Democracy Arsenal

« I've Seen This Movie Before - It's Called Kosovo | Main | There's Nothing Easy About War - The Libya Version »

March 19, 2011

Is Intervening in Libya in American Interests?
Posted by Shadi Hamid

Does the US have a vital national security interest in Libya? It depends on how you define interests. But even if there's no clear-cut 'imminent threat' to U.S. security, that may actually be a good thing. The perception has long been that the U.S. only intervenes when it has "vital interests at stake." But, this time, we're presumably doing it to protect civilians, prevent a bloodbath, and assist those valiantly fighting for democracy. So the very fact that less may be directly at stake for the U.S. does not give me pause. If anything, that is another reason why this intervention should be applauded (isn't that why it's called humanitarian intervention?).  

In any case, I happen to define "interests" more broadly than, say, Daniel Larison who has made strong arguments against intervention (including criticizing my recent post). One of the main sources of Arab antipathy toward America is our long, tragic history of supporting repressive dictatorships in the region. This five-decade-long bi-partisan policy gave us the self-destructing Arab world that we have now (and also contributed to the rise of Arab terrorism as Steven Brooke and I argue here). The "stability paradigm," - which is just about as "realist" as you can get - has proven a failure. It is critical, then, that the U.S. begin to align itself with forces of democratic change. Autocracies, after all, don't last forever. Libya is part of this bigger strategic picture. People have warned that applying the "responsibility to protect" in cases where autocracies massacre their own citizens could set a precedent. But that is precisely the point - it should set a precedent.

By contrast, if Libya fails, Qaddafi stays in power, and the rebels are crushed, it will mark the end of what's left of the Arab spring. It will send a dangerous message to autocrats: if you want to stay in power, do what Qaddafi did. We should also note that after a people are brutally and systematically crushed, it takes a long time for them to recover (Syria and Algeria are two instructive examples). This would end Libyans' dream of democracy for quite possibly decades. 

Does Larison think that being remembered for letting Libyans get slaughtered is going to facilitate a promising future of U.S.-Arab relations? No, it will be another blot on America's record. That is why I found it odd that Philip Gourevitch cited our support for autocrats as a reason to be wary of intervention. Wouldn't it be the opposite? Others, like Ezra Klein and Andrew Sullivan, as well as Gourevitch have wondered why we haven't intervened in, say, Ivory Coast or Burma where atrocities were (and are) being committed. This is the argument I find the most difficult to wrap my head around. Doing nothing in two countries does not justify doing nothing in a third. Doing the wrong thing consistently seems no better to me than doing the wrong thing inconsistently. I'd rather us get this one right than none of them. We also have to be realistic: politics, and by extension, foreign policy is about the art of the possible. It would be very difficult to assemble an international coalition to intervene in Ivory Coast or Burma tomorrow. But that internatonal coalition is already in place in the case of Libya, receiving unprecedented Arab support (and U.N authorization). So to the question of why Libya, the answer is relatively straightforward: because we can - where, in other countries, we can't. 

And this is yet another way Libya bears little resemblance to Iraq. As I argue in a recent Foreign Policy piece, where, in Iraq, we stood alone calling for war while most of the world opposed it, the dynamic, this time, was reversed. The United States - along with Russia, China, and Germany among the major powers - stood increasingly alone in opposing the emerging Arab and international consensus favoring intervention.

Let us now consider what is almost certain to happen in the absence of military intervention and then we can decide if that outcome is in the interests of the U.S. or the international community. Qaddafi would overrun Benghazi, an urban center of more than 1 million. Knowing what we know about Qaddafi, we can except brutal reprisals. Already thousands have been killed. But that would be nothing compared to the mass executions that Qaddafi would be likely to inflict on the rebel army and members of interim government. I don't know about you - but I have trouble understanding how people can be okay with sitting back and doing nothing, when, with military intervention, it could fairly easily be prevented. We can stop it. Moving to the strict "interests" rationale, it seems fairly self-evident that Libya, under an isolated Qaddafi, would likely return to attacking Western interests in the region, including through terrorism. He's done it before.  

Some people might take issue with "moral imperatives" or how morality is very much part of how I conceptualize broader U.S. interests. But we aren't France (and even France has taken to talking about the honor of the West in face of dictatorship). We are the United States and the U.S., for both better and worse, has claimed to be a nation that stands for something beyond the nation-state. That's why people look to us for moral leadership, even if they're likely not to find it. We are not Botswana. And the president of the United States is not the premier of China. Moreover, it is declared U.S. policy under both the Bush adn Obama administrations that the U.S. will support the universal, democratic aspirations of the Arab people. In this sense, we have encouraged them to do what we would do in similar circumstances - resist repression and fight for their freedom. 

