Here We Go Again

Turtle Bay seems like a nice place – yep, win the lottery and retire there. There’s that little strip of a park on East Forty-Seventh, Dag Hammarskjold Plaza – in his last years Kurt Vonnegut used to sit quietly on a bench there and smoke, and think. And that has its Katherine Hepburn garden – she too lived nearby. Irving Berlin lived for decades in the old Forrestal townhouse over on Beekman Place, and two blocks north, where East Fifty-Second dead-ends, in the Deco building above the river, Greta Garbo, who wanted to be alone, was alone – next door to that gothic building where Dorothy Parker spent her last years, being snippy to the end. That’s a cool neighborhood. But the place is overrun with diplomats and consulates in the old brownstones. The United Nations is right there, where Forty-Second ends at the East River. The building is nice – by that Brazilian fellow Oscar Niemeyer – but strange things happen there.

On a February day in 2003 Colin Powell gave his presentation there, about Iraq’s weapons programs, and about those mobile chemical weapons labs – what some now laughingly call that Winnebago of Death business. The UN simply had to pass a resolution authorizing us, and anyone who cared to join us, to go in and rid the world of all that stuff, and of Saddam Hussein. But the absurdly suave Dominique de Villepin of France had said he, and most others, thought military intervention would be the worst possible solution to any of this, and he smiled and arched one eyebrow, not buying what Powell was selling – and we decided to hate France for the rest of the decade. We got nowhere. Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors had found nothing, and they could keep looking. What was the problem? Why do this now? Ah, but we knew better. In the end we went to war on our own, with the Brits tagging along, for no reason anyone could ever discover. And what happened in Turtle Bay on that February day was what they call a watershed moment, or a tipping point or whatever – that was the day the United States somehow lost what remained of its ability to swagger in, but with our usual winning boyish charm, and impress the world as the only real good guys around. That died that day, like in that Bye-Bye Miss American Pie song – that was the day that music died. Strange things happen in Turtle Bay.

But eight years have passed, and now there’s this:

The United Nations Security Council voted Thursday to authorize military action, including airstrikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery and a no-fly zone, a risky foreign intervention aimed at averting a bloody rout of rebels by forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

After days of often acrimonious debate, played out against a desperate clock, as Colonel Qaddafi’s troops advanced to within 100 miles of the rebel capital of Benghazi, Libya, the Security Council authorized member nations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, diplomatic code words calling for military action.

We’re going to war again, but this time it’s different – the resolution passed with ten votes, including ours, but with abstentions from Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India. Everyone else was with us, or we were with them. And the resolution calls for all sorts of stuff, including strikes on air-defense systems and missile attacks from ships. And this could start now – within a matter of hours.

So here we go again, but without much clarity:

The vote, which came after rising calls for help from the Arab world and anguished debate in Washington, left unanswered many critical questions about who would take charge, what role the United States would play and whether there was still enough time to stop Colonel Qaddafi from recapturing Benghazi and crushing a rebellion that had once seemed likely to drive him from power. After the vote, President Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the possible options, European officials said. He also spoke by telephone on Thursday evening with Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, the White House said.

It seems everyone is making this up as they go along, except for the other guy:

Speaking on a radio call-in show in Tripoli before the vote, Colonel Qaddafi raised the level of urgency on the vote, saying that his forces would begin an assault on Benghazi that night. “We will come house by house, room by room. It’s over. The issue has been decided,” he said, offering amnesty to those who laid down their arms. To those who continued to resist, he vowed: “We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.”

And, on our side:

James M. Lindsay, the director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said of the Security Council’s decision: “It’s going to be tougher to stop Qaddafi today than it was a week ago. The issue is not going to be settled in the skies above Benghazi, but by taking out tanks, artillery positions and multiple-launch rocket systems on the ground.”

Mr. Lindsay said that would require helicopter gunships and other close-in support aircraft rather than advanced fighter planes. Other analysts said repelling Colonel Qaddafi’s forces might require ground troops, an option that has been ruled out by senior American officials.

A Pentagon official said Thursday that decisions were still being made about what kind of military action, if any, the United States might take with the allies against Libya.

And Britain and France were still waiting to hear what role the United States would take in any military action in Libya. Who’s on first? Is someone trying to make George Bush look organized? It seems Britain, France and the United States were insisting that Arab League forces take part in the military actions – and help pay for the operations – and maybe this shouldn’t be led by NATO, to avoid the appearance that the West was attacking another Muslim country. Two are enough.

But there was this:

Characterizing Colonel Qaddafi as a menacing “creature” lacking a moral compass, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that the international community had little choice but to act. “There is no good choice here. If you don’t get him out and if you don’t support the opposition and he stays in power, there’s no telling what he will do,” Mrs. Clinton said from Tunisia on Thursday.

When there is no good choice just do something – words to live by. Things have changed since 2003 it seems.

And do we have to do this? See this curious suggestion from the UK:

Gaddafi can win without his air force. Tanks and artillery beat courage and small arms every time. What is actually needed is active military intervention on the ground and in the air by disciplined, well-trained Arab forces, sent by a revolutionary Arab government that is in sympathy with the Libyan rebels. So where is the Egyptian army when the Libyans need it?

Egypt has an open border with the rebel-controlled east of Libya, and just one brigade of the Egyptian army would be enough to stop Gaddafi’s ground forces in their tracks. The Egyptian air force could easily shoot down any of Gaddafi’s aircraft that dared to take off, especially if it had early warning from European or American AWACS aircraft. The Egyptian army would probably not need to go all the way to Tripoli, although it could easily do so if necessary. Just the fact of Egyptian military intervention would probably convince most of the Libyan troops still supporting Gaddafi that it is time to change sides.

But that’s not the plan. And Andrew Exum has just a few questions:

Who pays for this war? Does the Congress need to authorize anything? What are the vital U.S. interests we are trying to protect? The question that most concerns me and pertains to readers of this blog is what happens next?

What happens if Gadhafi pulls back? Do we continue to try and press the advantage of the rebels until his government falls? Do we have the authorization to do that? Do we expect a civil war in Libya to drag out, and if so, how will we take sides? If Gadhafi falls, what comes next? What will the new Libyan government look like? Will they be friendly to U.S. interests? Someone please tell me how this ends.

No one knows. And here’s a data point:

Senior officials, notably the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, have made it clear that the United States does not view Libya as a vital strategic interest.

And a reaction from Andrew Sullivan:

This strikes me as the worst decision by Obama since he ramped up forces in Afghanistan. If he thinks it makes him look stronger he’s nuts. He looks weak and led around by Cameron and Sarkozy and Clinton. If he’s doing it purely for humanitarian reasons (and since there are no vital interests involved, he must be, right), why have we not stopped the slaughter in the Congo? Why have we not intervened in Zimbabwe? Why are we not instituting no-fly zones in Burma?

None of this makes any sense. And the cost? $300 million a week – or $15 billion a year. Where is that coming from? Or have we really re-elected another Bush? More war paid for by more borrowing – with no leadership on the long term fiscal crisis.

And this:

So the United States is embarking on another effort at nation-building in a Muslim country where there is no nation.

And don’t tell me we can stop short of this. If you are bombing a territory and arming and advising rebels within it, you are a part of the war. And you are responsible for its consequences. I simply cannot believe that the US is taking custody of yet another chaotic region we cannot begin to understand, in favor of people we do not know, against a crazy tyrant we spent the past few years rehabilitating.

Well, I can believe it. If we had elected John McCain, it would be highly believable.

And this:

The United States is, we are informed, about to declare war on a third deeply divided, chaotic and violent Muslim country. The Congress has not voted; the president has not explained; a thorough debate has not taken place. On what basis can a president simply decide such a profound question? Is the UN Secretary-General now more important than the American public or Congress? Even Bush held a vote before the Iraq war.

Is Obama proving that, as far as an imperial presidency is concerned, George W. Bush was a weakling?

Sullivan is upset. But there was a classified Hill briefing:

“I want to take back criticism I gave to them yesterday and say, ‘you are doing the right thing,'” said Graham. “My money is on the American Air Force, the American Navy, and our allies to contain the Libyans, and anybody on our side that says we can’t contain the Libyan air threat – I want them fired.”

Lindsey Graham is now happy. And Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz isn’t:

He called the plan to impose a no-fly zone in a few days “overly optimistic” and said “it would take upwards of a week.” Schwartz was also clear that while the U.S. military can impose a no-fly zone, that’s not likely to stop Qaddafi all by itself. He also noted that to do so effectively might require diverting some resources from the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The question is, is a no-fly zone the last step or is it the first step?” Schwartz said. Asked by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) whether a no-fly zone could turn the momentum, Schwartz replied, “A no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient.”

