Shoes – Not “Boots” – On The Ground

So it seems Obama’s long hesitation about going into Libya was not so hesitant. He signed approval for covert action to arm the rebels weeks before the UN Resolution. It is not clear if anything has come of the directive – although it makes me wonder what the real truth was behind that WSJ story on Egypt’s transfer of weapons – but it reveals the president to be at best vague last night and at worst deceptive. The US, we now know, has been on the ground actively aiding and abetting the rebels for weeks in targeting and attacking the Qaddafi forces. Was that secret operation entirely devoted to preventing a massacre in Benghazi? Count me suspicious. The Brits are even further up to their necks in this – another imperial intervention in a country Britain has no right whatever to meddle in. The empire in Africa is over, Mr Cameron. You’re more than a century too late.

And when Obama says he rules out boots on the ground, it appears it depends whose boots we are talking about. Maybe the CIA agents wear shoes, rather than boots, in the desert – a Clintonian piece of bullshit that really needs to be called out:

While President Obama has insisted that no American ground troops join in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks and are part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help set back Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.

The C.I.A. presence comprises an unknown number of American officers who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and those who arrived more recently. In addition, current and former British officials said, dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British Tornado jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces, and missile installations, the officials said.

All of this is clearly outside the UN Resolution.

More to the point: if the US doesn’t just direct, aid and train the rebels on the ground, but actually takes the next step of arming them, then we might as well give up any pretense that this president – BOOTSSeanGallup:Getty this president – is not involved in regime change by force of arms in yet another Muslim country. Libya will be Iraq II – even as Iraq I still continues. The man who campaigned against a dumb war will have launched an even dumber one.

To say that this is a betrayal of his candidacy and his supporters would be an understatement. It makes George Bush’s request for a vote from Congress before committing the US to war in Iraq look like a model of democratic accountability. How dare this president commit this country to an open-ended involvement in a foreign country’s civil war – in secret, with no real public debate and then presented as a fait accompli. The kind of trust a president needs – especially when entering a long, open-ended exercize of war and nation-building in a chaotic failed state – can be destroyed by this kind of flim-flam. And what on earth are we doing even contemplating such a scenario?

And now we are told there is a debate within the administration over whether to follow through on its preparation and actually arm the rebels. How can that be possible? If we are not there for regime change imposed by foreign powers, as the president has insisted, on what grounds is this even being discussed? Okay, we prevented a massacre; and we will continue to prevent massacres from the air so far as is possible under UN 1973. That is a noble, if risky endeavor.

But that emphatically must be where this war ends. No arms, no troops, and no more CIA shenanigans (God help us).

This secret shift to full-on entanglement is also, to my mind, a well-meant but ill-conceived undermining of the Arab Spring. Regime change by force of foreign arms is not a democratic revolution; it is the imposition by foreign powers of their agenda in the service of groups we do not know or understand – and will never know and never fully understand. It actually wrests power away from Libyans and gives it to Westerners, perpetuating a dependency the Arab spring has finally been able to break from. It is, to put it simply, messing with the momentum of history, the real balance of power in the region. And if this has been done covertly already, if the president has bypassed Congress, the American people, and the UN and has already secretly armed the rebels, then we need to get more than angry. To have a third war foisted on us – this time by by secretive fiat – requires serious protest from the president’s core supporters more than anyone. This nascent war needs to be nipped firmly in the bud.

Have these people learned nothing? This is a dumb war, as someone once said. And it could wreck, derail and distract Obama’s presidency.

(Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty.)

A Hazy Horizon, Ctd

Ezra Klein partially defends Obama's energy policy:

What is the right thing for the president to do on an issue that’s 1) morally urgent and 2) absolutely dead on arrival in Congress?

There’s no argument, after all, that cap-and-trade has even a shadow of a hope of a glimmer of a chance right now. The most important question in climate change for the next year or two is a defensive one: Can the administration protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon from congressional assault? A “yes” answer to that question requires remaining in office, and so you can argue that a politically smart “energy independence” plan that doesn’t do nearly enough to address climate change is better for climate-change policy than a politically dumb climate change proposal that sets the hearts of climate hawks aflutter.

Libya Isn’t Rwanda

51425973

Paul D. Miller dismantles the comparison:

Rwanda was genocide. Libya is a civil war. The Rwandan genocide was a premeditated, orchestrated campaign. The Libyan civil war is a sudden, unplanned outburst of fighting. The Rwandan genocide was targeted against an entire, clearly defined ethnic group. The Libyan civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. The Rwandan genocidiers aimed to wipe out a people. The Libyan dictator aims to cling to power. The first is murder, the second is war. The failure to act in Rwanda does not saddle us with a responsibility to intervene in Libya.

