Lion's Den: Back to the shores of Tripoli?

My first instinct is to agree to a no-fly zone in Libya. But instinct does not make for sound policy.

By
March 15, 2011 23:02
3 minute read.
Victory sign in Libya

Libya peace victory sign 311 (R). (photo credit: REUTERS)

 
X

Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later Don't show it again

The official hymn of the US Marine Corps famously begins: “From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our country’s battles on land, in air, on sea.”

The reference to Tripoli alludes to the Battle of Derna of 1805 – the first overseas land combat fought by US troops and a decisive American victory.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


Recent fighting in Libya prompts a question: Should marines be sent anew to the shores of Tripoli, this time to protect not the high seas but the rebellious peoples of Libya rising against their government and calling for assistance as they are strafed from the air by troops loyal to Muammar Gaddafi?

My first instinct is readily to agree to a no-fly zone, thereby improving the odds for the valiant opposition. Several factors encourage this instinct: Libya’s easy accessibility from US and NATO air bases, the country’s flat and sparse geography, the near-universal condemnation of Gaddafi’s actions, the need to restore Libyan oil to the export market and the likelihood that such intervention will end the wretched 42-year rule of an outlandish and repulsive figure.

But instinct does not make for sound policy. An act of war requires context, guidelines and consistency.

However easy the operation might look, Gaddafi could have unexpected reserves of power that could lead to a long and messy engagement. If he survives, he could become all the more virulent. However repulsive he may be, his (Islamist?) opponents could be even more threatening to US interests. More broadly, meddling in an internal conflict could make more enemies than friends, plus it would fuel anti- American conspiracy theories.

Further, airpower has not yet proven decisive in Libya (its impact has been mainly psychological) and might not determine whether Gaddafi manages to stay in power. Imposing a no-fly zone sets a precedent in situations where circumstances are less favorable (e.g., North Korea).



And who will follow Gaddafi’s example and give up making nuclear weapons if this eases his own loss of power? BEHIND THE Libya debate looms the specter of Iraq and George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda.”

Bush’s partisans see this as payback time, while skeptics worry about unintended consequences.

Were Barack Obama to use force in Libya, it would be tantamount to conceding he was wrong to savage Bush’s Middle East policies. It would also, following Iraq and Afghanistan, involve American troops fighting the forces of yet another majority- Muslim country – something that Obama, with his emphasis on “mutual respect” with Muslims, must be loathe to undertake.

More fundamental is the imperative not to put American troops in harm’s way on behalf of humanitarian goals for other peoples; social work cannot be the US government purpose; rather, troops must always promote specific American national interests.

That the US military, as personified by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, shies away from taking on this duty, emphasizing its costs and dangers (“a big operation in a big country”), serves as a salutary caution, especially given lapses in US intelligence. That Libyans are starting to turn to Islamists for leadership, however, could turn Libya into another Somalia.

The American arsenal permits a president to ignore other states and deploy unilaterally, but is this wise? Iraqi precedents (1991, 2003) suggest it is politically worth the inconvenience to win endorsement from international organizations such as the UN, NATO, the Arab League, the African Union or even the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

As Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy notes, although a no-fly zone is what the opposition requests, it is just one of many options available to Washington. Others include, from least to most ambitious, providing opposition forces with intelligence, logistical support, communications hardware and training; sending them weapons; helping defend liberated areas; rendering Libyan airfields inoperable; or actively fighting regime forces.

Taking these considerations into account, what advice to give the Obama administration? Help the Libyan opposition with aid and escalate as needed.

Humanitarian, political and economic reasons converge in Libya to overcome legitimate hesitations. Working with international authorization, the US government should fulfill its accustomed role of leadership and help Libya’s opposition.

However risky that course, doing nothing is yet riskier.

The writer (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, and taught strategy and policy at US Naval War College.

Related Content

August 15, 2018
Election 2018: A Jewish perspective

By DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELD