tl; dr
Various bloggers have already written excellent posts about the legality (and morality) of the Obama Administration’s actions in Libya. [See footnotes below]. As such, I won’t delve too deeply into technical arguments. I want to point out one thing, however: The situation in Libya – a dictator who is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds if not thousands is precisely the sort of scenario that the United Nations was formed to address, and people need to calm the fuck down. (Ok, fine — that was two things.)
Let’s Walk Through History: The League of Nations and the United Nations
The UN was borne of the inefficacy and resulting collapse of the League of Nations. Think of the UN and the League of Nations as cousins; they are similar in that they were formed because people were tired of World Wars. They are dissimilar because the League of Nations was ineffectual in dealing with disputes between countries because after World War I, most countries were either too broke to be of much military aid, or too dooshy to even be allowed to join the League of Nations.
Woodrow Wilson dreamed up the idea of the League of Nations after being horrified by the shit that went down in World War I. He envisioned an international body, the sole purpose of which was to maintain peace and to sort out international disputes as they occurred. In other words, Wilson was tired of all these motherfuckin’ wars in this motherfuckin’ world. No more slap fights between nations which resulted in one nation saying “That’s it! We’re taking over.” The League of Nations sought to curb this sort of childish behavior by doing the following:
- It could call on the states in dispute to sit down and discuss the problem in an orderly and peaceful manner. This would be done in the League’s Assembly – which was essentially the League’s parliament, and which would listen to disputes and come to a decision on how to proceed. If one nation was seen to be the offender, the League could introduce verbal sanctions – warning an aggressor nation that she would need to leave another nation’s territory or face the consequences.
- If the states in dispute failed to listen to the Assembly’s decision, the League could introduce economic sanctions. This would be arranged by the League’s Council. The purpose of this sanction was to financially hit the aggressor nation so that she would have to do as the League required. The logic behind it was to push an aggressor nation towards bankruptcy, so that the people in that state would take out their anger on their government forcing them to accept the League’s decision. The League could order League members not to do any trade with an aggressor nation in an effort to bring that aggressor nation to heel.
- If this failed, the League could introduce physical sanctions. This meant that military force would be used to put into place the League’s decision. However, the League did not have a military force at its disposal and no member of the League had to provide one under the terms of joining – unlike the current United Nations. Therefore, it could not carry out any threats and any country defying its authority would have been very aware of this weakness. The only two countries in the League that could have provided any military might were Britain and France and both had been severely depleted strength-wise in World War One and could not provide the League with the backing it needed. Also both Britain and France were not in a position to use their finances to pay for an expanded army as both were financially hit very hard by World War One.
The primary failing of the League of Nations was that countries either were not that jazzed about joining, or were not permitted to join because they were assholes.
For example, The US didn’t join it (even though it was Wilson’s ding dang idea), but at the time, it fit with the US’s isolationist foreign policy. So… that was cool, I guess.
As for Germany, the world was still wary about its capacity to stop acting like such a douche bag all the time (and rightfully so, since Germany decided to be a dick again a few years later); Germany started World War I, and as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, the world gave Germany the finger. People so were not ready to deal with Germany.***
And then there was Russia. Good ol’ communist Russia. Nobody likes commies, so Russia wasn’t invited to the League of Nations Dance. Western Europe was afeared of the Red Menace and was all “uh uh. No way.”
So the USA, Russia, and Germany were out. Britain and France were broke (as a result of WWI) and didn’t really care to get into a bunch of international disputes with countries they didn’t give a shit about. (Kind of like the USA tends to not give a shit about international disputes that don’t involve oil).
Needless to say, the League of Nations was only minimally effective. If two countries got into a pissing match, they were ordered, essentially, to “hug it out, bitches.” If that didn’t work, then it was economic sanctions time. If that didn’t work, the last resort, essentially was a sternly worded letter:
“Hey! Asshole Country! You stop that!”
“Oh yeah, what are you gonna do about it?”
“Erm… well… I don’t know… but JUST STOP IT!”
It was sort of like this:
Sort of bullshit, is what I’m saying.
The League of Nations just wasn’t getting the job done. The UN, having learned from the mistakes of the League of Nations, made sure that it could open up a can of whoop-ass on any Asshole Country which refused to listen to reason – all in the name of peacekeeping, of course. The preamble of the UN Charter sets forth its purpose:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to regain faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,AND FOR THESE ENDS
• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
It made sense. I mean, after the Hitler douchebaggery, the international community was tired of assholes trying to annex every country they could get their grubby paws on:
So what does this have to do with Libya, is what you’re asking (stop yawning… I saw that).
Fuckin’ UN. How does it work?
First, it is important to understand that the efficacy of the United Nations depends on the commitment of nation-states to the UN Charter, and the commitment of nation-states to follow the rules. Meaning, if shit is going down in another country and that shit violates the principles of the UN (peace, stability, a ponycorn for all) then it is incumbent upon the UN to act; and when it does so, it acts through the Security Council (Chapter V):
Article 24
1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
2. In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI [PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES], VII [ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION], VIII [REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS], and XII [INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM].
3. The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
Now, Chapter VII is where the good stuff is – it’s the section that governs what the Security Council can and cannot do when Asshole Countries Go Wild™:
- Article 39 says that the Security Council has to get together and figure out what to do when an Asshole Country is being an asshole (Like Libya is — well, its leader anyway).
- Article 40 says the Security Council can call upon the assholes to sit down and work the shit out. (Note it says “can call upon the parties,” not “must call upon the parties.”) I think it’s safe to say that, given Qaddafi’s batshit craziness, he wasn’t going to sit down over a spot of tea and talk about his feelings.
- Article 41 says that if the asshole won’t listen, sever diplomatic relations, UN Members will be called on to apply what are (essentially) economic sanctions.
- Article 42 says if the economic sanctions don’t work, “[the Security Council] may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”
- Article 43 primarily talks about making available to the Security Council armed forces and other whatnots and so-forths in accordance with special agreements to be negotiated between nation-states and the Security Council; and, secondarily, requires that the agreements be negotiated ASAP and be subject to ratification by signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
“Ah-ha!” I’m sure you’re thinking. “This Libya business wasn’t ratified by the US in accordance with our constitutional processes! Duh and/or hello?! War Powers Act anyone?!” Facially, that’s a good argument. When one delves into the bowels of UN policy, however, it becomes apparent that Article 43 is, essentially, useless.
To wit,
E. Articles 43-47 – Command and deployment of military forces
Articles 43 -47 of the Charter provide for arrangements intended to govern the relationship between the Security Council and the Member States contributing troops for the purpose of maintenance of international peace and security. The Repertoire captures decisions and discussions that touch upon this relationship.
Article 43 – Member States’ obligation to offer assistance in the maintenance of international peace and security
The obligation for United Nations members to undertake to make armed forces available to the Security Council, render assistance and accord relief as necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security exists only in accordance with one or more special agreements. Nevertheless, such agreements were never concluded and no State is obligated to make troops available to the Council in a particular situation. Consequently, the United Nations has to enter into negotiations every time a situation calls for the establishment of an operation.
…
Article 46 – Assistance by the Military Staff Committee
Article 47 – Composition of the Military Staff Committee
The Military Staff Committee, composed of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Council, was given responsibility for the strategic coordination of forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. However, the Military Staff Committee has been of only limited significance in practice. It has, however, continued to meet regularly. In recent years, the possibility of reactivating the Military Staff Committee was raised in connection with the issues of threats to international peace and security and United Nations peacekeeping operations.
So yeah. It’s an Article 42 thing. (Isn’t it? Correct me if I’m wrong. But I’m pretty sure I’m right.)1
Libya is Not Iraq 2: When Kenyans Attack2
I’ve seen a lot of people freaking out about the fact that Obama jumped into this war without seeking Congressional approval, and without polling the American public and HOLY SHITSNACKS WE’RE INVADING THE MIDDLE EAST AGAIN OMFG LOLWTFBBQ!!!!1. You may continue to freak out if you like, and indeed, there is a good reason to. We don’t have a good track record when it comes to inserting ourselves into foreign conflicts. Maybe we go in with the notion that we’re just going to help the people out, and then once we get there, we see a bunch of shit that we totally want for ourselves, so maybe we ought to just go ahead and build a permanent military base and bend the country to our will.
It happens — a lot — and to ignore that the US (and Britain and France, for that matter) have a long and storied history of imperial assholicism is just plain stupid.
Still, whether or not this Libya business turns out well is a discussion for some time in the future. Whether or not the UN is an efficient “international government” (or as the John Birch Society would put it, the center of the one world government conspiracy), and whether nations should be able to commit their military resources absent authorization from their governments is a different debate. That’s a debate we should have. Our military is taxed – we’re in Afghanistan and I really don’t understand why, and of course Bush fucked us to the tune of seventy-eleven billion dollars spent in Iraq.
I’ve also seen people arguing that our adventures in Iraq preclude us from acting as a moral force for good until – I don’t know when – some arbitrary time when people like Michael Moore stop freaking out, I reckon. This is also a debate we should have.
But for now, if you, like me, don’t need one more thing to freak out about, let’s discuss what’s going on in Libya. And let’s stop pre-freaking out, shall we?
My understanding is that Obama was under no obligation to obtain a resolution or authorization from Congress in advance of deciding to throw the US hat into Libya ring. Why? Because this is not a unilateral action by the United States against Libya. If you have been paying attention to what the Obama Administration is saying (and also to what non-asshatted media (aka foreign media) has been saying), you’ll notice that it’s all about “not going it alone” and “coalitions” and “letting others take the lead”:
Sure, there was an ultimatum, the threat of military action. Those are the headlines. And there was an explanation why America might have to fight.
Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilised, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.
But the subtext is more important. Read the last sentence in that quotation again. In a speech of just over three pages he repeats this point. Not once:
The US has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response.
Not twice:
The US is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone.
Not three times:
It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role.
But more:
So I have taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone.
So you might have gathered, the US is not going it alone. Throughout his declaration Mr Obama makes it clear how different this is to the Iraq war. Not only the international consensus, but the limits on action.
I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The US is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya. And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.
The limits he sets out are not just practical, they are limits to ambitions and objectives.
I want to be clear: The change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the US or any foreign power; ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab World. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny.
Mr Obama is only a reluctant convert to action, and you could argue he’s merely disguising his feet-dragging with noble rhetoric about the international community. It’s certainly noticeable that he didn’t mention the killings in Yemen (although he earlier issued a statement condemning them) or the unrest in Bahrain, stiffer tests of American power and resolve.
But I think we are seeing something new. He is using a crisis thrust upon him to set out an Obama doctrine of sorts, to make a statement about America’s relationship with the world. While he is in charge, he is saying, America will not go it alone, will set limits on what it does, and won’t impose its will. Some will not like this, and the world will find it difficult to adapt to a president who almost seems determined to lead from behind.
The Obama doctrine is a tightrope walk: Acting, but within limits, leading only as a first among equals.
So yeah — this isn’t Iraq.
Battered Bush Syndrome
Let me say that again: This is not Iraq. If it turns out that Obama is lying through his pretty white teeth, I will eat a big pile of crow, and then I will promptly join you in your freakoutery. But for the time being, it seems advisable to look at what is going on with this particular situation without throwing all our Iraq emotional baggage into the mix.
We as a nation need to go to therapy to deal with our Acute Battered Bush Syndrome. The Bush years were really hard on us. We have a long history of imperialist misadventures. This country doesn’t seem able (or willing) to remove its mouth from Mother Earth’s oil nipple. And yes, UN peacekeeping missions often turn into clusterfucks. So we certainly have a responsibility to pay attention to what we’re being told versus what’s going on. (To that end, I suggest you stop reading American newspapers and stick to foreign rags like BBC, Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Spiegel. You’ll find that these newspapers have, like, actual news in them, rather than pages and pages of op-eds from assclowns I wouldn’t trust to take care of my dog.)
Our trepidation and even our fury is understandable. You see, Iraq was all about WE HAZ TO ATTACK BECUZ ZOMG THEY HAVE WEAPINZS OF MATH DEDUCTION AND THEY ARE GOING TO KILL US EVERYBODY PICNICK!!!11one. People in the Know all agree that Iraq was bullshit; Bush was gung-ho about invading Iraq, got Tony Blair to bend to his cowboy will, and in the process severely weakened the UN as a governing force:
A key theme of the evidence, yet to be published, is that the government weakened the UN, damaging the country’s reputation in the process – arguments made by Ed Miliband in his inaugural speech to the Labour conference.
Ralph Zacklin, the British-born UN assistant secretary general for legal affairs at the time, has told the inquiry that the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, failed to strike a proper balance “between the underlying political concerns of the government and respect for the rule of law” in adopting the view that a fresh UN security council resolution was not needed. Goldsmith’s interpretation of previous UN resolutions was “self-serving”.
“The damage to the UK and credibility of the security council was very significant”, he told the Guardian today. “It was pretty clear [Goldsmith] was under a lot of pressure”.
Zacklin said the way Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, dismissed the advice of his own lawyers was particularly shocking. Chilcot has heard that Sir Michael Wood, warned Straw that “to use force without security council authority would amount to a crime of aggression”.
In a separate submission, a group of 23 lawyers describe the government’s argument that it could rely on previous UN resolutions to invade as untenable. “The decision to use force against a sovereign state is so monumental … it can only be taken by the security council.”
It bears repeating: The decision to use force against a sovereign state is so monumental that it can only be taken by the security council.
The 2003 land-invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the Security Council. Bush was chomping at the bit to go into Iraq and argued that the resort to force was implied in this or that or the other UN resolution. The Bushies made various arguments, using previous resolutions related to the Iraq/Kuwait conflict to prop up its INVADE IRAQ NOW PLEASE stance, but those arguments were kitchen-sink arguments. Indeed, Richard Perle, the hawkiest of war hawks conceded that the war was illegal, stating that international law got in the way of what the Bush Administration believed to be right:
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq – also the British government’s publicly stated view – or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone”, and this would have been morally unacceptable.
French intransigence, he added, meant there had been “no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein”.
Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.
What’s happening in Libya is exactly not that. (In fact, the “Obama is a pussy” meme is already circulating because Obama didn’t act quickly enough.) What’s happening in Libya is the same as what happened in Tunisia and Egypt (and what’s happening in Bahrain and Yemen) except that Qaddafi is a crazy asshole who is bombing and shooting the shit out of his own people with reckless abandon (and it doesn’t seem that Bahrain and Yemen have gotten that bad yet (typed with irony or sarcasm or whatever). Qaddafi is such a nutjob that some of his own military have taken up arms against him and refuse to carry out his orders. Nonplussed, Qaddafi went and hired a bunch of mercenary thugs to slaughter people. These actions directly undermine the purpose of the UN which is — if you’ve been paying attention — to keep the peace.
Check out Security Council Resolution 1674 (adopted in 2006) if you don’t believe me. 1674 states that it is the UN’s responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, even in cases where the civilians in need of protection are smack dab in the middle of an armed conflict. (Like Libya.)
With Iraq? Well who the fuck knew why we were in Iraq. We had our suspicions but it was hard to keep up with the moving target. WMDs, no wait, democracy… no wait… 9/11… no wait, we don’t like Hussein’s mustache and beret. Whatever the reasons trotted out, they were each bullshit. As such, it is perfectly understandable that we are all suffering Battered Bush Syndrome.
Bush lied to the UN about the threat that the US was facing — ZOMG! mushroom cloud!! — so that he could Shock and Awe and declare “Mission Accomplished” while wearing a super-sweet bomber jacket. He got Colin Powell — everybody trusts Colin Powell! — to lie his black ass off in front of the UN.
The Bush Administration lied and lied and lied until half the country believed the lies, while the other half looked on, aghast at the fuckery. Those of us with brains kept wondering why we were bombing Iraq instead of tracking bin Laden’s ass down. But Bush wasn’t worried about bin Laden. He said as much. The only time bin Laden got thrust into the collective consciousness was when it was election time, or when it was time to pass some ridiculous legislation, or when it was time to ask Congress for more money for the war chest. Only then would a new bin Laden tape appear, and only then would the terror threat be raised to YOU’RE PROBABLY ON FIRE RIGHT NOW! And of course, the vast majority of the country lost its collective shit.
So, yeah — I get it. But again, this isn’t Iraq.
Is Libya Bad Idea Jeans?2
Are we doing the right thing? I don’t know. What’s our end game? Beats me. How’s it all going to shake out? ::shrug:: Should we be skeptical? Fuck yeah.
Sure, this whole thing might be a terrible idea. And, indeed, we would be in dereliction of our duties as humans if we ran headlong into this Libyan conflict without being cognizant of all the prior conflicts ostensibly started for Moral Reasons but which turned out to be total clusterfucks.
But skepticism is a far cry from balls-out histrionics, of the sort that Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, and the Great Glenn Greenwald aka G-Cubed have exhibited:
The Obama Administration’s decision to attack Libya was made without any Congressional approval. It’s outside the Constitution of the United States. Whether you like President Obama or not is not the question. The question is: if you like the Constitution more. And the Constitution places very firmly in the hands of Congress the decision as to whether or not to commit the men and women of our armed services to a conflict, or the physical assets of the United States of America into a conflict.
We are bombing Libya right now. Congress did not approve, according to the Constitution. Such an action lacks legality in the United States and the President should have to answer to that. I mean this isn’t anything that is a small matter. It’s a very grave matter, actually.
Listen up, Dennis: I like me some Constitution. I also like me some vast body of law interpreting the Constitution. But you are wrong. Wrong wrong wrongity wrong. Congressional authorization is not required because the US is acting pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution that clearly contemplates whatever the fuck we’re doing in Libya. Seriously. Don’t you have staffers who know how to read the UN Charter?
- Michael Moore (whom I generally adore) is, to put it simply, acting like a crazy person (as evidenced by his tweets):
First, the way he spells Qaddafi drives me batshit. (Small point, I know.) Second, what the hell is he talking about? When the Libyans began their uprising (as the folks in Egypt and Tunisia did) weren’t we all calling them revolutionaries and yelling about power to the people? Now all of a sudden we’re siding with dictators and calling them “rebels”? We don’t know whose side they’re on? They might be murdering us in our sleep right now.
I don’t read G-Cubed’s screeds anymore – I’d rather inject Drano into my veins. But I can imagine his posts are replete with talk of Very Serious People and Oddly Capitalized Phrases which are intended to impart a sense of “I’m so much smarter than you scummy hoi polloi.” I also imagine that he takes a swipe or two at the worshipers of His Royal Highness King Obama of Kenyatown. I imagine that there are likely five Super Important Updates in which he points out that somebody else on the intertrons agrees with him (which is why that person is super awesome), or somebody else disagrees with him and here’s why they’re totally stupid.
But since he tweeted (to a person who was tweeting me about this subject) that no one is making the argument that this falls within the rubric of Article 42 because it is “absurd” and Not Serious, I’d really like for him to explain why he’s so certain of its absurdity. Yoohoo! Oh Glennie Boy! Over here!! Care to explain yourself? Or are you just going to brush it off as beneath you to make an actual argument that actually references actual UN documents? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?
I ask because it seems obvious to me that it’s an Article 42 thing. Article 42 says if sanctions don’t work, the UN can use force. Since the UN doesn’t have a standing army, it seems obvious the UN must rely on the force of its members. What am I missing?
Moreover, the United Nations Participation Act of December 20, 1945 says the President needs Congressional approval for Article 43 stuff, but not for Article 42 stuff:
“The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein.”
There’s some additional language in the UN Participation Act (you can read it by clicking the link above), which I interpret to mean that POTUS can’t bootstrap the use of armed forces under Article 42 (for specific peacekeeping missions) into committing our troops to some sort of standing UN army under Article 43.
It’s really that simple. Actually, it’s not that simple. I had to read and reread and cross-read and omni-read in order to put these pieces together. But legalese aside, it makes sense to me. Now, of course I could be wrong. That’s the bitch of lawyering and reading statutes; there are so many rules of statutory construction and interpretation that it’s enough to make one’s brain fall out. In law school, you can take an entire class on statutory interpretation: look to the plain meaning of the statute; look to terms of art; look to the dictionary; don’t interpret shit as to render other shit surplusage; Congress knows how to say the shit it wants to say, and on and on. So for G-Cubed to dismiss out-of-hand as absurd the argument that Article 42 is applicable strikes me as… well… absurd.
The whole point of the UN was to speed up the “Squash Beefs Between Asshole Countries” process as well as the “Stop Murdering Your Citizens, You Asshole Dictator” process. If each UN Member had to pass some sort of law, resolution, or bill at home first, then what’s the point? Governments the world over would sit around wondering if they should go:
“Should we go? We should go. People are getting slaughtered over there! But there’s shit going down on the domestic front, man! Why can’t Asshole Country handle its own shit? Goddamnit. Should we go? Are you going? I’ll go if you go.” You can imagine how long that would take:
It would take fo-evah, is what I’m saying.
War: What Is It Good For?
The problem with the current debate regarding Obama’s actions in Libya is that people on the left are talking past each other. Lefties are conflating two debates: (1) a debate regarding whether or not it is proper for the United States to be mandated by treaties (which are the supreme law of the land and not subject to Congressional encroachment) to get involved in such critical humanitarian peacekeeping missions absent a polling of public opinion and absent authorization from Congress, and (2) a debate about the legality of what Obama is doing. The first debate is not a debate about Obama’s current actions in Libya; it’s a policy debate. It’s a debate about international law, and the United States’ place as a member of the international community and whether or not the UN is totally useless.