In contrast, Greg Scoblete argues

And as for America's security interests, it seems to me the over-riding security interest of the United States is to safeguard the lives and resources of its citizens and to put both on the line only when either are gravely threatened. Libya hardly meets such a standard.

I'm not sure Libya meets this "standard" either. But I don't really understand why this is the standard that military action in Libya should meet. The lives of American citizens were not at stake in Rwanda but I think most people now realize that that was a dire mistake. Our failure to act there will remain yet another tragic mark on not only our history but that of the international community. 

Obviously, we need to have a broader conversation about America's role in a new, emerging Middle East? What do we have to say about U.S. leadership in an age of supposed Americna decline? We should think ahead. Doing the right thing not just in Libya, but elsehwere in the region, allows us an opportunity to re-affirm America's moral and political leadership at a time when there seems to be an absence of leadership on the world stage. It is not too late. And, one hopes, it is not too late for the Libyan people who still find themselves at the mercy of Qaddafi's advancing forces. 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e2014e5ff80702970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Intervening in Libya in American Interests?:

Comments

team america world police!

No, not world policeman, that's been very clear but, in this case working in coordination w/ the intl community to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. I still mourn for the victims of the rwandan genocide n remember albright not wanting to use the word genocide. Finally, the responibility to protect doctrine that all or most nations signed on to is one that is worth acting on when ppl r in danger from their own government.

Qoute "We are not Botswana" end Qoute, What does this mean or imply??

waow, such weak arguments from such a renowned name!

1- "Others, like Ezra Klein and Andrew Sullivan, as well as Gourevitch have wondered why we haven't intervened in, say, Ivory Coast or Burma where atrocities were (and are) being committed. This is the argument I find the most difficult to wrap my head around. Doing nothing in two countries does not justify doing nothing in a third."
How is this difficult to understand? They're asking about the hypocrisy and the the actual reasons behind the actions (saying it's humanitarian just doesn't cut it). Doing nothing for Ivory Coast should be as unacceptable as doing nothing for Libya, but then again, oil beats cacao. And let's just not start with what's happening in Bahrain or Yemen right now, right in front of our eyes in the very same region, and the US response or shall we say lack of response to them.

2- "It would be very difficult to assemble an international coalition to intervene in Ivory Coast or Burma tomorrow. But that internatonal coalition is already in place in the case of Libya, receiving unprecedented Arab support (and U.N authorization). So to the question of why Libya, the answer is relatively straightforward: because we can - where, in other countries, we can't."
well this doesn't even require any analysis. I just want to say, really, seriously??? The almighty US would not be able to provide international support for Ivory Coast even if it actually tried? US is in much deeper trouble than it actually shows then, or it only weighs in the matters that "matter" to its own interests whether be financial or political or whatever.

I don't want to go on, this is just sad. It's an insult to those who suffer all around the world when you claim to advocate human rights, freedom and peace, and then act according to very obvious double standards. At least, do not try to fool people with such arguments or have the courtesy to say "sorry, but you ain't worth the trouble".

I don't really understand why this is the standard that military action in Libya should meet. The lives of American citizens were not at stake in Rwanda but I think most people now realize that that was a dire mistake..

When one intervenes in countries that don't have any viable institutions one will wind up adopting them while attempting to establish those instutions from scratch .
Also , I am sorry to say , I forecast that the revolutions in the Mideast will run into the sand when considering our interests.
We were a very fortunate country but now it seems that new dynamics are operating in the world.

Thanks for sharing it with us.Informative!

thanks

The blog contains so many real and the informative things and i can also achieve so many things from this blog.It also contains some part of the Moralities.Thank you for sharing.

“I would love to hear how doing nothing in Libya was going to help U.S. security interests.”
A profoundly ignorant statement:
US security interests, like all national security interests, are grounded on the principle of national sovereignty.
As you and others have repeatedly pointed out, Libya is engaged in civil war. The government of Libya presents no threat to anyone beyond its borders. Simple enough to comprehend for anyone who has been paying attention. Intervention places us now squarely in the realm of conjecture and speculation. “The spectre of Iraq and Afghanistan” provides a useful foreshadowing of what we can expect and that is all. It is also enough that only a fool would write it away as a ghost story.
If these arguments surprise Mr Hamid by their weakness, it is because he lacks the capacity to engage them as they are and not as he would have them to be.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Emeritus Contributors
Subscribe
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Email: 
Powered by TypePad

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use