And Sullivan comments:

So when that is insufficient, what do we do then? Hand Qaddafi a victory not only over the rebels but over the US? Of course not. That means a potentially intractable, expensive war without public support or Congressional debate and authorization.

Remind me again: did McCain or Obama win the last election?

Of course one of Sullivan’s readers tells Sullivan to just calm down:

You should be applauding the way Barack Obama is handling the Libya situation. It is realpolitik – in a most self-aware, calculating, interest-driven, human rights driven, cold-blooded form. It’s something you claim to want in our foreign policy.

The US is not leading this, and probably won’t, ever. That is why Barack Obama is not making a public drive for support. In fact, we were moved toward a no-fly zone by Arab countries largely, and Europe, decisively. When was the last time that happened? Ask yourself why Obama is acting this way.

He does not want to be in front, because he isn’t, and he shouldn’t be. That is a lesson America has learned, painfully, and which Obama is heeding.

Yes, that was the lesson of Turtle Bay in 2003, and what we’re doing is just fine:

In addition, this is a fluid situation, not an entrenched stalemate onto which American forces will impose an outcome. Locally, there is no fear of Qaddafi anymore, which cannot be said of either Milosevic in Bosnia or Saddam in Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. And think of the positive outcome that is likely – yes likely – another dictator in the Middle East gone, months after the last one, with minor but real US support for the reformers, and another deadly blow to the Al Qaeda narrative that America hates the Arab street. This is a gamble, a long ball, no doubt – but a smart one, whose payoff could be immediate, and grow more enormous for decades.

My instinct tells me that Obama believes a non-US led (hopefully Arab led) no-fly zone can get rid of another dictator in a region boiling with democratic revolution. That alone would be incredibly positive. What comes after, in a region quickly turning a historic page, is probably worth this calculated risk.

Sullivan:

But a couple of things: if this is actually going to be led by the Arab states, where are they? Here’s what we have so far – “Diplomats said Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were considering taking a leading role, with Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt also considering participating.”

But Sullivan is encouraged that something may be going on behind the headlines:

Egypt’s military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington’s knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said. The shipments – mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition – appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters.

This won’t be enough. And if officials in Britain, France and the United States are all so adamant that Arab League forces take part in the military actions and help pay for the operations, and that it not be led by NATO, to avoid the appearance that the West was attacking another Muslim country, Sullivan asks where are these forces?

Who has agreed to pay? And if it’s risky for the US or NATO to be seen interfering in Libya, because it looks imperialist, does anyone think the former colonial powers, Britain and France, based in Italy, the country that once controlled Libya, might not be perceived as imperialist before too long?

And one more thing: What if Qaddafi takes Benghazi anyway, despite the intervention? What if we simply create a stalemate which becomes an even deeper and bloodier civil war? Once you start this, it cannot be stopped till either Qaddafi wins in a manner that truly would mean a triumph of despotism against the entire West – or we own the place. But I guess there’s no going back now.

Yep, here we go again. See Jonathan Cole – “I’ll let you figure out how this is in our national interest and how entering another war with no clear definition for victory or understandable mission is what we need.”

And we are at war with Libya now. How did that happen? Strange things happen in Turtle Bay. And here’s a picture of Kurt Vonnegut on that park bench in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, in Turtle Bay, right by the UN – he looks befuddled.

About Alan

The editor is a former systems manager for a large California-based HMO, and a former senior systems manager for Northrop, Hughes-Raytheon, Computer Sciences Corporation, Perot Systems and other such organizations. One position was managing the financial and payroll systems for a large hospital chain. And somewhere in there was a two-year stint in Canada running the systems shop at a General Motors locomotive factory - in London, Ontario. That explains Canadian matters scattered through these pages. Otherwise, think large-scale HR, payroll, financial and manufacturing systems. A résumé is available if you wish. The editor has a graduate degree in Eighteenth-Century British Literature from Duke University where he was a National Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and taught English and music in upstate New York in the seventies, and then in the early eighties moved to California and left teaching. The editor currently resides in Hollywood California, a block north of the Sunset Strip.
This entry was posted in Libya and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment