« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A Box is in the Eye of the Beholder

The lessons of the 1991 rebellion in Iraq remain unlearned.

By: Victoria Coates (Diary)  |  March 10th, 2011 at 05:51 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

On December 11, 2005 former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright went on “Meet the Press” to opine that the Iraq war had been a mistake–worse than that it had de-railed the successful pre-war program of sanctions and a no-fly zone, which had contained the paper tiger:

And what we did was to keep Saddam Hussein in a box by using diplomacy, sanctions and force, with bombing in the no-fly zone. It worked. And what is evident from the CIA reports is that it did work. The sanctions worked.

“It worked.” And so, we can assume, it would have kept on working had the Bush administration only had the wisdom to continue the Clintonian policy of containment.

Of course what Secretary Albright failed to mention was the terrible price Saddam’s people paid since they shared that box with him–especially those who almost exactly 20 years ago were being slaughtered by his henchmen in the months before the no-fly zone was established. We did nothing to help them when they attempted to rise up and claim their freedom, an inertia that cost many thousands of lives and resulted in the ecological and humanitarian catastrophe that was the draining of the Iraqi marshes–not to mention the subsequent no-fly zone stalemate that resulted in the second war.

Two decades later we are watching the same tragedy play over in slow motion. In Libya a disenfranchised, oppressed generation has rebelled against their obviously unstable and tyrannical dictator and enjoyed some success. Encouraging words have come from the west, but precious little has been forthcoming in terms of actual support. A no-fly zone has been proposed to at least make a token effort at stopping Gadhafi from mowing these people down from the skies.

But this time the Democratic Secretary of State says not so fast. Hillary Clinton spoke out today against a no-fly zone in congressional testimony:

I want to remind people that, you know, we had a no-fly zone over Iraq. It did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground, and it did not get him out of office.

This from a woman who has been staunch in her opposition to the Iraq war ever since she voted to authorize it, and whose husband was Commander in Chief for eight years of that no-good no-fly zone.

I have a theory to suggest that might help clear up the confusion between Secretary Albright and her “partner” Secretary Clinton regarding the efficacy of the Iraqi no-fly zone, and help us as we plot a path ahead with Libya. No-fly zones and sanctions, be they smart or otherwise, are not a solution in themselves in perpetuity after a popular uprising has failed. They can however be strategically deployed to hamper and harass a dictator when he is back on his heels, giving opposition forces the actual support–not just the encouragement–that they need.

If Gadhafi does indeed turn the tables on the Libyan insurgents over the next days and weeks, it seems unlikely he will be any more gentle with the rebels than Saddam was. In short, I wonder if 20 years from now we will be looking back at March, 2011 the way we look back at March, 1991 and shake our heads over how much trouble we could have saved–with perhaps as little as one of Secretary Albright’s no-fly zones.  Unfortunately it may already be too late.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • AceInTX

    I’m wondering if we’re going to do ANYTHING to try and stabalize this situation before ALL the oil producers in the region are in flames and the oil they produce along with them…

    What do we do then? We have no domestic production and the Administration is still scrambling to stop any production from going forward…yet the middle eastern Dominoes continue to fall…

    Impending action to stave off the havoc?

    {crickets Chirping} Silence {/Crickets Chirping}

  • aesthete

    If hindsight is 20/20, and our “containment” policy vis a vis Iraq looks foolish today (and it’s easy to make that statement not looking at the potential effects of other policies we could have gone with), then foresight is just the opposite: we have no idea what will happen in Libya if we do not help the rebels, anymore than we knew that an uprising was in any way imminent or that (with all due respect) Iraq was going to look a whole lot like Donald Rumsfeld’s “parade of horribles” list.

    We don’t know what is happening in Libya: we have reports saying everything from that the rebels are establishing a new “Emirate” sponsored by Al-Qaeda to too-good-to-be-true reports that indicate that they want a social democracy just like ours. We do not know the conditions on the ground, balance of power, likelihood of success, or even if there are any good guys out there. We didn’t even know that there was such sentiment brewing in Libya; a month ago, the optimists were saying that maybe Qaddafi’s son (the one who set up the front groups, I mean, charities) would be a benevolent dictator. The situation is highly volatile and fluid, and we 1) do not know what we want from the region, and 2) what criterion would indicate success.

    This sort of sentiment is exactly what is wrong with foreign policy today: without knowing *absolutely anything* about the situation, the first instinct of the commentariat on both sides of the aisle is to breezily call for military force to attempt to resolve a situation which is not in America’s vital interests, without consideration of what it would cost, how we would benefit, how we would conclude hostilities, or worst case scenarios. What we need to do is step back, watch things play out, and potentially intervene *only* when we have at least basic knowledge of the actors involved and conditions on the ground. Hypotheticals about another Iraq are a far cry from the burden of proof that should be required for the commitment of military forces, the potential for escalation, and the resources needed to maintain a no-fly zone.

    • donnybrooke

      While the Libyan revolt may be a sincere uprising for a democratic government (which I doubt), it may also merely lead to another Taliban type government (as in Afghanistan) and another state dedicated to terrorism. We reallydon’t need that!

      The US has a bad habit of helping only to fail to follow up after the fight is won (or lost). This is one fight that may well be over before we are able to affect any outcome.

      • Academic Elephant

        dedicated to terrorism. Pan Am flight 103 ring a bell?

        • donnybrooke

          Yes, I remember. The US dropped Libya from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism in 2006.

          http://www.petersoninstitute.org/research/topics/sanctions/libya.cfm

          • reddog53

            For someone who alleges that ” we know absolutely nothing” about an admittedly dynamic situation, waiting until the smoke clears does not improve our knowledge and inhibits our ability to contribute to a solution which benefits Libyans and Americans.

            What happened to “bear any burden, pay any price in defense of liberty”?

          • donnybrooke

            reddog53,

            I think you were replying to Aesthete. However, we really do not know what the situation on the ground is. To establish a “No Fly Zone”, we really need some intelligence on the situation, especially air defense systems. We also need a base, or at least support for naval forces off the coast of Libya. Without preparation, it is likely that more people will be killed…. ours. The US military is good, but it still needs time to get ready. In addition to Flight 103, I also remember the disastrous attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran in 1980. I don’t trust this president any more than Jimmy Carter!

            As for Liberty, as soon as I see any in a Muslim country, I’ll be sure and defend it.

          • aesthete

            Moreover, the safety and security of Libyan nationals is not the domain of our foreign policy — our interests and security are. If you want to go abroad to help the Libyans gain their freedom, you go with my blessing; there’s a long tradition of Americans doing just that in the Spanish Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc. Otherwise, its up to you to show that America’s time, scarce resources, manpower and reputation would not be wasted by tossing them into (or above) a third-world hellhole.

    • The_Gadfly

      quickly set the requirements for #2. What we want from the region is a stable, non-agressive state. We would prefer a modern, ordered liberty state with what we regard as democratic elections.

      The real questions are 3) What sort of resources would need to be dedicated to accomplish #1, and 4) Do we have or can we make those resources available to do so?

      I’m not sure about 3 & 4. What I do know is that if we are in danger of losing the Middle East, that is an imminent existential danger to the US. Like it or not,if the ME goes, so does Europe, and we are intrinsically intertwined with Europe if not the ME. That being the case, the next question is Where is the best place to do so? I think I’d rather fight it out in Libya than in Saudi Arabia. And those look the the two options at the moment. If containing the dictator in Libya stabilizes Saudi Arabia, it just might be worth the cost.

      Of course, the problem with ALL of those calculations is that they are dependent on having a President who is actually interested in advancing American interests and a staff who share that vision. And that may be the biggest obstacle of all.

      • aesthete

        I.e., I could not waltz into my boss’ office and say that what I want out of a given project is tons of money for the company and that fat paychecks would indicate success: those are aspirations, not realistic endstates. My boss would laugh, and then say that we need something more specific, non-generic, and realistic than that. At this juncture, we don’t have enough info to give us a 1 and 2 that are non-generic, much less 3 and 4.

        Sarkozy has really been talking up regime change in Libya: if he wants to go for it, all power to him. French foreign policy is and always has been rather independent from that of the US, and it would be nice if they could do something right on that front, for a change. Sorry, but if soaring gas prices, potential immigration crises and the other factors are not enough to wake Europe up, then they’re a lost cause in the long run and we should plan accordingly. I have no desire to bail out the continental west Europeans yet again as they sniff about our barbarism and cowboy diplomacy while doing nothing to advance their own interests (excepting our fantastic Anglo allies, Denmark, and the Dutch, of course). Heck, Italy and Malta are still waffling on whether they would lend us their airfields; that’s not a good sign.

        I’m not at all convinced that cracking down on Gaddhafi would significantly affect outcomes in SA: completely different areas, and if anything, the SA rebels will probably just find the US’ support for the monarchy hypocritical in light of their anti-Gaddhafi and Saddam rhetoric. Considering that Iraq is currently in the throes of their own days of rage, it appears to me that this movement is not very connected to US policy in the region.

  • Academic Elephant

    Perfectly well is that Gadhafi is a bad actor who has been a huge, intractable problem in the region for decades. This is different from Egypt or Tunisia where there is an upside to preserving the regime for stability or resources. How do we get either from Gadhafi? From where I sit, what we now have is an almost certain–as opposed to a speculative–parade of horribles.

    No one is suggesting a ground force, but a targeted no fly zone put in place ten days ago might actually have done something to get rid of him.

    • aesthete

      For that matter, so are Raul/Fidel Castro in Cuba, and every dictator everywhere who has not been bought off by our foreign aid or installed by the CIA. (By that I don’t mean that a dictatorship is any less tragic when supported by us; simply that we have a leash that makes them less unpredictable and unstable regional bad actors.) It’s unfortunate for the people living in those countries, but as powerful as the US is, we do not have unlimited logistics, resources, or manpower. It is incumbent on us not to pretend that the US military is a transformative force; it can blow crap up real good, and I say with some pride that they’re miles away better at this than anyone else, but they are not a more efficient, armed version of Americorps or a cure-all for evil dictatorships.

      Again, a month ago Gaddhafi was not on our radar, much less so vital to America’s national interests as to necessitate the commitment of military forces. Even if he were, Not to sound like a derivative Russian novel, but the ending of this particular chapter of human history will conclude with a “parade of horribles” for everyone involved. The question is to what extent we can mitigate them: I would venture that having a more complete picture of what’s going on would help us do that better than going in half-cocked and wondering two years from now how we got stuck in a ground war with no support from the usual suspects who scream “US IN DARFUR NOW” and then abandon us when the going gets rough. How, specifically, would the rebels winning help us in the region, and to what extent does it help us? That’s a question that no one seems interested in answering.

      • The_Gadfly

        but between the worse and the worst.

        Gaddhafi was not on the administration’s radar because under Bush he got smacked down hard enough to start behaving himself. There is a risk in the current situation that if he succeeds in holding onto power he will once again go back to viewing us and Eurpoe as paper tigers. Then he starts taking out airliners again. The status quo is not necessarily less risky than change.

        • aesthete

          but we won’t know that until more known unknown and unknown unknowns flip to being known knowns and known unknowns, respectively. A new sharia state sympathetic to Al-Qaeda most certainly will not be a better outcome than Gaddhafi, given that we got Gaddhafi to back down at least once, and could possibly do it again. A Gaddhafi+ would be another outcome that would neither improve nor worsen our chances in the region.

          Even if the rebels were better, how much of an improvement would they be? They would have to be enough of a potential improvement to justify committing military resources and potentially getting even more involved in the region.

          Can the rebels win? Gaddhafi’s forces just took two of the towns under rebel control mostly with armor, not air power. If the rebels can’t win, then it’s a moot point since we’ll just be dealing with Gaddhafi either way.

          Lastly, assuming that all of the above can be answered in a manner that favors some form of intervention, is a no-fly zone our best option? There are a whole range of options available to us that would not commit military forces, including 1) extending diplomatic recognition to the National Transition Council, 2) giving them some satellite phones (stable communications would help enormously for a nascent rebellion in a country with iffy and state-controlled communications), and 3) giving them satellite info regarding Gaddhafi troop movements. There are a range of options available to us that do not entail the use of scarce resources that are already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          • The_Gadfly

            If when the revolution was nascent, decisive action had been taken to establish a no fly zone it would have sent a clear message and continued the rebel momentum. After which the rest of the items you list could have helped turn the tide. Would it have been better? I don’t know? Would it have been worse? Again, I don’t know. I suspect the risk on the upside was a bit better than the downside.

            But none of that happened. And now the revolution is dead, although it may spend a few more weeks dying with all of the associated civilian deaths that goes with that sort of thing. Particularly bad was our senior intelligence guy saying publicly that the murdering tyrant would win.

    • Flagstaff

      Your essay and comments are the best arguments I’ve seen for our involvement in Libya with a no-fly zone.

    • Flagstaff

      but I have a strong feeling that we have missed a great opportunity to stand up for “the better,” if not “the best.” Fox News is reporting that Gadhafi is in the process of crushing the resistance. Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe that US air power could have given the rebels more than a “no fly zone.” It seems the same forces could have stopped any advances by Gadhafi’s ground forces, too. If he has a navy, his ships in open water could have been given a choice: defect or start swimming.

      I’m also very certain that no matter what the situation was or might have been, even if none of the above was even necessary, the course followed by the late President O* would have been no different than what he’s followed to date–do nothing but talk in generalities and double-speak, words that can be interpreted to his advantage after the fact. His Plan A is always to take it slow, wait and see, do nothing, then claim that some peripheral action he took or didn’t take was just the thing that resulted in a “not worse” result.

      His slogan should be, in fact, “It could have been worse.”

      * I say “late” because he’s never ahead of the curve except when it comes to interfering in matters of US cities and states–Cambridge, Arizona and Wisconsin come to mind.

      • Doc Holliday

        The time to act was when the rebels first started losing ground. I have no doubt in my mind that we could have stopped his advance with only air and sea assets. Of course the mantra “no troops on the ground” does not mean what some think it means. Sometimes you have to put some observers on the ground to help pick out targets.

        Obama can say can take credit for anything because the press is ready to believe him.

  • Academic Elephant

    Not on the administration’s radar, but he has been of fairly serious concern to a number of other actors.

    I think we’re letting ourselves in for a world of expensive, difficult hurt from someone who has demonstrated a willingness to use terrorism and develop WMD. If you consider that preferable to whatever the rebels propose, then I don’t expect we’re likely to agree.

    • aesthete

      because I do not know what the alternatives are: and whatever the blatherers on MSNBC and Fox are telling you, they don’t know either, since they didn’t even consider a civil war in Libya possible, much less probable, given its tribalism.

      I know for a fact that Gaddhafi is a horrible human being who makes Charlie Sheen look good. I know that he has violated the rights of his people. I know that he has funded terrorism and WMDs in the past. I also know that he gave up the latter two after Bush invaded Iraq, and that he could be persuaded to do so again if he were to go back to funding both. If the rebels happen to be of the women-stonin’ variety, or even if they just install Gaddhafi++, and if they take over (both big ifs), I don’t know that they would be so amenable. I sure hope that they’re social democrats of some sort and that they succeed at establishing a government that can secure their rights, but history is littered with revolutionary movements that were worse than the problems that they tried to cure.

      Just as “anyone but Bush” gave us Obama, I don’t know that an “anyone but Gaddhafi” policy would improve the situation. We will have a clearer view on this as the situation develops and more information becomes available. I will revise my position accordingly. For now, there’s no reason to blow the warhorn quite yet, and there won’t be unless we can clearly exposit a course of action with tangible benefits, a clear endgame, and ways to ascertain whether our policy is working or not (at the very least). Thanks for engaging, AE; haven’t heard from you in a while and I missed your presence on RS.

  • rickbull

    It kills two birds with one stone: 1) it get Frank out of our House of Representatives and 2) it either softens the Muslim view of gays — or not.

    Either way, it’s a win-win proposal.

    • aesthete

      Since we know so little about the region, we send a contingent of our most progressive Dems on a fact-finding mission. It’ll be a one-way ticket, of course, to save the taxpayers money, and the Dems can bring as much atheist, gay rights, and feminist material as they’d like. Win-win-win :)

      • rickbull

        You’re going to fit right in here at this organization.

      • Academic Elephant

        Their first attempt at a nuclear program is in boxes in Kentucky.

        We are perfectly well aware of the Gadhafi family and their capabilities. The only reason they gave those weapons up is because he believed he would be the next Saddam. Now you think it would be a good idea to take that optioin off the table–I’m sure he would be pleased.

        But I love the Barney Frank idea. Perhaps he could take a shadow cabinet with him?

        • aesthete

          Their people, underground politic, etc? Not so much. That’s why we need the reality based community over there, finding facts for us…

          /tongue in cheek

        • rbdwiggins

          in all likelihood, Iran’s nuclear program would accompany Libya’s.

          However, it would require much bigger boxes…

          • Academic Elephant

            “What might have been” file.

  • dudette

    Albright, (a.k.a. Granpa from The Munsters) says with any respect.

  • geah

    noticed that only dictators are falling? One would wonder how much more this nation can withstand the spirit if not the reality of dictatorship.

  • dcdan

    we could just go in and retrieve Abdelbeset al Megrahi. I know this may result in some collateral damage, but I believe we have a right to return him to prison and finish out his sentence, especially since he is felling much better….

    • The_Gadfly

      We now know he ordered the hit, so he should be brought back too. Then we can leave the locals to sort out the rest.

  • Pingback: Lavelle Gilomen

  • Pingback: Claud Sabino