It seems a strange juxtaposition that so many conservative pundits oppose the no-fly/no-drive intervention against Gadhafi after having touted American exceptionalism for years. If the United States is “exceptional” and we have a global reach military of air and sea power what is the purpose for it if not to engage in defense of Libyan civilians against the murderous, odious despot Gadhafi?
If the United States was simply one country among many, that is unexceptional – a view which the current occupant of the White House has espoused in speeches, then the use of military force in Libya would only make sense if there were assured, measurable benefit/profit to the United States in doing so. Since the United States is exceptional, we can make a moral decision to use our global reach military power to defend the people of Benghazi (and other Libyan cities) from slaughter by their lunatic dictator.
Justification for the intervention includes the following.
- Intervention is within our capabilities, and of our allies. The view of opponents of intervention who suggest that our military cannot do this mission because it is “over-extended” do not seem to have their views shared by US military planners.
- If a new government arises in Libya after the defeat of Gadhafi, it may be better disposed to have a positive view of the United States due to our support. There is of course no promise of this, and this does not appear to be our motivation in intervening in Libya however it is a possible positive outcome for the United States and the West.
- Gadhafi is an enemy of the United States. His involvement in Pan Am 103, Beirut marine barracks bombing, and the Berlin Disco bombings among others means, that he is a tyrant who merits payback. The release of the Lockerbie Bomber and his triumphant return to Libya – greeted by flowers and parades as a hero – was a slap in the face to our country and the relatives of the victims. As an exceptional country, do we not stand with the victims against the oppressors? Now is the time.
To me, it seems difficult to espouse an American Exceptionalism worldview while opposing the Libyan intervention. Opposition to the no-fly/no-drive action of the US and our allies appears to me to be a defacto pro-Gadhafi position which is indefensible.
Without the intervention, Gadhafi appears to be on the road to victory though only several weeks ago his defeat seemed a strong possibility, without any intervention required. If we do nothing, then a massacre will likely occur in Benghazi and other places that could have been prevented if we had but acted.
There are those who cite the lack of involvement of the Arab states. They suggest that Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Syria or some other Islamic country should come to the aid of their fellow adherents of Islam. After all, they say, isn’t the Umma supposed to look after itself first and foremost?
They ask these rhetorical questions knowing that the answers to all of them are negative and, that if their views are followed, no aid will come to the forces opposed to Gadhafi. If no aid were to come, opponents of Gadhafi would certainly be defeated and slaughtered. Then, are we are to deal with a victorious Gadhafi for another score years – and then his sons? The idea of such a continuation of the Gadhafi regime is distasteful. Most importantly, it is likely an avoidable outcome but only if the West takes action against him and his supporters.
The actions of the current occupant of the White House, now on a junket in Rio during “Carnival” are without question disconcerting at best. Many insiders have suggested that Mr. Obama has little care for the daily duties of the Presidency – his absenteeism, strange waffling and silences during times of crisis appear to lend credence to this view. In addition, many insiders suggest that his attention is focused almost exclusively on one thing only – his reelection.
It seems clear that Hillary Clinton was lobbying for intervention for some time, and has finally won out, as she ought to. Obama’s lack of action in Libya as Gadhafi’s forces approached Benghazi promising to “show no mercy” when they arrived could be disastrous to his re-election chances if the massacre that Gadhafi promised occurred. Already, his chances for another term in his White House/Versailles seem unlikely; an American president who does not see the special role of American power in protecting innocents from tyrants is unlikely to get a second term. Mr. Obama’s tone-deafness and aloofness is widely reported – his recent comments that one should take a moment from one’s college basketball “picks” to “help Japan” was particularly egregious and unpresidential.
As the upheavals continue in the Arab world with Saudi Arabia and Yemen and Iran (Persian, not Arab) at a growing pace, American silence and do-nothingness will be a disaster.
Those who understand the anti-democratic and barbaric nature of Islamic rule (Sharia law and Caliphate) believe that intervention by the West can only play into the hands of Islam – the kafirs will do our fighting for us. But this ignores the essential truth that the core of all of these upheavals is Islam itself.
