| Discussants: | Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies Micah Zenko, Fellow for Conflict Prevention |
|---|
With troops loyal to Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi pushing back rebel forces that had taken control of several cities, there's increasing urgency to the question of whether the United States and its allies should intervene beyond sanctions on the Qaddafi regime. Specifically, the question of imposing a no-fly zone has sparked debate both in Washington and within the UN Security Council. In this exchange and for the next week, CFR fellows Elliott Abrams and Micah Zenko debate the question of whether or not the United States should intervene militarily in Libya.
Elliott Abrams
The key question is what our goal is. Military intervention is a means, of course, and not an end.
I take it that our goal is the end of the Qaddafi regime, for that goal has been stated by the president and secretary of state. At this point, Qaddafi's survival in power would weaken the United States and weaken the president, showing that defiance works and that our words have little meaning. Moreover, the lesson it would teach others--in Syria, for example--would be that former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's mistake was not to kill enough people, and that extreme uses of violence work.
So how do we achieve that goal of getting Qaddafi out? We use a combination of means, which may include UN resolutions, Arab League and other Arab and Muslim actions, sanctions, freezes of his oil income, recognition of an alternative government, meetings with opposition leaders, broadcasting against the regime, and on to more forceful actions. These could include arming the opposition and/or preventing Qaddafi from using the military strength he retains to win this civil war. Preventing him from using air power is a possible part of the mix, and that might be achieved from NATO air bases in Italy or ships in the Mediterranean.
Such steps would constitute military intervention despite the fact that no American or NATO soldier would set foot in Libya. It is extremely difficult to believe, and I do not believe, that the air power and air defenses available to Qaddafi would present much of a problem for NATO military planners. What he owns is old and far inferior to the aircraft, missiles, and electronic warfare available to NATO and U.S. forces.
If one takes the position that military intervention should be ruled out, one should weigh the consequences. Qaddafi would presumably win his war and retake control of all of Libya. As noted, the lesson for all tyrants is that any amount of violence pays--and will not be blunted or stopped by anyone outside. One can predict bloody revenge against his opposition in Benghazi and elsewhere, which might itself prompt our intervention later--when it is too late to avoid all those deaths. He might well, back in power, return to supporting some terrorist groups or seeking weapons of mass destruction--programs he abandoned in 2003.
The conclusion, then, is that we have a national interest in his defeat and must act sensibly to ensure it. That will most likely include some military action of a limited kind, and we should not shrink from using the means to reach the ends we have embraced.
Micah, whatever your thoughts about whether the president should have said what he said, we are where we are. Do you agree that now we must ensure that Qaddafi loses?
Micah Zenko
I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the issue of what role the United States should have in Libya. While there are smaller points of contention with your post, overall I disagree that the president's statement compels the United States to take any specific actions toward Libya. To be explicit, President Obama has made one statement directed at Qaddafi on March 3.
"The violence must stop. Muammar Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave. Those who perpetrate violence against the Libyan people will be held accountable."
Telling a foreign leader they must leave does not commit the United States to intervene militarily to do so. In creating policy, every president makes aspirational statements that shape administration thinking, test allied support, and gauge public opinion--it is worth noting that only 12 percent of informed Americans support a military intervention (PDF).
Furthermore, like all preceding presidents, President Obama's statement has been further qualified by cabinet secretaries and senior civilian and military officials who have addressed a range of important political, military, legal, and humanitarian issues related to Libya.
U.S. foreign policy should not be based on chasing international perceptions, or, in the abstract, trying to alter the calculations of tyrants, who often display limited rationality. America's reputation is constantly being made and remade based upon the interests at stake and military and non-military capabilities that the United States can marshal regarding a specific issue.
For example, the Laurent Gbagbo regime in Cote d'Ivoire has correctly judged that it is not in U.S. interests to intervene on behalf of rebels who support the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara. The United States has appropriately provided humanitarian assistance and applied diplomatic and economic pressure against Gbagbo. However, assuring that a tyrant loses in Cote d'Ivoire--or in a dozen other civil wars--is not in the U.S. national interest.
Thus, to answer you directly, I disagree that the United States must ensure Qaddafi loses. The only way to ensure that would be through a direct military intervention that physically removes him from his barracks in Tripoli. To paraphrase another George W. Bush administration official, intervening in Libya would be a "war of choice" at a time when America's economic and military capabilities are severely constrained.
Regime change in Tripoli was not in U.S. national interest on February 15, nor is it now. My questions are: did you believe it was in America's national interest to intervene militarily to remove Qaddafi from power on February 15? What has happened since then to influence your thinking?
Elliott Abrams
The key question is what our goal is. Military intervention is a means, of course, and not an end.
I take it that our goal is the end of the Qaddafi regime, for that goal has been stated by the president and secretary of state. At this point, Qaddafi's survival in power would weaken the United States and weaken the president, showing that defiance works and that our words have little meaning. Moreover, the lesson it would teach others--in Syria, for example--would be that former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's mistake was not to kill enough people, and that extreme uses of violence work.
So how do we achieve that goal of getting Qaddafi out? We use a combination of means, which may include UN resolutions, Arab League and other Arab and Muslim actions, sanctions, freezes of his oil income, recognition of an alternative government, meetings with opposition leaders, broadcasting against the regime, and on to more forceful actions. These could include arming the opposition and/or preventing Qaddafi from using the military strength he retains to win this civil war. Preventing him from using air power is a possible part of the mix, and that might be achieved from NATO air bases in Italy or ships in the Mediterranean.
Such steps would constitute military intervention despite the fact that no American or NATO soldier would set foot in Libya. It is extremely difficult to believe, and I do not believe, that the air power and air defenses available to Qaddafi would present much of a problem for NATO military planners. What he owns is old and far inferior to the aircraft, missiles, and electronic warfare available to NATO and U.S. forces.
If one takes the position that military intervention should be ruled out, one should weigh the consequences. Qaddafi would presumably win his war and retake control of all of Libya. As noted, the lesson for all tyrants is that any amount of violence pays--and will not be blunted or stopped by anyone outside. One can predict bloody revenge against his opposition in Benghazi and elsewhere, which might itself prompt our intervention later--when it is too late to avoid all those deaths. He might well, back in power, return to supporting some terrorist groups or seeking weapons of mass destruction--programs he abandoned in 2003.
The conclusion, then, is that we have a national interest in his defeat and must act sensibly to ensure it. That will most likely include some military action of a limited kind, and we should not shrink from using the means to reach the ends we have embraced.
Micah, whatever your thoughts about whether the president should have said what he said, we are where we are. Do you agree that now we must ensure that Qaddafi loses?
Micah Zenko
I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the issue of what role the United States should have in Libya. While there are smaller points of contention with your post, overall I disagree that the president's statement compels the United States to take any specific actions toward Libya. To be explicit, President Obama has made one statement directed at Qaddafi on March 3.
"The violence must stop. Muammar Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave. Those who perpetrate violence against the Libyan people will be held accountable."
Telling a foreign leader they must leave does not commit the United States to intervene militarily to do so. In creating policy, every president makes aspirational statements that shape administration thinking, test allied support, and gauge public opinion--it is worth noting that only 12 percent of informed Americans support a military intervention (PDF).
Furthermore, like all preceding presidents, President Obama's statement has been further qualified by cabinet secretaries and senior civilian and military officials who have addressed a range of important political, military, legal, and humanitarian issues related to Libya.
U.S. foreign policy should not be based on chasing international perceptions, or, in the abstract, trying to alter the calculations of tyrants, who often display limited rationality. America's reputation is constantly being made and remade based upon the interests at stake and military and non-military capabilities that the United States can marshal regarding a specific issue.
For example, the Laurent Gbagbo regime in Cote d'Ivoire has correctly judged that it is not in U.S. interests to intervene on behalf of rebels who support the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara. The United States has appropriately provided humanitarian assistance and applied diplomatic and economic pressure against Gbagbo. However, assuring that a tyrant loses in Cote d'Ivoire--or in a dozen other civil wars--is not in the U.S. national interest.
Thus, to answer you directly, I disagree that the United States must ensure Qaddafi loses. The only way to ensure that would be through a direct military intervention that physically removes him from his barracks in Tripoli. To paraphrase another George W. Bush administration official, intervening in Libya would be a "war of choice" at a time when America's economic and military capabilities are severely constrained.
Regime change in Tripoli was not in U.S. national interest on February 15, nor is it now. My questions are: did you believe it was in America's national interest to intervene militarily to remove Qaddafi from power on February 15? What has happened since then to influence your thinking?
No comments:
Post a Comment