(Photo: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan walks by skulls at the Mulire Genocide memorial on May 8, 1998. By Alexander Joe/AFP/Getty Images)

No One Will Cut Defense

Christopher A. Preble is pessimistic about reining in military spending in the short-term:

It seems that a combination of factors—including war fatigue, massive budget deficits, and long-term fiscal imbalance—are not enough to convince Republican leaders to get serious about military spending cuts. The appeals from traditional conservatives and Tea Party activists don't register.

Polling which shows support for cuts, even among rank-and-file Republicans, can't budge the "find cuts elsewhere" caucus. There is even a growing appreciation that, in the words of Sen. Tom Coburn’s spokesman John Hart: “By subsidizing our allies’ defense budgets, American taxpayers are essentially subsidizing France’s 35-hour workweek and Western European socialism.” Hart told Politico, “Taking defense spending off the table keeps American taxpayers on the hook for more government at home and abroad.” So far, not even this line of argument has moved the needle very far.

Paying For Serious News, Ctd

Tim Lee dismisses fears that the web can't produce serious journalism – like reporting from Iraq:

People look at today’s Huffington Post and conclude that the web can only do cheap, sensationalistic content. But in 1980, people looked at the minimills (and the microcomputer) and dismissed them as curiosities that could only serve the lowest rungs of their respective markets. But that was a misunderstanding of the economics of disruptive technologies. They always start at the low end of the market, but they rarely stay there.

Now, Mines

Ackerman is alarmed:

Watch [this] before considering a NATO peacekeeping force in Libya: Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are leaving anti-personnel and anti-vehicular mines in eastern Libya after vacating rebel-held areas.

… Congratulations, Col. Gadhafi: you’re now in the company of the Burmese junta, the only other regime known to lay landmines after the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty was signed in Ottawa. The U.S. isn’t a signatory, and some of its Tomahawk missiles carry cluster munitions, another weapons system that risks leaving unexploded ordnance behind for civilians to discover. But the U.S. doesn’t actively use those weapons against its own people.

Assad Shrugs

Enduring America has the transcript and a brief summary of the Syrian president's much-anticipated speech:

Bashar al-Assad spoke to his people, but he made no concessions. He failed to lift the emergency rule, blamed the recent unrest of conspirators, and gave no sign that he would be backing down any time soon.

Though the courage of the female protester above gives hope.

The Daily Wrap

Today on the Dish, Andrew picked apart American Exceptionalism in the age of the empire. He also expressed total disbelief as our military intentions in Libya went deeper than we thought.

Meanwhile Qaddafi's regime may be collapsing in on him. Andrew recalled the Constitution that tried to make war hard to declare, Larison questioned a war based on Al Jazeera's coverage, and Benjamin H. Friedman encouraged the Pentagon to find the funding for wars in its own budget. We debated arming the rebels, tracked their ties to Al Qaeda, and they continued to suffer setbacks. Greg Scoblete wondered if we could walk away, Erik Voeten examined how foreign intervention increases chances of civil war, and Doug Mataconis likened the "right to protect" crowd to the new neoconservatives. Arab Spring arrived for Angry Birds, and belt buckles tested our fashion knowledge.

The dashed DOMA news crushed Andrew, and he battled deniers that Gandhi was gay. Bernstein looked forward to crowning 2012's King Crazy, while a sane Mitch Daniels would lose it either way. Frum frowned on the GOP's climate change stance, and Christians don't consider Mormons Christian. Richard Florida exposed the conservative states of America, Ezra Klein calculated the economic cost of a government shutdown, and we tracked the reax to Obama's half-assed energy policy.

Michelle Rhee pulled a Nixon on the test scores scandal, urban legends lived on, nuclear power is a Frankenstein for our time. David Brooks taught us the Pareto Principle for everyday use, Lux Alptraum feared the fate of famous boys, and more kids applied to colleges. Julian Sanchez considered how much we deserve from the un-copyrighted inheritance we've gotten, and international media piracy persisted. Readers tried out squirmish, loved the firehose, pregnant women eat dirt, and wedding dresses could be bought in bulk. Yann Arthus Bertrand captured the world from above while Matt Stopera compiled pictures from the world beyond.

Creepy ad watch here, quotes for the day here and here, view from your airplane windows here, VFYW here, MHB here, and FOTD here.

–Z.P.

“On The Ground”

Remember the president's promise that there would be no American boots on the ground? Ahem:

CIA officers on the ground in Libya assisted with the rescue of one of two airmen who ejected when their F15E fighter jet crashed last week, sources tell the Associated Press.

Confirmation:

The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya in a rush to gather intelligence on the identity, goals and progress of rebel forces opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, according to U.S. officials.

Do they really expect us to believe they are there solely to "gather intelligence"? But notice the artful phrasing: "gather intelligence on the … progress of rebel forces". That wouldn't mean guidance and advice would it?

This is how dumb wars start. When presidents insist they haven't.