When a new government arises in Egypt, for example, that country will still be Islamic. Libya is a Muslim country. Barring any reform movement within Islam that might bring it into the family of humanity which now seems remote and unlikely, any realist must accept that any engagement with countries in this region is engagement with Islam. This is unavoidable as this is the core of the future of global politics – a renewed, aggressive, and oil-wealthy Islam versus the World.
So far, we have failed in two Islamic states, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Constitutions of both of these states describe the new nation as “Islamic” and under the laws of Islam (Sharia). Since Sharia is opposed in every sense to our understanding of democracy, decency and civilization, both countries must be considered as failed. Both now have the seeds of their destruction written directly into the language of their constitutions, documents we helped them draft because we knew so little of Islam and did not have the will to dictate terms as we did to the Japanese after WW2.
Our intervention in Libya does not necessarily have to be risky, costly, or involve great sacrifice on our part. If Gadhafi is defeated as he should be, the new government may be more partial to the United States and the Western democracies than it otherwise would have been if we stood by and did nothing as the forces of the opposition were slaughtered by the vile tyrant of Libya.
If we did nothing there could be no possibility of a favorable outcome for the United States as the only thing a new government is likely to remember after the fighting is done is that the US did not assist when it was within their power to do so. We are criticized for assisting, and for not assisting – this criticism is unavoidable and should not be the foundations of our foreign policy. Our foreign policy should be built upon doing what is right and creating situations that in future will be favorable for ourselves and our friends, and detrimental to the plans of our enemies.
Inaction in Libya would be an abandonment of the concept of American Exceptionalism as well as the foundational concepts of “real politick”.
There is little doubt as to what Reagan or another President who truly believed in American Exceptionalism would have done in Libya – they would have attacked and not have waited for “the international community” to sanction it.
As Gadhafi is so close to being driven out, with a viable and motivated opposition fighting in the streets to get him out, or get him to disappear, now is the perfect time to render aid. Those who suggest that the opposition will be worse than Gadhafi and that it is a force of Islamists should understand that we are dealing with Muslims in a Muslim country. As Islam will be the greatest challenge to the West in the coming years, perhaps a favorable government in Tripoli would be beneficial to the United States, if such a thing is possible? The answer must be “yes.”
However, this may not be possible due to the nature of Islam itself and its hostile and supremacist view of (and relationship with) the non-believers (kafirs); but we haven’t any alternative but to try to engage with Islam and Muslims. If we are to continue to be a superpower, if we are to be an exceptional nation we have no alternative but to engage in the Islamic world and hopefully build a bulwark of anti-jihadism there. If we do not try, if we stand aside and let innocents be massacred by despots like Gadhafi our inaction will return to haunt us.
There are few in the United States, except some unfortunately who are in elected office, who support in any way dictators or tyrants or mass murderers. This negative view on abusive leaders is one of the components of American Exceptionalism. Even more importantly is that we have put lives and treasure on the line again and again to show that we truly believe that we are different; that we exist to make a difference.
Do conservatives really believe in American Exceptionalism? If they do, why do they oppose driving out a brutal tyrant on the very day he promises a massacre in the midst of a civil war that he may well lose, if we only were to assist? Opposition to no-fly/no-drive appears to be support of a continued Gadhafi regime and certainly will facilitate mass murders in Benghazi and elsewhere.
There appears to be a growing orthodoxy of ideology on the right which suggests somehow that intervention in another Arab state is unwarranted or “dangerous”. It denies that there is value or necessity in such intervention. Because America is exceptional, sometimes we do intervene – if any intervention is warranted, this one appears to be it.
What does it mean then to say that the United States is “exceptional?” Does it mean that we take action when others do not, even though those others are physically closer to events, have the means and seem to have more at stake in the course of events than we do? Does our exceptionalism mean that we say to the tyrant and his forces, “you will advance no further and you will be driven out?”
There is a cognitive dissonance at work in the land in which our President remains silent when tens of thousands march in Iran, in which during the early days of the Egyptian revolution the message from Washington was silence, then mixed messages and inaction and in which confusion now reigns as the ruling elites appear to live on a planet altogether different than that of the people.
