leaders:

    CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

    It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/middleeast/25egypt.html?_r=1&hp

  4. T. J. Babson said, on March 26, 2011 at 7:47 am

    Is this what we want to be supporting?

    Egyptian women protesters forced to take ‘virginity tests’

    Amnesty International has today called on the Egyptian authorities to investigate serious allegations of torture, including forced ‘virginity tests’, inflicted by the army on women protesters arrested in Tahrir Square earlier this month.

    After army officers violently cleared the square of protesters on 9 March, at least 18 women were held in military detention. Amnesty International has been told by women protesters that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches while being photographed by male soldiers, then forced to submit to ‘virginity checks’ and threatened with prostitution charges.

    ‘Virginity tests’ are a form of torture when they are forced or coerced.

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/egyptian-women-protesters-forced-take-%E2%80%98virginity-tests%E2%80%99-2011-03-23

    • frk said, on March 26, 2011 at 9:56 am

      In Egypt it looks like we either support the “forced virginity” side or the side backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Or we stand on the sidelnes. Is there a Door #4?

  5. frk said, on March 26, 2011 at 10:11 am

    And such a question should certainly be at the center of any discussions when drafting the –what I consider to be–much needed formal decision-making legislation that FRE and I were discussing @Obama, Libya, and the Constitution.

  6. T. J. Babson said, on March 29, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    The philosopher at the heart of the Libyan intervention.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2289620/

    The man who introduced Sarkozy to the Benghazi rebels is none other than Bernard-Henri Lévy, a pop philosopher so French that I can’t think of an American equivalent. We just don’t have philosophers who wear their shirts unbuttoned, marry blond actresses, and take sides, enthusiastically, in wars in Bangladesh, Angola, Rwanda, Bosnia, and beyond. By siding with Lévy’s emotional plea for humanitarian intervention—a decision that surprised even his own foreign minister—Sarkozy apparently thinks he might share some of the philosopher’s glamour.
    Advertisement

    Sarkozy clearly hopes the Libyan adventure will make him popular, too. Nobody finds this surprising. At a conference in Brussels over the weekend, I watched a French participant boast of France’s leading role in the Libyan air campaign. A minute later, he heartily agreed that the war was a ploy to help Sarkozy get re-elected. The two emotions—pride in French leadership and cynicism about Sarkozy’s real motives—were not, it seems, mutually exclusive.

  7. T. J. Babson said, on March 29, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    Not bad.

    • frk said, on March 29, 2011 at 10:29 pm

      Yes, Except for the logical holes, the careful use of only the most convenient facts and half truths, and the mindlessly simple caricatures of both sides (all Dems are stupid and all Republicans are logical). . .not bad. But it is a cartoon, right? Not the real world, right?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,066 other followers

%d bloggers like this: