Senator John Kerry’s Washington Post Opinion Column, Calling for a No-Fly Zone in Libya, Does Not Address U.S. National Interests or the Reasons to Worry about a Subsequent Geopolitical Backlash

11 March 2011

Well-intended but fuzzy militaristic thinking leads to quagmires like Afghanistan

Letting good people die in their pursuit of freedom is morally revolting. But there are times when engaging in military action to prevent death only leads to more killing down the road.

Consequently, Senator Kerry’s thinking is suspect because his only reason for involving the United States in Libya’s upheaval is impulsively reactive, unreasoned in the long term, and selects only the humanitarian element of the United States national interest to prop it up:

Leaders around the world are vigorously debating the advisability of a no-fly zone to stop the violence unfolding in Libya. Some cite Bosnia, where NATO took too long to protect civilian populations in the mid-1990s. Others remember Rwanda, where President Bill Clinton expressed regret for not acting to save innocent lives. But the stakes in Libya today are more appropriately underscored by the tragedy that took place in southern Iraq in the waning days of the Persian Gulf War.

As coalition forces were routing the Iraqi army in February 1991, President George H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi people to "take matters into their hands to force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside." When Iraqi Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs rebelled against their brutal dictator, they believed American forces would protect them against Hussein's superior firepower.

When Iraqi attack helicopters and elite troops began butchering their own people, coalition forces were ordered to stand down. The world watched as thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered.

Is there any brain in that thinking?

Libya, as Senator Kerry admits, is not Rwanda. And the United States has not encouraged Libyans to rise up and be killed.

Senator Kerry appears to assume that the United States has a moral obligation to intervene to protect other peoples from elements among themselves.

I agree that there is some ethical truth to this, especially in those cases in which the United States has armed and supported murderous dictators in the furtherance of its own, usually plutocratic, interests.

However, U.S. foreign policy toward Libyan autocrat Qaddafi has been somewhat less culpable, overall, than it has been in dealing with the recently deposed Egyptian tyrant, Hosni Mubarak. As a result, Senator Kerry’s humanitarian-based impulse requires more reasoned support regarding America’s broader national interests than he provides.

Soundly analyzed national interest should make us reluctant to expose Americans to the unforeseen consequences of throwing our military’s weight around in places where the long-term response is likely to be unwelcome.

By now, it should be abundantly clear that Muslim nations do not welcome American interference.

Senator Kerry’s proposition is particularly risky for because the United States is already grossly overextended militarily.

Sounder thinking comes from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Secretary Gates, who lives in the world where decisions have consequences, told Congress that a no-fly zone will require that one knock out Libyan air defenses. That would be both an act of war and a non-trivial military endeavor.

Secretary Clinton accurately pointed out yesterday that no-fly zones in Iraq and Serbia did not work to prevent slaughter. What was ultimately required in both places to stop butchery was troops on the ground.

American troops fighting in Muslim nations leads to the kind of chaotic, long-term hostility that plagues the United States in Iraq and continues to draw American blood in Afghanistan.

Senator Kerry’s suggestion about diplomacy does not really address the hostility problem

Senator Kerry’s way out of this hostility dilemma appears to be that we should involve the Arab world in approving the no-fly zone:

So our diplomatic efforts must extend beyond the United Nations. The support of NATO and the African Union are important. To avoid the perception of NATO or the United States attacking another Muslim country, we need the backing of the Arab world.

On that front, there are promising signs. The six Arab countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have called for a U.N.-imposed no-fly zone. The Arab League may consider a similar proposal on Saturday. Muslim nations in particular should support preparations for intervention if the violence spirals out of control.

How is that going to help?

Are these Arab nations going to be flying Arab planes that destroy Libya's air defenses and shoot Qaddafi’s down? Likely not.

Instead, even with support from some Arab governments, those doing the flying will most likely be Americans and British. And when they inevitably kill some innocents, who is going to be blamed?

I would be suspicious of Muslim nations who prompt the United States to take direct action in Libya. They might be engaging in a long-term strategy to make the United States even more hated and unproductively quagmired in that part of the world.

Conclusion — a no-fly zone with American military involvement is a bad idea

Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and McCain should know better. Unfortunately, they are part of the establishment that has gotten us irretrievably and counterproductively enmeshed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is time to force these politicians to start using their higher brains, combined with a realistic sense of history, instead of their largely unreasoned impulses.

Not every world problem requires American military intervention. Enough of our military people have died and been maimed.

We are not, and should not be, the world’s police entity.

PeteFree.com

Senator John Kerry’s Washington Post Opinion Column, Calling for a No-Fly Zone in Libya, Does Not Address U.S. National Interests or the Reasons to Worry about a Subsequent Geopolitical Backlash