There are shades of France 1789 in all of this as our President vacations and golfs amidst national and international crisis after crisis. But the national character has not changed. Despite the radical nature of Mr. Obama’s administration they cannot change the nature of the country itself.
The United States is exceptional. Gadhafi is evil. There is a viable opposition fighting him and his supporters. We are in a position to render assistance to the opposition. We may get a benefit from this aid or we may not, but we should, if we are exceptional, do what is right. It is right to help the opposition in Libya to drive out Gadhafi and it is right to prevent massacres of civilians by the vile dictator there.
As time goes forward the views of the current resident of the White House on this matter will be little noted. What will be important and is so today is that we did not stand aside and let the dictator kill innocents across Libya and we rendered aid to drive this madman out. What matters is that we did the right thing. If we are an exceptional nation then we are to set the standard and the path for the world. We have done this in the past and this is our way, in many spheres.
So far, this has not been a popular decision of Mr. Obama’s. Critics of both left and right are excoriating him. Dennis Kucinich in a March 18th letter to Speaker of the House Boehner uses Obama’s own words to repudiate the President.
A commitment of US forces should not occur under these circumstances. As then-Senator Obama wrote, in 2007, ‘The President does not have the 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.’ I agree.
While Ronald Reagan’s 1986 retaliatory bombing of Libya (without Congressional approval) apparently proves Obama’s 2007 comment incorrect and Congressman Kucinich’s complaint to the Speaker without merit, one has to wonder why a liberal would not want to render aid to people who are to be massacred by a tyrant who has been unfriendly to the United States for decades?
Certainly, the Congress has always been jealous of its powers and for good reason. However, there are extraordinary circumstances that do not allow for the time required for Congressional approval. If the Congress feels that President Obama has acted outside his authority they can impeach him. At least one Democratic Member of Congress has already broached the impeachment option on this issue.
Though Presidential authority is always an issue for Congress (and its importance cannot be understated for the health of our democracy) the criticism from the left on Presidential authority grounds alone seems to miss the mark entirely on the issue. The city of Benghazi was facing ruin and massacre. The day after Gadhafi promised to deal with the opposition in that city and (by extension) everywhere else in the country where he could get at them “without mercy” – only then did the UN finally make their vote to intervene. Certainly, there was not enough time to consult Congress and that could be the basis of Obama’s defense if he is impeached for this action, which I strongly doubt will occur.
The lights in the city on the hill were blinking on and off of late and their brightness decreasing by the day. But now they are bright again, and hopefully with our assistance and that of our partners, a new positive future can come to Libya. A new Libyan government will hopefully be beneficial to us, as well. If we did not intervene, we would get nothing.
We seem to be a nation overwhelmed with responsibility and duty, lately overturned by a radical president who does not believe in American Exceptionalism. Now there are three ongoing wars. As mentioned above, two are already likely lost as the seeds of failure are built into the new constitutions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
During the Turkish revolution of the 1920s, the beautiful city of Smyrna (then part of Greece, now “Izmir”, Turkey) was put to the torch and destroyed in 1922. There remains great controversy as to which party started the blaze and why. But what is known is the great shame of international naval forces that were sitting in their ships in Smyrna harbor and did nothing as civilians were slaughtered in the city by Turkish forces.
George Horton was the American Counsel General in Smyrna at the time. What he saw there, the inaction of the international forces to the horrors and murders that he was witnessing, particularly American inaction, had a deep impact upon him. The greatest emotion he felt was shame.
‘The torch was applied to that ill-fated city and it was all systematically burned by the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal.’ He went on to describe the Allied and American warships ‘impotently watching the Miltonic scene’ and concluded that he was ‘ashamed to belong to the human race.’
If Benghazi and other Libyan cities were razed and the people there slaughtered by Gadhafi and his thugs, what would our reaction be? If we did nothing while everybody else who should be doing something also did not act, then we certainly would not be an “exceptional” country. We would be with George Horton once again in the harbor of Smyrna ignoring his warning and his shame.
The greatest debates in our history have been about how to apply, when and where, our global reach military power. If not now, when?
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.