Filibuster CartoonsTitle: United against Libya (click to view)
Date: March 21, 2011
Well I certainly didn't
predict this. War with Libya actually ended up erupting with rapid speed this weekend, following a 10-0 UN Security Council vote in favor of imposing a "no fly zone" over the country, and authorizing the use of force to cripple the air defenses of Colonel Quadaffi. Russia and China, who were both very much opposed to any sort of intervention in Libya — and continue to be — for some reason chose not to exercise their veto power in the Council, and instead merely abstained. Someday, we'll no doubt read fascinating tales about the diplomatic acrobatics the US and others had to pull off in order to secure these absolutely vital sit-outs, but for now, the focus remains war war WAR!
Over the weekend, hundreds of cruise missiles were lobbed into Libya by what we can now call the "allied forces" authorized to carry out the Security Council resolution. Launched from both air and sea, the attacks have quickly made short work of much of Quadaffi's already fairly lame air defenses, and apparently there have been
"no reports of Quadaffi's planes even taking to the air since airstrikes began."
Now, the whole point of a no-fly zone is for the thing to last a while — the UN-backed no-fly zone over Saddam Hussein's Iraq lasted over a decade, for instance — but already critics are getting antsy about where this Libyan one is going. Since we all know the no-fly zone over Iraq did very little to weaken their dictator, and since the removal of Colonel Quadaffi from Tripoli is supposedly the unanimous policy position of every western power at the moment, it's starting to appear more than a bit muddled and confused that the current air war is being launched without that specific conclusion in mind. The UN resolution makes no mention of the "remove Quadaffi" goal, and is instead only intended to "protect Libyan civilians." Allied war leaders have specifically, repeatedly, and forcefully stated that regime change is entirely off the table, feigning incredible indignation as to why the issue is even being brought up in the first place.
Anyone who has ever spent any idle time wondering what an America ruled by Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama would be like has certainly received ample evidence over the last few days. We now know that the Secretary of State was among the most forceful proponents of taking military action against Libya, and since the passage of the resolution on Thursday, she has been pretty much the sole public face of the mission (the President being oddly distracted on a trade mission through Latin America). Dominant though she may be, however, a large component of Secretary Clinton's leadership has been to accentuate the international mandate of the current conflict, eagerly spreading the mission's military burden as to avoid any perceptions of America launching another Bush-style "go it alone" adventure.
And several key western powers have been quite excited to step forward and shoulder up. President Sarkozy of France, David Cameron of Britain, and our own Stephen Harper of Canada all met with Hillary in Paris this weekend, and agreed to significantly commit whatever military resources are necessary to assist in the mission. As it stands now, I've read that the overall military involvement is being shared about 50-50 between the US and other western nations, with the intent for the US role to continue to shrink as time goes on.
While Harper, Sarkozy, and Cameron have all been clearly enjoying the spotlight that their military involvement has brought to themselves and their countries, some nations backing the US-lead effort have been decidedly quieter about their participation. Watching an early Clinton press conference about the mission, I was struck when, after rattling off a bunch of nations who were helping participate in military action against Quadaffi's forces, she qualified her words by saying she was only listing those countries who "wanted to be named."
The ones who don't want to go on the record are all in the Arab world, and even now, we still don't really know which Middle Eastern countries are significantly assisting the allies in the war, despite constant confirmations that "some" are. The Arab League
did end up endorsing the no-fly zone last week, yet their secretary-general has since said all sorts of contradictory things at different times regarding whether or not his group's idea of what a "no-fly zone" entails actually syncs up with what we're seeing unfold. Certainly no Arab leader has been willing to stand before the cameras and revel in a statesman-like moment over his country's proud participation, in contrast to the western leaders, who can't seem to do it enough.
Clearly, many Middle Eastern rulers will be keen to see Quadaffi go — just as they were keen to see Saddam go — due to to the Colonel's long history of spreading war, terrorism, and instability in the region at large. Their strategic assistance will be critical. On the other hand, these same rulers must feed their own indentured citizenry an endless stream of anti-western, anti-imperialist rhetoric in order to justify their particularly paranoid and oppressive style of leadership. In such a context, one can't very well go around openly calling for regime change against fellow dictators, nor give a friendly blank cheque to the evil crusaders when they go after someone in the neighborhood. Can't lose face in front of the Al-Qaeda crowd!
This two-faced dance is the hypocritical rock upon which all strong Arab regimes are built, and the thing that ensures all despotic "friends of the west" in the Mid-East will always remain, at best, fair-weather.
CKA Elite 