As to the second debate, it seems to me that Obama is following the rules, at least as far as I can tell. If you want to complain about the rules, that’s cool. But that’s debate number 1. As to debate number 2, get off Obama’s back already. MIRITE?
One irksome complaint I’ve seen is that Obama is going back on his campaign talky-talk:3
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Yeah? So? THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS IS. This is an action by a member of the UN in concert with other members of the UN to stop a crazy madman from blowing up his own people. This is not the president unilaterally authorizing an attack. It’s a president abiding by the principles of and agreements with the United Nations as those principles dovetail with U.S. law (the UN Participation Act).
I’ve also seen complaints from the left that there are so many humanitarian crises throughout the world and we’re not doing shit about those, so obviously the United States is involving itself in this particular crisis because of our addiction to oil and desire to control ALL THE OIL.
I have no opinion yet as to whether or not that is the case here. Was it an easier decision to get involved in Libya because of oil? ::shrug:: How the hell would I know? But Wikipedia tells me that Libya is 18th on the list of countries that have mad oil, son — behind Canada. I say we invade Canada and take their universal healthcare. (Probably not feasible as a military strategy.)
What’s important to remember is that the Security Council decided to act to protect civilians in Libya. I’m sure each country has its own reasons for wanting to act, but at the end of the day, they decided to do this shit together. Why not Bahrain? Maybe the Security Council members aren’t ready to deal with Bahrain yet. Same with Yemen.
The point is, I don’t know and you don’t either. And any journalists, bloggers, whatever that discuss the situation in Libya without bothering to explain or reference (as I have done in GRAAAAAAAVE (and annoying) detail) how the fucking UN works is, quite simply, not doing their job. They aren’t researching and reading and trying to figure out what’s going on. They are pushing an agenda. Then again, that’s par for the course for the American media these days, innit?
Yes, I’m Shutting Up Now
What are you supposed to take from all of this? If there’s one thing, it’s this — please don’t accept anything anyone says as The Truth. If anyone tells you they definitely know what’s going on, they are probably full of shit. I’ve researched this post for hours and hours and I’m still as uncertain as I was when I started. Also, I’m sure I’ve missed something, or gotten something wrong. (If I have, point it out to me. Show me a resource I should read that I have not yet read. But don’t come at me with soundbytes and slogans. “Obama lied and Libyans died.” “Nobama, no peace.” Get the fuck out of here with that. It’s a nonstarter and I won’t respond to it.) Ask questions. Open your mind. Debate. Think.
I know, I know. Bush murdered our collective soul and then peed on it. (Runaway train, never comin’ back…) We’re all skeptical. I am, too. I don’t know what to think about this. On the one hand, I’m having flashbacks to 2003. On the other hand, I’m not comfortable saying “Fuck Libya,” especially when the “rebels” are asking for our help.4
On the other other hand, I am very much swayed by the argument that the USA has a habit of not leaving. We’re like the guy at a party whom everybody loves at the beginning of the evening, but whom everybody hates by the end because he just won’t go away. The USA rolls in with a sack of bomb chronic and a fifth of JD, but at 4 am when you’re trying to get everyone the fuck out of your house, the USA is lying on the floor, drunkenly crooning “Bohemian Rhapsody” – nothing really matters… anyone can see… nothing really matters… to me – while everybody else is looking around wondering when the USA will just fucking go home already.
So yes, let’s discuss whether or not we will actually be able to work with France, Britain, the Arab League and whomever else to stop the slaughter of innocent Libyans and then get the hell out before we start thinking maybe we should just set up a permanent base… you know… just in cases.5
Let’s discuss whether or not the UN is an efficient international governing body.
Let’s have some group therapy and talk about how Battered Bush Syndrome has changed our lives.
But for the love of poutine, can we stop with the histrionic freak-outs?
I’m looking at you, Michael Moore.
1Check out this post over at Another War of Jenkin’s Ear (“A Legal War: The United Nations Participation Act and Libya (updated)”) for a more succinct explanation of why this is an Article 42 and not Article 43 thang. Also, check out this post over at The Reid Report (“Obama, Qaddafi, and the power to make war **2nd UPDATE: Salon attacks”). And while you’re at it, check out Alternet.org’s Josh Holland’s post over at Dirty Hippies (“Libya No-Fly: “Interventionism” Versus “Isolationism” Is Still a False Dichotomy”). Seriously. Read them.
2 Check out this post from Juan Cole over at Informed Comment: Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is not Iraq 2003.
3 This article in Reason (“Candidate Obama Says President Obama’s War Is Unconstitutional“) is what happens when you send idiots to the Koch Institute Training program and fill their stupid heads full of libertarian/free market/kochsucking principles without giving them the tools to think critically. Reason tries to throw Obama’s own words back at him and fails miserably. Let me explain– in response to this question:
In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Obama responded as follows:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
A-ha! OBAMA IS JUST LIKE BUSH!! Except, dillholes, this Libya business is not about imminent threat to the nation. It’s about the motherfrakking UN and our position in the UN. And while you may poo-poo the “it’s humanitarian, stupid” argument, that doesn’t make it any less true. Certainly, the point is debatable and shouldn’t be summarily dismissed. This Libya business is tricky: It involves tricky issues of international law. It also involves tricky PR issues as can be seen by the scads of so-called experts who don’t seem to want to bother to take the time to read the resolution or the provisions of the UN Charter that sanction the resolution. It’s much easier for The Left to take its cue from G-cubed (who contributes to the Cato Institute, by the way, and yes it’s relevant when it comes to what I see as his distortion regarding the goings-on in Libya, as well as his incessant Obama-bashing) and for (non-closeted) Libertarians to take their cue from Reason (the very title is oxymoronic) and for Teabillies to take their cues from Fox News (which seems to be doing what it always does — lying its ass off, this time about reporters in Libya being used as human shields).
4 This article in The Guardian is worth reading: UN’s Libya Resolution 1973 is Better Late Than Never.
5 It’s not a typo.
*** I half-assedly corrected some minor errors regarding the ratification process of the League of Nations and the timing of the entrance of Germany and Russia to the League of Nations, as well as the timing of WWII. It’s hardly relevant to the rest of my post, but there it is!
[All snark aside --well most snark aside -- I want to know if I'm missing something. I very well could be. It just seems to me that people are freaking out because of Bush and Iraq and aren't thinking about this particular situation.]
I don’t go that way (I’m striclty dickly and the young kids say…do they still say that???) but I love you and thank you for this post…
Actually, it’s quite a lot like Iraq:
http://www.theawl.com/2011/03/against-our-war-in-libya
Appeals to authority are not arguments, especially when the authority to whom you defer isn’t considered to be one. It must have taken you seconds to compose that link.
just because someone says it is so, doesn’t make it true.
did you even read my post and the points i made in it? you couldn’t possibly have because it addresses the issues raised in your link.
FFS.
Erm, no it’s not like Iraq. Sorry
fail.
Regarding Kucinich: the only thing you need to know is that within a day of launching his all-out assault on Obama for being worse than Bush and we should totally impeach him unlike that white guy we let get away with murder is that he made Libya the centerpiece of a fundraising drive.
All that time he’s been spending with Jane Hamsher is literally paying off.
Boo, politicians raising money. Boo.
Boo.
First of all, I voted for Obama, and will vote for Obama in 2012. I’m progressive.
I don’t care about the legality of this move. I don’t care about the UN. I don’t care about the Libyan people, sorry. All I ask is, given where we are domestically at the moment, and domestically we’re quickly heading the way of the Third World, is getting involved in a third war a wise thing to do?
…and, sorry, but my answer to that is a major “no.”
Also consider the fact that this action has split progressives and taken their attention away from domestic issues, exactly at a time when progressives seemed on the verge of taking over the framing of union/wage related matters.
If Obama were, as some have said, yet another corporatist president, I could not imagine a better move on his part. Shift their attention away from pesky domestic stuff. Confuse them. Divide them. Shut them up.
I hope the war’s over within the month, and I hope that I’m very wrong.
Sorry.
“I don’t care about the Libyan people, sorry.”
Well, at least you said you were sorry.
I hope you’re wrong too.
And Obama is not splitting the progressive base. The splitting is being accomplished by skilled ratfuckers who do not share your desire to see Obama re-elected in 2012.
The splitters have shown not one iota of interest in the plight of workers in WI, OH or anywhere else, as I believe our esteemed hostess with the mostest has demonstrated in a screencap showing that none of the featured articles at FDL were about those topics even when the rest of us were painting ourselves Badger Red.
On point.
Maria-
I’m sure there’s a good progressive heart beating somewhere within you and I understand your frustration, but that is the dumbest fucking comment I’ve ever read in my life.
You don’t care about the UN, or Libya, or Libyans, or the legality of it? Really!
Well, it’s a good thing we have a President who does.
Cheers,
ABL
Glenn Greenwald is a dick.
Carry on.
A ten year old couldn’t have said it better.
Takes one to know one!
Whew. That hurt my head reading it. You must be in migraineland.
Just saw this post, and it looks like a lot of work you put into it ABL. It is late, so will delve into tomorrow. But I have been reading Greenwald’s horseshit on this matter, and agree with the drano quip, though metaphorically, of course.
This is a great piece, thank you.
The easiest way to condone and perpetrate criminal acts of war is to demonize the ‘enemy’ (usually the one we provided with wmd yesterday) and convince ourselves we are acting out of humanitarian ideals. Goebbels and Hitler did so too.
The result: thousands, if not millions of dead citizens.
The fact that it is so easy shows how our western civilization is in decline. The US has always been an imperialist power and remains so with Obama. Mene mene tekel upharsin.
He has been weighed and found too light.
Oh, so by making this accusation of imperialism, you’re indicating that you have evidence that President Obama plans to extend the US’ military involvement into a wholescale war to colonize Libya, because for certain you’re not merely repeating hyperbole and nonsense spouted by those who want the GOP back into power and thus are trying to convince any credulous leftists that President Obama is the second coming of Bush…
…aaand Godwin has been achieved.
1) Obama =/= Hitler. As a Jew, I can assure you, Obama =/= Hitler. And his administration =/= Goebbels.
2) Every scary and morally complicated military decision made by a Western power =/= Germany in 1939.
3) The way that this Administration talks about the Libyan people =/= dehumanization (for that, Nazi Germany is a really good reference. A history book would be your friend here).
Aside from anything else, this shows a shattering lack of creativity.
It also shows an unfortunate unwillingness to engage with the many well-researched points ABL has made, and/or acknowledge the many questions she wisely left unanswered.
Awesome comprehensive post! Took me over an hour to read & listen to everything. The President’s approach to Libya gives me a glimmer of hope about his Afghanistan Policy. I personally believe we are in Afghanistan not because we can’t say we’re really trying to keep Nuclear Weapons from Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Seems like we’re using Afghanistan as the predatory drone base.
