John B. Judis: How the Left Got Libya Wrong
[John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.]
I remember sitting by a pool in August 1990 with my friend Fred Siegel discussing George H.W. Bush’s “drawing a line in the sand” after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. “My comrades on the left can’t be against this,” I announced to Fred, but I was dead wrong. Within days, my own publication, In These Times, and others had raised specters of another Vietnam and of U.S. imperialism. I have had a similar experience of shock and awe today as I looked at various blogs and websites that air opinion on the left. With some notable exceptions (like Juan Cole), all I have found is opposition to the Obama administration’s decision to intervene in Libya....
I myself would have preferred Obama to have taken leadership several weeks ago in assembling a coalition, and building support, for intervention. If the current coalition had intervened two weeks ago, even with a no-fly zone (which opponents of intervention were claiming would take weeks to impose), Qaddafi would probably be in Caracas by now, and many lives would have been spared. Obama had to be shamed into taking leadership, as Bill Clinton was when French President Jacques Chirac, after a visit to Washington in June 1995, complained that the post of leader of the free world was “vacant.”
Moreover, Obama did the absolutely worst thing—he called for Qaddafi’s ouster, but did not do anything about it, and discouraged others from doing so. It’s one thing for Costa Rica to call for the ouster of an African despot. It’s quite another thing for the United States, which is still the major outside power in the region, to do so. Obama’s call for Qaddafi’s ouster encouraged Libyan rebels to push ahead in the hope of American active support, only to face Qaddafi’s mercenary armies. There were echoes of George H.W. Bush encouraging a Shia rebellion during the 1991 Gulf War, but then allowing Saddam to slaughter his opponents....
Read entire article at The New Republic
I remember sitting by a pool in August 1990 with my friend Fred Siegel discussing George H.W. Bush’s “drawing a line in the sand” after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. “My comrades on the left can’t be against this,” I announced to Fred, but I was dead wrong. Within days, my own publication, In These Times, and others had raised specters of another Vietnam and of U.S. imperialism. I have had a similar experience of shock and awe today as I looked at various blogs and websites that air opinion on the left. With some notable exceptions (like Juan Cole), all I have found is opposition to the Obama administration’s decision to intervene in Libya....
I myself would have preferred Obama to have taken leadership several weeks ago in assembling a coalition, and building support, for intervention. If the current coalition had intervened two weeks ago, even with a no-fly zone (which opponents of intervention were claiming would take weeks to impose), Qaddafi would probably be in Caracas by now, and many lives would have been spared. Obama had to be shamed into taking leadership, as Bill Clinton was when French President Jacques Chirac, after a visit to Washington in June 1995, complained that the post of leader of the free world was “vacant.”
Moreover, Obama did the absolutely worst thing—he called for Qaddafi’s ouster, but did not do anything about it, and discouraged others from doing so. It’s one thing for Costa Rica to call for the ouster of an African despot. It’s quite another thing for the United States, which is still the major outside power in the region, to do so. Obama’s call for Qaddafi’s ouster encouraged Libyan rebels to push ahead in the hope of American active support, only to face Qaddafi’s mercenary armies. There were echoes of George H.W. Bush encouraging a Shia rebellion during the 1991 Gulf War, but then allowing Saddam to slaughter his opponents....