David Brooks wrote an excellent column today that bolsters my confidence in Obama’s strategy for Libya – now that we have started a war.
The Defection Track by David Brooks NYT, March 31, 2011
Brooks says that despite all the goofy public pronouncements from the Administration their policy really is regime change. More importantly, they really do have some idea about how to succeed: The Three Ds. Here they are from least likely to more likely.
· Defeat – the ragtag rebel army vanquishes Gaddafi on the battlefield.
· Departure – Gaddafi is persuaded to flee the country.
· Defection – the people around Qaddafi decide to overthrow him.
Brooks calls the strategy Squeeze and See. He says that the Administration is well aware that this strategy could fail and Gaddafi might remain – they’ll deal with that when they get there. Fair enough. I’m relieved – and supportive.
Brooks also says that President Obama is fully aware that this intervention could have negative political consequences for him – as I think it should have. Never the less, the President acted out of a conviction that this was a moral imperative; that America must always confront evil. Brooks goes further, see below.
When the President finally decided to address the nation regarding his actions he did a fine job of laying out his humanitarian imperatives. Then he tried to explain our strategic interests in Libya with less success.
· Gaddafi is a bad guy and he might try to intervene in other nations as he has before.
· Unseating him will help reformers in other nations and dissuade other tyrants from putting down demonstrators with military force.
· Without intervention, hoards of Libyans would be driven over the Egyptian and Tunisian borders destabilizing nascent reforms there.
· This action will significantly influence Middle Eastern regimes to become more legitimate and responsive to their people.
This all sounds Bushian to me – mildly plausible and promising but decidedly unsatisfying. Astonishingly, Brooks buys it.
Brooks says President Obama took the action that “an American must — motivated by this country’s historical role as a champion of freedom and humanity — and with the awareness that we simply could not stand by with Russia and China in opposition.”
What? America has no history of humanitarian intervention. In fact, our values are traditionally the opposite – stay out of other people’s business. Our post-WWII history of interventions has been bad for all concerned – with the exception of Bosnia. Our record is even worse when we don’t finish what we started – Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Furthermore, Brooks seems to supporting unilateral and coalition-of-the-willing actions. He’s saying we must act when the UN will not. I thought we learned that lesson. I think we should put up a nice sign on the capitol that reads: “humanitarian and neocon war mongers need not apply. Go help the Chinese.”
Brooks says the President had to act because at the moment, “change in the Arab world really is possible.” I hope so. Either way, the guy who got us into this should not be reelected.
No comments:
Post a Comment