Op-ed: Understanding the “No Fly Zone” in Libya
Words Max Shapiro
Monday, March 21st, 2011 at 11:28 am
The ultimate irony here is that the Arab League specifically asked for us to get involved.
Forget for a moment that the head of the league is running for President of Egypt, and consider what it means for a group of Arab nations to ask for Western military involvement. Sound crazy? That’s because it is.
It just seems like such a simple concept. Planes don’t fly, civilians don’t get bombed. It’s not really a war…right? Well, that depends on how you define a war and especially on what you consider a “No Fly Zone.”
“Let’s just call a spade a spade,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said at a Senate Hearing. “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that’s the way it starts.”
Pic | CIA
There goes your simple concept. Did you really think that we would send jets to fly over Libya without taking out their defenses first? I would hope not, but it appears the Arab League thought so.
Three days into the bombing campaign and they are condemning our actions and discussing the withdrawal of their support. Russia, China, and others that abstained from the UN Security Council vote authorizing action are mouthing “I told you so” while our generals are staring down another prolonged conflict in the region. On top of all that, we don’t even have an end game scenario, although it’s been hinted that Gaddafi himself will soon become a target for the attacks.
So is this a war? Under current US law, the answer would have to be no. There has been no Congressional declaration or even a resolution of approval. That might bother some, it especially bothers me, but that’s the world we live in. However, when you examine things outside of our twisted legal-military system, this clearly is an act of war.
Aside from the varying levels of force engagement, the simplest definition for a war is when you use military action to obtain objectives against a foreign government. Last I checked, our objective is somewhere in between toppling Gaddafi’s regime and protecting civilians. Had someone gotten in the middle of Sherman’s March to the Sea in 1864, we would definitely have taken it as an act of war. Many Libyans and Arabs in the region will not see things any differently. Meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is a United States specialty and one that has not given us a very appealing image oversees.
Would you like it if China came over here and started dictating our foreign and domestic policies? I don’t think so. “But we’re helping them earn freedom,” you say. That may be the case, but our actions elsewhere hardly hold consistent with that belief.
Let us now examine the not so curious case of Bahrain and their anti-government protests:
Media coverage is nearly non-existent, but those watching closely know that Saudi Arabia has sent tanks and ground troops to help quell the rioting through a combination of arresting opposition leaders and outright military action. No condemnation from the United States though, and don’t be expecting any. Unlike Libya, we happen to have a huge Naval Base in Bahrain, one so large that it serves as the headquarters for our entire 5th Fleet. Should the government collapse, that spells serious problems for our Navy and of course we can’t let that happen.
See the double standard now? At the same time we are bombing Libya for attacking their people, we are silently condoning, if not outright supporting, the actions of Bahrain against their opposition movement. While this may go unnoticed by people at home, those in Middle East are taking serious note of our hypocrisy.
How does this all end? I wish I could say, but if history is any indication, it won’t be well for the United States. Our long history of intervention has always brought more problems than it supposedly solved. That’s a topic for another article entirely, so I will leave you with the following two quotes. Whether it be fate or sheer coincidence, this irony should be lost on no one:
“Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” – President Bush, March 19, 2003
“I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.” – President Obama, March 19, 2011
""
COMMENTS
Facebook comments:
ABOUT THE WRITER
Instead of going to college, Max Shapiro took a full time job working in the office of one of the most connected lawyers in Republican politics. From there he was lucky enough to land a string of high level jobs on local, state, and federal campaigns. Just recently, however, Max managed to get himself banned from the Republican Party for three years, but he isn't losing any sleep over it. When he is not on the campaign trail, Max spends his time at the beach, skateboarding, or writing for AltDaily. He has been known to dabble with GIS and is rumored to own a small company providing mapping services to businesses and political campaigns.
Other posts by Max Shapiro.
Other posts by Max Shapiro.
RELATED POSTS
- Op-ed: Bus Rapid Transit a Viable Alternative to Extending The Tide
- Release: Hampton Roads Gets its ‘Reality Check’
- Candidate op-ed: Norfolk: Find your home here
- Follow-up Story: ODU Students Pitch App Ideas to Tech-Gurus and Entrepreneurs at This Weekend’s Start Norfolk
- Op-Ed: An Account of a (Horrific) First-Time HRT Experience
More Opinion Posts
RSS
You would rather the UN (because this is a UN action, not a US action) stand by and watch the slaughter continue?
Your view on US intervention bringing about more problems than they supposedly solved is incredibly confusing, and doesn’t mesh with reality – how can you know how awful things may have been if the US had not stepped in?
Just because they didn’t turn out all roses and happiness, does not mean they were not better in the long run. Do you think the Bosnian War would have ended better without NATO and the UN stepping in?
Do I like the fact that the UN is bombing Libya (and make no mistake about it, this is a *UN* action – China and Russia abstained for the same reason Italy is not participating – they have significant financial dealings with Libya for oil, and don’t want to upset the existing government, on the off chance it survives)? No.
Do I see that the world really has any other moral choice, with Qaddafi declaring that there would be no mercy? No.
You show me a dictator who will respond to stern scoldings, and I’ll show you a world where the sky isn’t blue.
We are watching the slaughter continue in Darfur, Somalia, and Bahrain. Do you want military involvement there as well? It is not the responsibility of the United States to meddle with the internal affairs of other countries. Libya is involved in a civil war, rebels of any sort understand the risks when they partake in such actions. If you believe we have a moral obligation to stop all acts of violence against civilians, then we can just agree to disagree on that point.
France has dealings with Libya and yet they are one of the leading backers, so that argument for why Russia and China et al are abstaining does not hold completely true. They have many other reasons as well.
How can I say it has caused more problems? I’m not going to go into every military intervention and the negative consequences, but let me just say the vast majority of all terrorist groups that exist today were started or heavily funded by the US government during the cold war. The reason Iran has the government it does is because we had their first democratic leader assassinated in 1953. The reason people like Hugo Chavez have power in Latin America is because we assassinated several Democratic leaders in the past 50 years because they didn’t want to be veritable colonies of America.
Do you think Europe should have gotten involved in our civil war? If you don’t, they why should we get involved in Libya’s?
Dictators don’t respond to scoldings, but they don’t respond well to force either. Do you want to invade every dictatorship in the world to free their people by spreading democracy at gun point?
If Libya is worthwhile to be involved in, why not Bahrain? Why not everywhere else on the planet? Where do you draw the line? Your logic says the US should be involved in dozens of other places in the world.
Like I said, we can agree to disagree on that point. I understand your argument, there are important humanitarian concerns, but where do you draw the line?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make bring other areas into things…
The UN is involved in Darfur, and has been for a while.
The UN has been involved in Somalia for nearly 20 years.
The US supports both of these missions, although we may not be the lead on the ground (I believe Pakistan is the lead in Somalia, and the African Union/Ethiopia are the lead in Darfur/Sudan).
The US, either alone, or via bodies such as the UN or NATO *IS* involved in dozens of places around the world, and we have been for decades.
Bahrain has not yet evolved into anything even remotely resemebling the other mentioned conflicts, or that of LIbya – the level of violence and oppression there is more closely related the WTC riots in Seattle than a civil war (so far), so there’s no need for the UN to become militarily involved.
We do not have a moral obligation to stop all violence against civilians, we have a moral obligation to prevent genocide and wholesale slaughter of civilians in response to calls for government reforms. If people are protesting, and you tear gas and arrest them, that’s fine – we do the same. If people are protesting and you bomb them with jets, that’s operating in an entirely different world.
The majority of major terrorist groups (see Hamas, ETA, Hezbollah, FARC, MILF, etc.) have nothing to do with the United States or it’s interventionist history. Hugo Chavez isn’t a terrorist, he’s an elected leader of his people (elections being rigger or not is another thing…). He may not be friendly to the US, but he’s also not bombing his people with jets.
The leader of Iran is also elected by his people (as is, indirectly, the Supreme Leader of Iran) – there is no dictatorship in Iran, and while their government may not be friendly to the US anymore, I don’t think that’s because of what happened in the 50s. Tossing someone on the ‘Axis of Evil’ list tends to hurt their feelings a little.
It’s up to the people of a given nation to begin the fight for freedom and democracy within their nation. It is the responsibility of the rest of democratic world to support them in that struggle, as much as possible. Where the line gets drawn is not clear – there is no black/white in the real world, unfortunately.
I am mostly going to just sit back and watch this discussion happen because I am ill-prepared to offer any insight that would be more than just an argument.
That said, I do have one question about the following comment: “Do you think Europe should have gotten involved in our civil war? If you don’t, they why should we get involved in Libya’s?”
Am I mistaken in thinking that the analogy is more than just a bit of a stretch? In my understanding of history, Global political and financial dynamics in the 1860s were so vastly different than they are now, it’s like saying the love story in Alien (1975) and The Princess Bride (1987) are mirror images of the other. There was virtually nothing at stake, relatively speaking, in the global market during our civil war in the mid 19th century especially when compared to the way things are now. There is a difference between a dictator and tyranny. There is a difference between Lee Kuan Yew and Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi has expressed willingness to push human rights violations to an extent where even the UN cannot look away. It’s far more violent than any of the other revolutions that have been taking place and I think that as much as you make good points in your piece, you overlook the fact that Gaddafi is to blame for this violence, not the world’s reaction to it. If he wasn’t so power hungry, as most with significant power become, he’d have taken note of the vast majority of Libyans who want him gone. Instead he’s using his massive resources and violent threats against his own troops to ensure that he can overpower any rebellion that begins. It is, at least in my opinion, fair to give the rebels a fair chance to fight against a leader like Gaddafi.
Then again, I just sit back in my recliner and watch the videos while I sip on my Mt. Dew slurpee. :)
I wouldn’t say its a stretch, more like an attempt to show the basic philosophical question you should be asking. Put aside all the details and history and you have a simple question;
Should we get involved in the affairs of other people? If the answer is yes, where do you draw the line? Should we not be at least consistent in our meddling?
So I can understand where you think they deserve a fair fight. The question then becomes whether or not those in Bahrain should have a fair fight. Is it fair that we have a military base there and so are supporting their government, no matter how bad they are?
While I do think it is nice to help people fighting for freedom, we are doing the exact opposite elsewhere in the region. We have no pure motives here. The reality on the ground is that this will be a net-negative for the US in the region.
Are we going to topple the regime? What then? Do we rebuild Libya? Do we stay to make sure a proper democracy forms? Where does it end?
I’d say Bahrain is a tad bit worse off than riots in Seattle. Did Seattle ask Canada to bring in tanks to help stop the riots?
If you think MILF and FARC don’t have any relation to the US, then perhaps you need to re-check your history of the Phillipines and Colombia for US involvement there.
You want to talk about Hamas? How about the US and Israel pushed for elections in the West Bank knowing full well that Hamas would win so that they could then cut funding. It’s all laid out in Wikileaks cables and news coverage from that time period.
You are correct Chavez is not a terrorist, I never said he was. My point was that his election would have been far less likely had we never killed Allende and Torrijos.
As far as other groups, what I meant is that during the Cold War the Soviets were funding one side and we funded whoever was opposed to them. The vast majority of militant groups and regimes around the world relate back to those relationships.
I never said Iran wasn’t a democracy, so I don’t know where you got that. If you disagree that our killing Mossedegh isn’t a factor, then what about when we solid Saddam Hussein weapons to use against Iran. They still hold a grudge for that too, as well as our constant efforts to clandestinely overthrow their government.
Of course it’s not black and white, but its still hypocritical to take the side of some people wanting better government and not others. We have a long history of propping up dictators that abuse their people and killing rightfully elected people when they disagree with our policies.
So I can understand where you are coming from, but I disagree that what we are doing is necessary or in the best interest of our country.
What fine luxury it is to point out all of the places where American foreign policy falls short of its own principles! The uneasy allies who’s internal dealings we turn a blind eye to… The suffering that we haven’t been able to prevent… America has always had a stated morality in the amoral, anarchic system of foreign affairs that’s been impossible to live up to. So is it better to have unmet standards or be completely opportunistic? I say the former.
Diplomacy is the art of the possible. Those who forget that end up friendless and alone.
I wouldn’t call it a luxury, more like a neccessity in the political discourse that has been sorely lacking.
“Diplomacy is the art of the possible. Those who forget that end up friendless and alone.”
I couldn’t agree more. Some things are just not possible. The US getting involved in a civil war in an Arab state and coming out looking good is one of them.
I wouldn’t call it a luxury, more like a necessity in the political discourse that has been sorely lacking.
“Diplomacy is the art of the possible. Those who forget that end up friendless and alone.”
I couldn’t agree more. Some things are just not possible. The US getting involved in a civil war in an Arab state and coming out looking good is one of them.
“Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” – President Bush, March 19, 2003
“I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.” – President Obama, March 19, 2011
I’d say the problem with using Bush’s quote to highlight the irony of Obama’s is that the former quote includes the very lie Bush used to get the US involved in Iraq: weapons of mass murder. That’s not to say there weren’t humanitarian issues going in Iraq but that quote is about how international peace and stability was being threatened by Iraq’s non-existant weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas Obama’s quote highlights the truth of the situation: Libya is in the midst of a major humanitarian crisis orchaestrated by its own government. Is it and should it be the US’ #1 military priority? No, but in terms of humanitarian intervention it absolutely should be.