[Peace-discuss] The same war, by any name

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The ostensible conservative op-ed columnist for the NYT comes close to 
admitting, intentionally or not, that Obama's Libyan adventure is part of the 
long-standing US policy in MENA - to secure biddable governments (alliance, 
threats, subvention, and intimidation all work) throughout the region of the 
world's greatest hydrocarbon resources, and its approaches (the reason that the 
US is killing people in Pakistan and Somalia). The US is not concerned about 
access - we import little oil from the region - but control, as an advantage 
over our economic rivals in Europe and Asia. The world-wide drawback from 
nuclear power can only increase the urgency for the US. --CGE]

March 27, 2011
A War By Any Name
By ROSS DOUTHAT

Tonight, in a speech that probably should have been delivered before American 
planes began flying missions over North Africa, Barack Obama will try to explain 
to a puzzled nation why we are at war with Libya.

Not that the word “war” will pass his lips, most likely. In press briefings last 
week, our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a “kinetic military action” and a 
“time-limited, scope-limited military action.” (The online parodies were 
merciless: “Make love, not time-limited, scope-limited military actions!” “Let 
slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!”) Advertising tonight’s 
address, the White House opted for “the situation in Libya,” which sounds less 
like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead 
from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”

But by any name or euphemism, the United States has gone to war, and there are 
questions that the president must answer. Here are the four biggest ones:

What are our military objectives? The strict letter of the United Nations 
resolution we’re enforcing only authorizes the use of air power to protect 
civilian populations “under threat of attack” from Qaddafi’s forces. But we’re 
interpreting that mandate as liberally as possible: our strikes have cleared the 
way for a rebel counteroffensive, whose success is contingent on our continued 
air support.

If the rebels stall out short of Tripoli, though, how will we respond? With a 
permanent no-fly zone, effectively establishing a NATO protectorate in eastern 
Libya? With arms for the anti-Qaddafi forces, so they can finish the job? Either 
way, the logic of this conflict suggests a more open-ended commitment than the 
White House has been willing to admit.

Who exactly are the rebels? According to our ambassador to Libya, they have 
issued policy statements that include “all the right elements” — support for 
democracy, economic development, women’s rights, etc. According to The Los 
Angeles Times, they have filled what used to be Qaddafi’s prisons with “enemies 
of the revolution” — mostly black Africans, rounded up under suspicion of being 
mercenaries and awaiting revolutionary justice. According to The Daily Telegraph 
in London, their front-line forces include what one rebel commander calls the 
“patriots and good Muslims” who fought American forces in Iraq.

Perhaps Obama can clarify this picture. The rebels don’t need to be saints to 
represent an improvement on Qaddafi. But given that we’re dropping bombs on 
their behalf, it would be nice if they didn’t turn out to be Jacobins or Islamists.

Can we really hand off this mission? Officially, this is a far more multilateral 
venture than was, say, the invasion of Iraq. But as Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin 
points out, when it comes to direct military support, this war’s coalition is 
“smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.” 
Officially, too, the United States is already stepping back into a supporting 
role, as NATO takes over the command. But as Wired’s Spencer Ackerman argues, 
the difference between a “high” United States involvement and a “low” military 
commitment may prove more semantic than meaningful.

Obama has said our involvement will be measured in “days, not weeks.” With one 
week down already, is this really plausible? And anyway, how responsible is it 
to commit American forces to a mission and then suggest, as a senior 
administration official did last week, that “how it turns out is not on our 
shoulders”?

Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? While we’ve been 
making war on Qaddafi’s tin-pot regime, our enemies in Syria have been shooting 
protesters, our allies in Saudi Arabia have been crushing dissidents, Yemen’s 
government is teetering, there’s been an upsurge of violence in Israel, and the 
Muslim Brotherhood seems to be moving smoothly into an alliance with the 
Egyptian military. Oh, and we’re still occupying Iraq and fighting a 
counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and trying to contain Iran.

Last week, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg rank-ordered Mideast trouble spots 
that “demand more American attention than Libya.” He came up with six: 
Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen’s Qaeda havens, post-Mubarak Egypt and 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One can quibble with Goldberg’s ordering but not his broader point. While we 
intervene in Libya, what is our Egypt policy? Our Yemen policy? Our Syria 
policy? With the entire Middle East in turmoil, does it make sense that 
Washington is focused so intently on who controls the highway between Ajdabiya 
and Surt?

It’s clear that not everyone in this White House thinks so. Defending the 
intervention on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Robert Gates let slip that he 
believes that Libya is not a “vital interest” of the United States.

President Obama’s most pressing task tonight will be to explain why his 
secretary of defense is wrong — and why, appearances to the contrary, the 
potential payoff from our Libyan war more than justifies the risks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28douthat.html?_r=1&hp