Regardless, I hope the bastard chokes on a date soon, so we can leave Libya.
“whether or not this Libya business turns out well is a discussion for some time in the future.” I’m sure the current and future victims of our bombing campaign take the same leisurely big-picture view.
Clue in, Danny. The post is 99% an argument about the legality of the action because the morality isn’t really in question. There are bullets in the air and one side is unequivocally wrong. The victims of our air strikes, namely the Lybian Patriots Driving Tanks for Gadaffi, will of course be sorely disappointed with the decision to use force. BUT THEIR VICTIMS, THOSE THEY WERE SHELLING, MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THE MATTER.
We launched a war against a country that didn’t attack us. It’s wrong.
Well, since the thread has already been Godwined, I would hasten to point out that your argument would have precluded us going into Germany during WWII. Germany never attacked the US, thus by your logic, it was wrong of us to go into Germany.
Well, there’s the matter of Germany declaring war on the US shortly after we declared war on Japan.
It’s useful to remember that there are people in the US (on both the right and the left) who would refleively oppose even an effort on President Obama’s part in favor of good health or safe driving.
And Glenn (Cato Institute Libertarian) Greenwald is assuredly (and asshattedly) one of them.
From the right, I can at least understand it. They are motivated by their mix of greed, power lust, racism, and a few other things I don’t even want to have to consider. They’ve launched their screeds and are moving on.
From the left, it’s spoiled-brat behavior. And it’s stupidity on a galactic scale. All the people fulminating about legalities are the very ones we see at DFL (I’m a Minnesotan) functions constantly worrying about the integrity of the process, as though processes were ends in themselves, and never meant to produce identifiable results.
Come on, folks, let’s stop Moammar (and his brothers Larrymar and Curlymar) from killing people FIRST and then we can have our nice debate about the niceties after.
Or do you care more about legalities to the extent that you’re willing to stand by and let people be killed for your abstract ideals? Because the list of people who share that notion is not a pretty one: Pinochet, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, and that curious Austrian fellow with the Chaplin mustache.
Feel good about falling into that line?
Yes, good post (ABL and Ponytail)
I’ve found it totally despicable that couldn’t-give-a-shit-about-Afghanistan-or-Iraq centrists like Yglesias are buffing their left-cred by arguing that by bombing Gaddafi, we are
1) Being hypocritical unless we also invade Somalia, Ivory Coast, and Western China,
or
2) Giving the dictators in the Arab league some ideological cover for their own domestic atrocities.
#2 is of the just-plain-stupid variety: does anyone actually think that the activists in Bahrain etc. are going to look up at an Al Jazeera broadcast of their own fearless leaders fighting for democracy in Lybia and say, “Hey, secret police and invading Saudi military backed by the US, you’re totally right that my demands are illegitimate. BTW, you didn’t attach the electrodes to my balls in the right way.”
#1 is truly cynical, because it shows that these “wonky” liberals really couldn’t give a shit about the universality of human rights–otherwise their response would be, “Hey, good job for wasting Gaddafi’s tanks and planes so he can’t massacre his entire country. Now we should do the same thing to Gbagbo and his SINGLE FUCKING HELICOPTER, since he’s already caused an exodus of 300k+ refugees.”
These peoples’ failure to oppose our hot wars goes hand in hand with their utter lack of interest in universal human rights. OF COURSE the US is being hypocritical in its attack on Lybia, but instead of bitching about the motives we should try to hold it to its word.
And it isn’t that our adventures in Iraq preclude us from acting as a moral force for good, it’s the demonstrated failure of America’s ‘roid raged Military Industrial Complex explodey brand of justice to produce even a cold, calculated realpolitik benefit to America’s immediate national interest – much less actual moral good.
Jesus, it’s like Groundhog Day in here – does everyone just get their memory wiped every morning? We didn’t go it alone in Iraq either – remember the Coalition of the Willing? It was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now. How many times do we fall for the exact same line of bullshit from the government and press before we start actually calling bullshit on it?
Or the false choice logic that either we bomb the shit out of them or stand by helplessly; or the singling out of one particular dictator as the object of our undivided attention where others (like Mugabe for about a decade now) are free to destroy their countries. All of it – it’s been very thoroughly discussed, over and over. How does all of that just get missed?
The US just launched yet another war of aggression. To focus on legalisms like Article Whatever is just “baffle ‘em with bullshit” evasion.
We launched a war against a country that didn’t attack us. It’s wrong. And it really is that simple.
Seriously? Coalition of the Willing?
The French air force and an immediately relevant declaration (as opposed to Bush’s warping of prior resolutions) by the UN Security Council are not Mongolia and Sycophant Eastern European client states.
I see. So last time our allies were contemptible lackeys not worth dignifying with respect. This time they are fine, upstanding members of the civilized world!
(And yes – the US got its fig leaf from the UN before Iraq as well.)
It is objectively more meaningful to have allies whom you haven’t literally bought off.
And the invasion of Iraq had no UN fig leaf because it was a violation of the Security Council resolution that Bush held up as support.
So, you’re wrong.
Well, as ABL ponted out “Now, of course I could be wrong. That’s the bitch of lawyering and reading statutes; there are so many rules of statutory construction and interpretation that it’s enough to make one’s brain fall out.” So Iraq didn’t have the UN’s blessing? Sez you. And that war’s cheerleaders would blandly assure you of your incorrectness in the same way you’re assuring me of mine. But one thing is indisputable:
We launched a war against a country that didn’t attack us.
Because you’re being such a jackass, it’s time to go to school.
Intervention on behalf of human rights will involve attacking countries that have not attacked one’s own country. Why? Because the purpose of the paradigm of universal human rights is precisely to reconsider who counts as “us.” From a truly humanitarian standpoint, Gaddafi did attack us. He is not the only one–the USA attacks us every day by reducing the universal human body to a set of potential means to desired ends (a problem this blog among others has been objectionably flip about when Barack Obama authorizes it e.g. Manning). But that does not change the fact that he has done violence to humanity as a whole through the body of the Lybian people.
And I swear to God if you keep posting that single line response to everyone I’m going to start linking to Kant and Arendt. Don’t make me do it!!
It seems way early to assume that nothing was offered to the smaller nations (not England or France) who went along with the resolution. As Wikileaks showed, it’s not like the US just stopped strong-arming countries after Obama got elected:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
@walterglass, I’m not discounting the Obama administration’s failure to check America’s imperialistic flare for foreign policy. For instance, I don’t think you have to go so far afield as Kyoto to get an example of that–you need only look at the Arab League’s panicked backtracking after having dared to push back against this action!
But on the point of Britain & France, I think they’re in it for their own reasons, and I don’t think we bullied or bought off any veto votes on the security council. It seems like it was just some solid politicking on that front. Of course, that doesn’t mean the coalition countries’ hands are clean in this matter. It just means that the decision truly is multilateral, as opposed to a unilateral decision posing as such.
Um.
The many, multitudinous ways in which Libya =/= Iraq are myriad.
I would start to explain that but
a) ABL just did, at some length and
b) You clearly did not come here to read, learn, discuss, conversate, exchange ideas, and/or debate anything. You came here to stamp your feet and declare yourself RIGHT and everyone one who disagrees with you WRONG. (Over and over again, from the number of comments I see with your name on them).
Given that, I for one would really rather you take your hobo stick and go home, because you are adding nothing, and convincing no one. Repeatedly convincing yourself that you’re morally superior to someone(s) on the internet is not good enough reason to hang around.
We launched a war against a country that didn’t attack us.
Here’s your hobo stick. The door is juuust behind you. Buh-bye!
Thank you for a really well researched position/article.
I have it saved for further reading; if only our media people would be so thorough.
Read this at BJ and came here to leave a post. Just fantastic.
ABL, my friend, my pal, my Angry Black Boss -
This is outstanding. OUTSTANDING. I am particularly grateful for two things here — your uncanny ability to be both extraordinarily informative and stinkin’ funny (we’ve seen that before of course, but this was monumental), and the fact that you acknowledged so many unanswered questions. If only more people would say: Here’s what we know, here’s what we don’t know. Let’s keep our eyes peeled as shit goes down.
I will be sharing this far and wide, I can assure you. Thank you so much for all the hours and hours (and hours) this must have taken. Outstanding!
Can I ask why this is no longer at BJ? I love reading you there and though I don’t mind coming here (first time poster!) I just think your voice is needed over there.
I just recommended a couple of links over there so I will do so here.
http://twitter.com/nprfreshair/status/50281003847135232 from Fresh Air.
And this feed by a journalist on the ground.
http://twitter.com/blakehounshell
I’m reducing my asshat intake and staying out of the BJ comment section. It’s boring and pointless there. Unfortunately, the nutters seem to be crossing over. Meh.
In any event, welcome to my less rowdy corner of the Internet!
Thank you for this post, and I didn’t get to read the comments at BJ before it disappeared, but I can just imagine.
Like their wingnut counterparts on the Right, the Michael Moores and Glenn Greenwalds of the media just cannot ever, ever STFU long enough to consider anything outside of their tired, limited shtick.
Do I know the answers? Hell no. But I do know they’re not to be found on US Cable news, and I do know that the Arab world is not a monolithic state, and I do know Obama is not Bush, and I do know that I’m tired of every single effing thing in the entire world being reduced to American domestic polemic.
The Libyan action is plainly unconstitutional. It’s simple – Article 42 designates what UN actions are allowed. Article 43 designates how troops are supplied by contributing countries into a UN force to perform the actions in Article 42. You’ll of course notice that the missiles and planes being used in the Libyan action don’t have the UN stickers on them. That’s because the US never agreed to Article 43 with the UN. It does not apply here.
Now let’s look at the UNPA. The first sentence allows the President to contribute to the UN force in “a special agreement” under Article 43 – the President never made that special agreement with the UN, which is why we’re using US military in Libya. Then it says the President doesn’t have to get authorization from Congress to use troops under that special agreement – again, an agreement that was never made. The last sentence says that the UNPA does not authorize the use of any troops or forces in addition to those provided by in the special agreement.
In other words, Congress authorized collaboration with the UN under an agreement that never occurred. Congress never relinquished their war-making powers to the executive and the UN, and even if they had they would have had to accompany this statute with a Constitutional amendment because you can’t amend the Constitution by statute.
I don’t think Obama should be impeached because a. Previous presidents have gone into action without Congressional authorization and were not impeached, and b. Congress would have authorized Libya anyway. But Obama is continuing a terrible precedent. Congressional authorization and Security Council authorization are both important – you can’t just pick one or the other.
Imagine what hypothetical (fingers crossed this never happens) President Palin or Romney will say if they decide to invade, say, Russia, but Congress is against them. Between Bush dodging the UN and Obama dodging Congress, I’m sure they could find a John Yoo type to easily bless whatever they choose to do.
–
Walter
See, I don’t read 43 that way. I read 43 as calling for a standing army and that the UN has to make special agreements with various member nations regarding “on call and available” forces. And if you go into the UN Repertoire (which I quoted) it seems that 43 has never been used and that the Military Staff Committee doesn’t really do anything.
Also, your interpretation of the UNPA renders part of it superfluous, doesn’t it?
I think this is the crux of the issue, and I think reasonable minds can differ on what it means.
Thanks for commenting. I’m still mulling it over.
I think we’re roughly interpreting 43 the same way, I think the core difference is our reading of the UNPA.
The UNPA clearly gives the President the go-ahead to make a special agreement under 43 and says the President won’t need authorization each time to use a 43 force for 42 actions. It then explicitly says that no forces additional to 43 forces are automatically authorized by the UNPA. We agree that there are no 43 forces, so the UNPA effectively authorizes nothing.
For me this is the way it should be – the President should have to consult the international community and the American people through the Congress before serious military action. These protections ensure that we don’t go off unilaterally (Iraq) or use our troops and treasure in a way that the populace rejects. The populace clearly supports action in Libya, but after 8 years of Bush wiping his ass with the constitution, precedent matters.
Looking at the 1945 act closely, I think @walterglass has this right, although it’s truly annoying how stupidly legal sentences are put together.
But more to the point, I think that certainly there’s a *moral* difference between this and the Iraq War. Furthermore, I think it’s clear that this isn’t any more illegal than Kosovo, let alone Iraq.
Anyway, I think arguing about the legality of the war is silly (and Greenwald et al are just lobbing spitballs when they do). Nobody’s getting impeached, because this is how we go to war now. I want to talk about all the questions ABL had to “leave for later” in order to talk about legality.
Can we succeed? Do we have the political will to? Is there a model for success in this situation? What happens if things are going badly; do we pull out? Etc.
Also, I love that you took the time to write this, ABL. I didn’t know an Article 43 issue from a rubber duck an hour ago.
Thanks.
This blog really needs a “like” button, because I really want to like this comment. “Rubber duck”!
Also, too: Me, too.
This sub-thread is getting towards the crux of my confusion. I thought that Congress had to give the OK for the US to participate in any military conflict (regardless of the UN’s position) unless it was in response to an immediate threat (which Libya is clearly not). So Walter’s points are making sense to me, but that might simply be because they confirm what I already thought.
Either way, great post, ABL! Also, thanks to Walter for his input. Between the two of you, you’ve provided me with some great starting points for my own further research.
For the record, I’m not wild about our involvement in the Libya situation. I do see the Libyan conflict as being different from Iraq, but I was also against the Afghanistan invasion from the get-go (largely because that was clearly motivated by vengeance that was obviously targeting far too many people). The UN being involved is a definite plus over Iraq, but I don’t think it’s enough. I’m not so isolationist that I’m categorically against us militarily helping the UN to prevent genocide or deal with other serious human rights violations, but the last decade has left me very wary of military conflicts, whether waged legally or not. So yeah, I’m ambivalent as hell about all this shit.
I’ll just chime in to say I too appreciate all the effort you put into this, ABL, and I’m glad you pulled it from The Other Place so it didn’t have to get sullied by comments from the likes of Corner Stoned and others of the merry band of assholes over there.
They go to BJ for the giggles, JSFuckhead insists, the GIGGLES.
Also, it doesn’t matter if CS never did a thing in the real world to combat the use of torture, the fact that s/he argues against it on a BLOG makes him/her morally superior to us!!
Seriously, anyone remember that one comment and/or provide a link to the thread? Had me rolling at the time.
@eemom- oh, i’m glad you commented! i wanted to say that i’ve been cracking up about Boots Onna Ground™ for several days now.
:)
“I don’t care about the legality of this move. I don’t care about the UN. I don’t care about the Libyan people, sorry. All I ask is[...]consider the fact that this action has split progressives and taken their attention away from domestic issues, exactly at a time when progressives seemed on the verge of taking over the framing of union/wage related matters…”
OMG!! This summarizes every stereotype I have about white American liberals. “I can give a shit about the rest of the world, the real lives of the people in the world, or what it actually requires to do the job of President of the United States — I just want Obama to hyper-focus on my pet issues, or else he is a just like Republicans.”
The hilarious part is that these folks believe that every other person who is inclined towards a liberal policy agenda but who does not share their proclivity to such assfuckery is either “irrational” or an “Obama -worshiper.”
I mean her comment is Greenwad, Firebag, etc, in a nutshell.
ABL, you laid this out beautifully. I am still mulling it over in my mind as to if this was, over all, a…not good, but…efficient thing to do or not. I am not sanguine about what the outcomes will be, but I will say that as to the legality of what President Obama is doing, I am reassured that he is not doing something constitutionally illegal.
You put a lot of time and effort into this post. You made me laugh; you made me grimace; but, most importantly, you taught me something. You put it all out there in a highly-readable fashion. Thanks, my angry black overlady.
Henry Kissinger dressed up as a black woman? You’ve gone too far this time!
I think there is one way in which this is similar to Iraq, and that is that both countries had leaders who had been a thorn in the side of many governments, including the US, for years, and an opportunity arose to get rid of them. I think it is very probable that this is the answer to the question of “why here and not all these other places?”, not just for the US, but for many of the governments involved.
However, the nature of the “opportunity” makes a hell of a lot of difference. With Iraq, the opportunity was Bush’s “we suffered a major terrorist attack so no one is going to stop me from kicking whatever ass I feel like and stomping all over international law in the process.” In the current situation, the opportunity is a wave of popular uprisings based on principles we are supposed to support, and a large-scale brutal military response in Libya, a situation that was clear enough to gain a Security Council resolution even without fabricated evidence and overheated rhetoric.
And so I’m cautiously supportive. Will it turn out passably well, or at least better than the alternative? Better for the reputation and effectiveness of the US and the UN? No one can say. To anyone who argues that this may turn out very badly for both, I will grant that they have a reasonable point. I hope they will likewise grant that not taking action would likely have turned out very badly for all parties, and what we are really arguing about is whether the difference in those likelihoods is worth the cost.
Yep, that’s it in a nutshell.
And I really hope I’m wrong.
I agree with you, sadly as to your last point. It really seems to be a matter of what would the least very bad outcome be and how do we go about ensuring it, if we go about it at all.
“So yeah. It’s an Article 42 thing. (Isn’t it? Correct me if I’m wrong. But I’m pretty sure I’m right.)”
In the sense that the Libyan No-Fly Zone was authorized under Article 42, and that the UN has never made a special agreement under Article 43 with the United States (or anyone else, I think, but I can’t be sure), you are correct.
It’s also worth noting that, historically, Article 42 actions are less prone to “mission creep” than those authorized by Congressional statute. Korea vs. Vietnam, Iraq I vs. Iraq II (yes, H. Bush got Congressional authorization for Desert Storm, but he claimed he didn’t need it and the Congressional authorization he sought pretty much mirrored S.C. Res. 678), etc., so I’m possibly a bit more optimistic about this being a short engagement than are most people. It certainly helps that Obama keeps reiterating that there will be no further U.S. involvement beyond S.C. Res 1970.
As for the legality arguments, it all boils down to this: If U.S. involvement in the No-Fly Zone is illegal, then pretty much every President since Harry Truman has not only violated the War Powers Clause, but Congress and the Judiciary has literally done nothing about it. Hard to believe.
The US is involved as a member of NATO. This is a NATO action under the rubric of enforcing the Security Council. There really is no question of legality here.
I think there are many, many ways in which this is not like Iraq and I don’t have concerns about the imperialness of this action, and it’s not a flippin impeachable thing that Obama’s done. I’m not losing my shit over this.
Having said all that, I don’t think injecting ourselves into a civil war like this is a good idea. I do think we’ve gone in without a clear exit strategy, or much of an idea about how this is going to play out if the bombing and air-strikes don’t result in a quick win. And given the rebels lack of organization, among many other factors, that could be a real concern. The rebels have no more heavy weapons so they can’t take out the tanks and artillery. How will that stalemate be broken? I hope there’s a diplomatic solution to getting regime change, but if there isn’t, then I expect there’ll be pressure to arm the rebels. Is that the sort of thing everyone’s on board with?
So while it would be ridiculous to say we were lied into a war, it wouldn’t be ridiculous to say we’ve jumped into this with no idea of how deep the water is. And that’s what I think some of the people (though not Moore, Greenwald, etc.) are getting at when they liken it to Iraq.
And kudos on the work you’ve done with this. Anytime you’ve got Eddie Izzard and the history of the League of Nations in the same post, you’re doing some good work. That and it’s probably time for a drink.
First things first: The Iraq was illegal. There was no SC resolution. Next, there was no casus belli. Iraq had no WMB. GWB was either a liar or a stranger to the truth.
The operation in Libya is legal. The issue is wisdom of the operation. Is it wise? Will the Libyan people be better of at the end of the day? War is, virtually by defintion, immoral. That is a given. War, also, has a life of its’ own. Those waging it can be driven to aims that they did not have at the start of hostilities.
So, the bottom line is this: Will the Libyan people end up in a better situation? There is no guarantee that they will as war is homicidal, destructive and contingent. War is rolling the iron dice.
These are extremely valid questions IMO.
Impressive piece of work, ABL, it was worth going over it again. I just want to mention one thing about Michael Moore. He was actually in favor of military action in the cruise-missiles-from-a-distance vein. He said so in his book “Stupid White Men”, I believe. He noticed how the right-wing criticised Clinton’s way of dealing with foreign tyrants as “weak” and “dithering” and all that, but actually agreed with Clinton about the benefits of these measures (he noticed how the right-wing favored ‘manly’ wars that absolutely had to feature troops on the ground). Anyway, this is just one of the many opinions Michael Moore discards when it’s convenient.
Edit: Oh lord, the David Broder avatar is a bit inappropriate now. It’s a remnant from the short period of avatar-having over at Balloon Juice.
Not here to sling mud. Just noting, it’s not cool, as far as I’m concerned, to say it’s not OK for us to intervene (read: kill people and break things) in Libya if we don’t also do it in Bahrain and Yemen. I think we shouldn’t intervene militarily anywhere, ever, basically. Mostly. So I’m not persuaded to oppose this intervention but then turn around and embrace it along with more bombing in more countries. That’s not what’s going on the world right now, what’s going on is that some chickens are coming home to roost, some people who have worked really hard for a long time under oppressive conditions are taking advantage of a momentary opening, and some old habits are rearing their ugly heads (e.g. US stays away when Saudi Arabia wants to get its way, treats Gaddafi as a fair-weather dictator). But I’m pretty persuaded of the legality of this intervention. That’s what makes me sad. I don’t label everything I dislike unconstitutional, though; I also think the President sent the notice he was supposed to under the War Powers Act, so there’s that. I’m one of those people who thinks the US and the UN shouldn’t work the way they are, our laws and international agreements are flawed, and it’s always suspect when US armed forces show up with good intentions. But that doesn’t require me to say this is less legal and therefore more objectionable; it’s objectionable on its face. Yes, it’s legal, but those are unjust laws, and we ought to change them.
The only response I can think of is that the Security Council couldn’t or didn’t agree to take action in Bahrain and Yemen. I don’t know why. I’d like to know.
But I agree, it’d be nice to have some sense about where we go and why we choose to go there. I’d have to dig deeper to figure out why Libya and not Bahrain or Yemen.
I liken this to Kosovo and Somalia and not Iraq. Bush tried to convince everyone that we needed to invade Iraq as a matter of self-defense. That’s not what’s going on here.
Also, I want to know how “war” has been defined throughout history. That’s another project.
Thanks for commenting and cheers!
“Bush tried to convince everyone that we needed to invade Iraq as a matter of self-defense. That’s not what’s going on here.”
This is 100% incorrect. From Obama’s letter to Congress a couple days ago:
“Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-explains-libya-mission-to-congress/2011/03/03/ABU9377_blog.html
I may be splitting hairs, but the bush impetus for war was “WMDs are going to kill us tomorrow.” Your quoted statement seems to be more about stability in the region generally which clearly affects national security interests.
My point is, I don’t think that the Obama Crew has been trying to figure out a way to attack Libya. At least, that’s not the sense I get from the BBC and Guardian articles.
You need to distinguish between Gulf II and OIF (the occupation and reconstruction part).
OIF was an Epic Disaster.
We cant take action in Yemen. Saleh gave the US permission to drone swarm suspected al-Q camps.
Don’t you read Wikileaks diplo cables?
We cant take action in Bahrain.
The Sauds already rolled tanks.
Destabilizing the Sauds would mean lightsweetcrude goes to 200$ a barrel overnight.
Time for Bush’s War on Islam to be OVAH, dooontcha kno?
It ain’t A-stan either.
Odyssey Dawn is going to over in two weeks, and America will be the good guyz instead of the goats….in Libya.
Meanwhile America spends one billion a month trying to wipe out the Taliban in A-stan. We have been doin that off and on for 10 years at a cost of 400 billion so far, and there are more Taliban today than ever.
And guess what?
Even Petraeus says the Talib will be part of whatever government we leave behind.
If you wanna get up in Obama’s grill over something, do A-stan.
There won’t be any pictures like these coming out of Odyssey Dawn.
yeah, i don’t know what the hell is going on in Afghanistan, why we’re there, or what we hope to accomplish.
well here. I will tell you.
Right now the US is trying to negotiate PERMANENT bases in A-stan.
Do you know what means?
We can NEVER leave. That means a billion a month for eternity.
at least.
I don’t think the UN charter provisions apply to civil wars, rebellions or general civil unrest within member states. Would Article 42 permit intervention in China after Tianamen Square? This was also the technical sticking point with Darfur. I know that they have gone and done it here, but its a stretch of the language to suggest that international stability means quelling unrest within a country. Clearly, there is nothing that affects international peace based on the activity in Libya. But loose language in the Charter and politics lets people do what they want.
As for the issue under U.S. law, there is no clear line between incidental military action being directed by the President and Acts of War requiring Congressional action for it to be proper. This line has been horribly blurred over the last 50 years, with all sorts of wars being undertaken without Congressional approval. Congress passed laws trying to bring some structure to this subject, but the basic validity of those laws is subject to question.
But in another sense, it makes little sense to be talking about the legality of the activity (whether under the Constitution or the Congressional statutes concerning war powers) since there is no actual legal enforcement mechanism for this type of violation other than what is essentially political action. The Court wont make an order barring a war activity based on a Congressional claim that the president is violating the War Powers provisions. Kucinich is correct in that the primary pushback is impeachment, or other political action.
And because it is such a difficult political burden to do that, Presidents have been getting away with waging quasi-war over and over since 1945. Its a structural flaw in our Constitution, and also a feature of modern war which rather than being an all or nothing proposition as traditionally conceived, now comes in many flavors with varying degrees of engagement.
At its core, this is a cynical action motivated by the strategic importance of Libya as an Islamic oil state in North Africa. There is no general UN or US policy of intervention to prevent atrocities in dictatorships, nor to support nascent democratic movements (assuming that there is such a thing in Libya, which is by no means clear). Yeah, it gives the intervention here a popular glow (assuming that it goes well, which is again a big assumption). But interventions will not be taking place while Saudis simultaneously murder Bahrainis to prevent democracy there, nor will anything be done to support nascent and real democracy movements in real bad dictatorships around the world (think Myanmar).
Basically, Libya is more like Iraq than not in its important features. It is military adventurism and our own version of imperialism. But it is so many levels less outrageous that Iraq, and more like all of the other little crappy wars that Americans have come to love. But it cant meaningfully be distinguished from a mistaken belief in the knee-jerk use of military power simply because we can, as inspired by some half-wits claim that it will all be for the good (really!).
I think that Art. 42 in conjunction with Resolution 1265 (actually, 1265 applied to Africa, but the salient points were incorporated into 1296) authorizes such action:
With Unanimous Adoption of Resolution 1296 (2000), Members Extend Concern to Cover Women, Children, Other Vulnerable Groups
The Security Council this afternoon reaffirmed its readiness to adopt appropriate steps to deal with deliberate attacks on civilian populations and other protected persons, as well as with widespread violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights in conflict situations.
Unanimously adopting resolution 1296 (2000), the Council noted that such deliberate violations might constitute a threat to international peace and security. It indicated its willingness to consider the appropriateness and feasibility of temporary security and safe corridors for the protection of civilians. It also expressed willingness to consider the delivery of assistance in situations characterized by the threat of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilian populations.
By other terms of the resolution, the Council reaffirmed the importance of a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention, and invited Member States and the Secretary-General to bring to its attention any matter that might threaten international peace and security. It further affirmed its willingness to consider the establishment, in appropriate circumstances, of preventive missions.
It reiterated its grave concern at the harmful and widespread impact of armed conflict on civilians, particularly women, children and other vulnerable groups. It reaffirmed the importance of addressing their special protection and assistance needs in drafting the mandates of peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace- building operations. It expressed its intention, where appropriate, to call upon the parties to a conflict to make special arrangements to meet those protection and assistance requirements.
Elsewhere in the text, the Council reiterated its call to all parties concerned, including non-State parties, to ensure the safety, security and freedom of movement of United Nations and associated personnel, as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations.
It affirmed its intention to ensure, where appropriate and feasible, that peacekeeping missions were given suitable and adequate resources to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical danger. That would also include the strengthening of the United Nations ability to plan and rapidly deploy peacekeeping personnel, civilian police, civil administrators and humanitarian personnel, utilizing the stand-by arrangements as appropriate.
source
As for Tienanmen Square, I think the UN would have been hard-pressed to do anything since China is one of the five veto-holding members of the Security Council. (that’s my guess.) It’s an interesting point — why should countries who have humanitarian issues be permitted to have veto power?
Policy debate!
If the Security Council passed a resolution that intervention in China was allowed, it’d probably be legal.
But Tienanmen, as horrible as it was, was not in violation as as razing/threatening an entire city according to the Geneva conventions. Gaddafi literally did threaten worse actions than Mubarak or Saleh, etc.
See my analysis on that point here: http://jenkinsear.com/2011/03/22/theres-no-easy-answer-on-consistency-in-foreign-policy/
(first few paragraphs)
will do!
jeez, i don’t know why i tried this approach before. i’m actually learning stuff and not having to wade through bullshit comments!
hooray for common-sense and non-asshole politiconerds!
Oddly, this suggests that because the Chinese moved with overwhelming tank forces to crush and kill protesters immediately, without the need for protracted fighting, that UN intervention is not called for.
So Qadaffi’s mistake was not having enough tanks to crush the rebels with greater speed.
Were you born with that ability to completely miss the point of something, or did it require a sustained, dedicated effort?
Sorry I disagree. The primary push back for Congress is to exercise section 5b of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and order the troops, aircraft, etc recalled. Everything else I’ve heard is Kabuki theatre. The fact is that by not acting Congress is giving short term tacit approval. The truth is that our Congresscritters could begin pushing a concurrent resolution at any time to override the President.
Isn’t there a difference between using armed forces for “War” (capital W) as opposed to carrying out directives under Art. 42?
meaning, is every “war” a “War”? (Setting aside the callousness that such a statement implies…)
I’m confused by the “We attacked Libya” sentiment when it seems we are part of a group of countries that are trying to protect civilians from being blown up.
Going into Iraq, no one was arguing we were trying to protect civilians from being blown up. That became the rationale after the WMD business didn’t pan out. But Iraq was a relatively stable state pre-invasion — stable insofar as there were no uprisings against Hussein — so there would have been no reason to invade.
(I could totally be missing your point.)
Fine, the Congress does that, and the President disagrees with the Congressional power to do so and the constitutionality of the Act. Now what?
The tradition of the Court is to decline to hear such “political controversies” between the branches, which is probably the correct separation of powers approach to the question. In any event, they are unlikely to do anything.
The bottom line in all of this – this is not really about law, although these laws have been passed to create a procedure for arguing about it. It is about political power. Congress can always defund any war, but for some reason, it tends to punt in deferrence to the President’s actions. And you can be sure that Presidents carefully weigh the politics of what they can get away with. Both Iraq wars involved jockeying in advance as to whether or not the president had to get any kind of Congressional authorization. For the fist war, Bush I’s administration was openly contemptuous of any claim that they needed Congressional approval. They went and got it last second after fully committing the US diplomatically to the war, and when they figured they had the votes. For Bush II, they turned the whole war enterprise into a “new product” to roll out post Labor Day in the campaign season, and fully sprinkled with lying rhetoric to carry the vote. Even then, they were phony in getting the first vote on the false promise that it didnt commit the nation to war, and then later eschewing the need for a second vote cause allegedly the first vote fully authorized war.
Our country has developed a full-throated warmongering tradition. Without regard to what sympathy one has for the Libyans (and it is still entirely unclear whether the rebels are people we would want to support), this is about yet again rushing to use arms when it serves our purposes.
I wish I had the time to comment more fully, but deeply immersed in three work projects. So, I commend you for an in-depth, thoughtful, and funny post of this very important topic. I’ve read it, but not watched the supporting references. I recommend that anyone seeking ‘news’ about Libya go to Al Jazeera English. There they talk about what’s happening rather than how is might impact next years’ election.
Also, too. I commend the generally respectful and productive tenor of the comments to date.
Good work all!
thanks! i couldn’t handle the BJ commentariat today. i’ve only got one nerve left…
I don’t buy the we’re only there because of oil line of argument. There are plenty of trouble spots in the world with strategic or valuable resources that we’ve kept out of (Burma, Congo, Sudan). It may be part of the reason, but I think the media is at least as much a part of the decision to intervene as any resource considerations.
Our media (and I’d guess the same goes for a good chunk of the media in western Europe as well, though I haven’t got the time to keep a real close eye on it) has decided that Libya is a Big Story, while it’s paid much less attention to Yemen and Bahrain. That’s made Libya a Political Issue, that Serious Politicians need to have opinions about. McCain, Lieberman, and the rest of the war party were beating the drums well before we went ahead and got involved. Oil is probably some part of it as well. Throw in our long lasting dislike for Qaddafi, and, well…
As for the legality, questions about the U.N. Charter aside, it’s pretty clearly legal given the way our laws are enforced. There may be a law on the books that it’s illegal to walk down the left side of the street on Thursdays in West Buttfuck, Mississippi, but if no-one remembers or cares, it’s effectively legal. Similarly, if Congress, the media, and most Americans are cool with Obama bombing Libya, then that’s the way things work in this country here and now. If you think it SHOULDN’T be legal or accepted, then it’s incumbent upon you to try and change how things work. But in either case, whining isn’t going to help much.
Um, oil is pretty damned top of mind for everyone involved. Some twit commentator on Marketplace was especially explicit about it.
And G got in good with Britain just last year because BP wanted drilling rights. So let’s not be naive. This action is being taken for all the wrong reasons by a pack of suit-wearing war criminals. But that’s a different question than outcomes.
I wasn’t aware that some twit on Marketplace runs the U.S. Government.
Or for that matter that all the other considerations and motivations that I figured may be taken into account including but not limited to proximity to western europe, history, potential effects on neighboring states, the media, military capabilities of other intervening states, and our desired public image. Nope, we’ve got two neat foreign policy categories. Oil, and No Oil. I stand corrected, sir.
Here, let me try. The singular reason we’re taking a hands off approach to Bahrain is that they have no oil. amirite?
Wait, NPR doesn’t run the US govt?? That’s not what Paul Ryan told me!!
Let me spell it out.
When a political reporter says a military intervention is about oil, you can bet it’s about oil. Because either an official said as much to them, or it’s in the air enough that they know they won’t jeopardize their access by saying so and pissing someone off. If you’re tring to piece this together, that’s an a fortiori argument.
And yes the oil argument works for Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. You can bet your butt that if those two countries weren’t our allies already, we would be howling about what they were doing, and we would have a fleet there tomorrow to set up a military base capable of controlling oil shipping lanes in the gulf. Oh, wait, my kid brother’s playing *Where In the World is Carmen Sandiego* and is telling me that we already have such assets in place and that it’s in our interest to allow “stability” to be maintained at any cost.
Geez. Looks like you aren’t smarter than a sixth grader.
Just wanted to say this was a great read. I don’t have anything to add, but it helped me clear a lot of the thoughts I have swirling around in my own confused brain about Libya. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for a very informative post.
The discussion on the major corporate news outlets that I have heard can be charitably described as ‘not helpful’. So far from listening to that mess, I have learned that what Obama is doing is obviously illegal and he should have done it sooner, and it casts his manhood into doubt because his state department and national security wimminfolk made him do it.
I am more charitably inclined towards Greenwald than ABL is, but I have not seem much justification for what article this action falls under at the UN. But I have not had time to read what he has said today.
You will be in very big big trouble at Balloon-Juice, though, young lady, because you took thoughtful measures to prevent poo flinging over there. Not the done thing over there.
I found this article via a link on LGM today. It’s very comprehensive, and he argues based on the kind of military assets in place (and general war-gaming theory), so I’d say the whole thing’s worth a read, but here’s a snippet:
Good, thorough piece…I have yet to see this type of analysis anywhere on the so-called MSM.
I also wanted to take a moment to commend ABL for a very substantive and good faith discussion. I absolutely disagree with ABL on this issue (and many others – I’m a daily Greenwald and FDL reader, hate all you want) but recognize that this is something you’re coming to with an open mind and A LOT of research.
There is one thread running through this discussion that I find deeply disturbing, however, and that is the general sentiment of “Greenwald/Yglesias/Marshall/whoever is just obsessing over the legal issues because he hates Obama,” or “there’s a moral imperative to go into action now, we’ll figure out the legal issues later.” The people saying this are like the people who complain about a murderer “getting off on a technicality” because he confessed while being tortured by the police.
We have laws, a Constitution, and separation of powers for a reason folks. There are several very good reason why the President doesn’t just have a WAR button in the Oval Office, and if you can’t think of one I’ll give you a freebie – Obama’s not going to be President forever, and there’s a decent chance someone much less scrupulous and thoughtful will be in the next couple of decades.
oh i don’t hate! some of my best friends are FDL/Greenwald readers. ;)
But seriously, I am a snarky bitch. I know this. But in this instance, I really just wanted to have a discussion about this issue. I do learn things from the juicer crowd which is why I tend to read all the threads even if I don’t comment, but all but a couple of the first 40 comments to my post were not helpful and were balls-out rude, and it pissed me off considering how much time i spent writing this. Sure, snark at me about my FDL/Salon snark, but calling me a shitty writer? Absurd.
anyway, thanks for adding to the discussion and keeping feces off the walls.
@ABL, I agree that this thread has been hugely productive and pretty level-headed. Can I offer one suggestion on how to make this a more common occurrence?
I know you get a lot of irrelevant, off-point attacks coming your way, but the haters aren’t the only trolls around here. I don’t post often, but you are in my feed reader whenever I get a spare minute in the morning or at work, and I can’t help but notice that you’ve got some pretty nasty individuals hating 100% of the time on any criticism, regardless of legitimacy, that comes your way.
I understand you’ve got sock puppet problems, and it makes sense to have enforcers to clear some space for topical debate, but when you constantly push back against one kind of troll and never against the other, it looks like you support this kind of stuff and are letting others do the dirty work.
there are some juicers who are determined to be assholes no matter what the topic. i don’t really have that problem over here. or at least i haven’t up until now.
but i definitely like this discussion thread and it’s a shame the BJ threads can’t be more like this more frequently. i’ll close comments there and force people to be assholes over here if they are intent on being assholes and not adding anything substantive to a discussion. additionally, some of them are weirdly obsessed with me. ::looks in vanity mirror::
a lot of is crowd mentality. people have been keyboard warring over there with each other for years. one person starts and then it turns into a pile-on. how many of them showed up over here? they are less inclined to try to best me when they’re outside their comfort zone.
i don’t mind a good war of words, but i have a day job and no time to wade through 400 comments and defend my position and writing against jackholes on a daily basis.
haay
if you wanna get all up in O’s grill about A-stan, im there.
but Odyssey Dawn is a one-off.
O did it because he could…it is cost-viable.
But its blogverse radar chaff.
Not worth the effort you poured into it.
Does this mean that FDL/Greenwald readers now count as racial and/or sexual minorities?
The same people wringing their hands about the rule of law can’t even be bothered to pay their car registration fees and then scream bloody murder when their none street legal car is towed away.
Doesn’t seem to me that Yglesias is opposing because he hates Obama–I think he’s been extraordinarily supportive of the President.
But I think he’s doing it because he has a *terrible* track record on war and is completely paranoid about putting his imprimatur on this one. Not, of course, that he’s actually saying, “don’t go.” Instead, he’s basically threatening to shout out bad-faith arguments at anyone who disagrees with him on this, should they be wrong about the slightest detail:
1. Threatens to irrationally blame on this intervention anything that ever goes wrong in North Africa ever again. (That’s what he does with Eastern Europe and Kosovo):
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-mostly-hypothetical-case-for-armed-humanitarianism/
2. Pathologizes interventionism, making Gadaffi’s ruthlessness a figment of the late-american-empire hawk’s imagination:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/how-the-mission-creeps/
3. Floats the idiotic, ‘Well then we should invade somalia and the ivory coast, all you hypocrites’ antagonism (which has been deconstructed above and in the comments here):
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/endgame-418/
He’s been a bad-faith actor, that’s all, and I think he’s doing it to cover his butt for barely ever bringing up Afghanistan or Iraq.
@Johnny
Triple Response!
1. You sound confident about the good politicking with the Security Council, do you have any evidence to back that up? Everything I’ve read has been ambiguous, so I went with reasonable suspicion based on Copenhagen, Cancun, and the general speed with which the resolution was secured – but I’m open to being proven wrong. Also, do you have any sense as to why BRIC and South Africa opposed by abstention as opposed to vetoing the action?
2. I’m generally indifferent to Yglesias but I find the hypocrisy charge very compelling on moral grounds. Obviously we can’t and shouldn’t invade everywhere civilians are being killed, but once military intervention supporters acknowledge that they can’t then try to silence opponents by shrieking “something must be done now!” There is a complex, heartless, pragmatic, political calculus that should be a part of any decision to use military. Obama himself yesterday explicitly acknowledged that our aims in Libya are not 100% humanitarian. So I find the hypocrisy charge useful in that it encourages realistic cost/benefit discussion free of fleeting value judgments.
3. Huge endorsement of your comment on trolls. Exhibit A: genius just upstairs who, immediately after ABL thanked me for not throwing feces, just went and trolled up the place. Look, there’s a lot of legitimate criticisms you can toss at Hamsher (a woman for whom I have a huge amount of respect), but if you’re going to toss some non sequitur idiot charge into an unrelated substantive debate then congratulations, you’ve just convinced a total stranger that you’re an idiot.
@walterglass, back at you.
1. It may well be the case that I leaned into that one kind of hard. I can’t dig for any process reporting just now, and my impression was based on an inference from the curious way the various players claimed responsibility for it. France apparently was crowing at having got out in front of the US on this, thereby (chillingly) asserting their interests in the region, and then a couple days later the Americans claim full responsibility for having coordinated the successful vote. That looks like one of two things to me: 1. One or both are lying and jockeying each other for the credit to shore up support at home; 2. One or both are lying in coordination with each other to shore up support at home. Either way, we’ve got a situation defined by multiple players engaging in an action which they each define as self-determined, and either way, if you’re a country that wants to see this thing go down, that’s solid politics. But again, that’s just the game I’ve had in my head, without the time to do adequate research on the process. No comment on BRIC.
2. In fact I find the hypocrisy charge convincing too! Take the UN human rights coordinator in Egypt today, bloviating on Gadaffi when Israel is refueling its American bombers from runs on Gaza. Awesome. This sort of one-sidedness is precisely why African nations won’tauthorize the ICC, and it has to stop. However, I only find it convincing in a vacuum, because charges of hypocrisy are messy messy things, and I believe their credibility involves an assessment not only of the accused but of the accuser as well. Republican interventionists calling Obama a hypocrite for a unilateral military intervention? Fail. Yglesias having no substantive interest in military matters then leaping into this flailing because he feels this one is an argument he can win by making everyone else look like they don’t care about peace? Fail. I do believe that the action being taken is hypocritical, but the way to pivot off this is to use it as a means of reasserting a commitment to universal human rights, not to take for granted, nihilistically, that there is no such thing. We know that, Matt. And nationalist realism is capable of comprehending the value of a maximally-enforced global human rights regime. To call everyone who accepts that guns exist and that we have more of them and that relatively easily we can stop those other guns from killing quite so many people “hawks” is really just meaningless and a way of avoiding, not engaging in, debate.
3. Thanks!
Thank you, ABL. This was a true public service. Clear, thorough, and extremely helpful.
I can see why it would be disappointing not to get more substantive engagement on the actual points of your argument when you spent so much time researching and putting it together, but I have to wonder if that reflects its solidity. Perhaps there simply isn’t much that can be argued, except through appeals to authority, changes of subject, ad hominem attacks etc.
(p.s. It kind of amazes me that people can read this piece which is explicitly and repeatedly framed as addressing the question of legality *as opposed to other questions*, and yet feel obliged to leave a comment as to how it’s wrong/bad/whatever. It’s as though to say an action is legal is somehow to condone it, even when you’ve explicitly said you don’t condone it. Um…)
Solid take and thanks for well thought out post.
I found these Democracy NOW segments today very helpful.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/23/debating_intervention_is_us_led_military
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/23/fate_of_libyan_american_student_and
Also, Juan Cole makes solid points too.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Oh, J F’N Christ! ABL took all this time to write a coherent, well researched, blog entry, strictly aimed towards the people who don’t understand NATO, and they STILL do not understand. Are you people (haha) doing this on purpose? Seriously? Either you are willfully ignorant, or a troll. Take your pick. (psst… either choice is wrong.)
Why can’t we all just let this one play out? A little?
If I am wrong on this one, I’ll be the first to admit it.
heh. thanks bedbugs, and good to see ya! :)
Finally read it all and it’s a wonderfully informative effort you made here, with actual facts and stuff to rebut the kneejerk obama fail bullshit
Don’t know what to tell you about the stable of soul dead trolls and fatalistic moron commenters on BJ. I been fighting with them for three years, and the visceral hatred of Obama is like beating back a horde of zombies, day in and day out. I just had to quit that out of fatigue and high blood pressure. They will not stop, no matter, so I am ignoring them as much as possible with the realization it is a very tiny subset of the liberal dem base, and the likelyhood that some of them aren’t even dems, let alone liberal.
General, I salute you. None has done battle with the zombie horde with as much grace and humor as you have mustered.
Zombies beat the hell out of hall monitors.
I’m going to eat your liver yet.
With fava beans.
No one will ever recognize you with that clever disguise.
Well….you did.
;)
Who. Fucking. Cares.
Operation Odyssey Dawn will be over in two weeks.
ABL is pearlclutching like the rest of the leftosphere.
Meanwhile, back in 1 billion dollah per month A-stan, the US is negotiating PERMANENT BASES.
That means we can NEVAH LEAVE.
Because the afghan people fucking hate our guts.
with reason.
E.D. is at Forbes now. You appear to be lost.
wallah.
my kanly is done.
EDK is gone baby gone.
He fell off the edge of the spacetime continuum into the glibertarian wormhole, and popped up on the other side of the blogverse at Forbes..
;)
praps you should threaten to leave unless ABL bans me.
Then you could to hospital and have that broomstick taken out of your butt.
The beauty part is that even without a pie filter, every single one of your words reads as “pie pie pie pie I’m a moran pie pie pie pie.”
It’s a nice trick, you ol’ trickster, you!
Ahhh, the Serious Middle Eastern Scholar weighs in.
What do YOU think about permanent American bases in A-stan and the Kill Squad Emily?
And, I love chess pie. 13D chess pie especially.
;)
I keep reading your name as angry aspic white grrl. Which cracks me the Hades up. Let’s see. pie aspic pie pie pie pie. Ah, much better.
P.S. Yeah, you so powerful you drove E.D. to Forbes where he’s getting paid to blog. Wow! That’s some magic hoo-doo you got there.
How I have missed your demon hentai grin, Asiangirlman.
;)
I didn’t drive EDK n/e where. He was a glibertarian grifter from the start. He used Cole to get Sully to pimp him as a “sane” conservative.
The rest is history.
Are you bunking with the LoOGies yet, asiangirlman?
water seeks its own level.
LOL. I’m a coblogger here with admin privileges, you stupid git. I can zap you back to Hell with a flick of my wrist.
dooo eeet.
I need my cyborg batteries charged anyways.
;)
my shaitan batteries.
lawl.
Very interesting and very good ABL. Thanks for the great, informative read.
oh good grief, we’ve been overrun by cudlips.
Not so much overrun as bitten around the ankles.
wallah
You hired the Brownshirt Hall Monitor? Good luck with that.
;)
My point remains that while the blogverse has a handwringing pearlclutching concerntrolling meltdown over a two week one-off practical and pragmatic operation, Obama’s man in A-stan is apparently trying to negotiate PERMANENT bases amid a population that loathes us….right in the middle of a horrific atrocity trial where the US doesn’t control the visuals. Obama suppressed the last batch of atrocity pictures from Baghram but he might not be so lucky with Der Spiegel.
Afterall, they are one of the Wikileaks publishers.
If the US negotiates permanent bases we will pour a metric shit tonne of taxpayer dollahs into them, fight tooth and nail to hold onto them, and just create infinitely more terrorism and anti-american sentiment.
AND WE CAN NEVER LEAVE OR DRAW DOWN OUR FORCES.
Because the muslim indigenes will overrun the bases. BECAUSE THEY HATE US.
If you want to want talk about the lessons of history, talk about Viet Nam.
Talk about My Lai and Gharani and and Abu Ghraib and Baghram Theater Internment Facility and the Iraqi Rape Squad and Camp No and the A-stan Kill Squad.
Because otherwise we are going to be spending a billion a month to make more Taliban and further piss off Jamaat-e-Ismali and the 99% muslim population of the nuclear-armed Pakistani islamic state and enable nuclear-armed Iran to become the regional islamic hegemon.
But you just go ahead and babble about the UN and Odyssey Dawn.
The UN is a paper tiger. It cant hold back the US from the cliff of madness.
And that is where we are headed.
You know, you appear to have a great deal you want to share with the world. And sometimes, as in this comment, it appears that your monomaniacal focus on a single issue might actually result in you conveying meaningful information that others would actually enjoy reading.
And yet, the topic of this conversation is not Afghanistan, it is Libya.
I do appreciate the nature of your condition and how it impacts the way you intake and process information, and how it leads you to pin people against a wall while you talk rather aggressively at them about something in which they have no interest, and how your condition leaves you unable to process the verbal and non-verbal cues that non-aspie people use to politely indicate they wish you would shut the fuck up and leave them the hell alone.
All of us who contribute at ABLC also have our own personal health challenges that impact how we intake and process information and communicate with others as well, so there’s a degree of empathy and understanding here that you won’t find in many other blogs.
But the one thing about which you never ever seem to be able to get a clue is this:
These characteristics could make you a great blogger, on YOUR OWN DAMN BLOG WHERE YOU GET TO CHOOSE THE TOPICS AND MODERATE THE CONVERSATIONS.
Look how successful Glenn Greenwald is, despite sharing your place on the autism spectrum.
The ABLC team has conferred about your arrival at our site, and in spite of the fact that you have persisted in the overt and covert threadjacking, derailing, racism, sexism and homophobia that have repelled people and led to your banning at blog after blog after blog after blog after blog after blog after blog after blog after blog, you haven’t actually written anything here horrible enough for us to bother to ban you. Yet.
We’ve decided that for now, we are content to warn you that we expect you to keep your comments relatively on-topic, avoid saying every racist, sexist and homophobic thought that flashes through your troubled mind, and realize that every thread does not benefit from your participation, and if you can do these things we will not ban you from this site as well.
But again, our heartfelt advice to you is that you create your own blog where you can pursue your obsessions, then people who WANT to interact with you can find you there.
WordPress is fucking free. There is nothing stopping you except the scrambled stuff in your busted mind head.
Please consider this advice, and weigh your next step carefully before clicking the “submit comment” button at ABLC again.
Sincerely,
The ABLC Borg
No thnx, Hall Monitor Allan.
I had a blog, and i got cyberstalked and reported for hatespeech and my blog was shut down for 2 weeks during the the Sea of Green protests in Iran, until blogspot could decide if my anonymous attacker had any validity.
I am neither racist or homphobic. Unless proselytizer and stupid are races now.
I get banned for speaking the truth.
And like Strorks, I have no manners and my skin is very thick.
sayonara
and I almost forgot. my trademark scifi/literary tagging.
Sore wa inotchi innosensu
Pa-ta-li di Ra-pa-ta
Cromda Cromda Ri-pa-lo
Pa-ta Pa-ta
Ko Ko Ko
sweetie, you get banned for being a nutjob.
I’m new here, and this is my first encounter with angry aspie white grrl.
Alan, you say I do appreciate the nature of your condition and how it impacts the way you intake and process information, and how it leads you to pin people against a wall while you talk rather aggressively at them about something in which they have no interest, and how your condition leaves you unable to process the verbal and non-verbal cues that non-aspie people use to politely indicate they wish you would shut the fuck up and leave them the hell alone.
My husband and three of my four children have Asperger’s Syndrome, as do many of my friends. And one grandchild. (I like these people, apparently.) Some of them are indeed as you describe, but most of them aren’t. Many of them, perhaps the majority, are rather shy, having been rendered unusually sensitive by their condition, and recognizing their limitations in processing social information. As a group I find them interesting, funny, insightful, though awkward sometimes.
I just didn’t want everyone to judge all aspies by this one individual. I have no idea whether your characterization of her is accurate or not, though it does seem correct, just reading this one thread.
Thank you for sharing, and I applaud you for the understanding and appreciation you feel for people who are viewed as “different” in this depressing world that demands a great uniformity in personal behavior, and bullies, demeans and kills people for their difference.
And I hope that you can appreciate that we people with busted mind heads at ABLC are attempting in our own way to respect those differences.
And yes, when I wrote “you” in these comments, I was speaking very precisely and specifically to this one particular individual about her semi-legendary pattern of behavior across the internet, which has been directed repeatedly and in an unwelcome fashion at each of the ABLC team at various times over the years.
*raises hand*
I think she should name her blog “The Coalition of the Willfully Ignorant”.
So where is the UN resolution endorsing military action against the US for our war crimes? Sorry I can’t muster up any irony.
Rah-Rah-Ah-Ah-Aah
Roma-Roma-Ma-ah
Gaga-Ooh-La-la
Want your bad romance