#Dr. Brenner on Right Action in re Libya

 
I propose that we keep in mind a few truths about who we have been as a country, where we are as a world power, and why we may reasonably wish to be down the road.

1. American idealism always has been central to our self esteem, and to our standing in the minds of other peoples, even as we have acted pragmatically (wisely or otherwise) in pursuit of our national interests. That idealism has been badly eroded at both home and abroad with the deleterious consequences strikingly evident in both spheres.

2. In an evolving world where our relative power of coercion/persuasion is destined to diminish considerably, the intangibles of status and image grow in importance as assets to be used constructively to help shape a responsible multilateral management of world affairs.

3. Our crass conduct in the Greater Middle East during the 9/11 decade has been far more costly in every respect than the Washington punditocracy (or certainly the media) know or admit. The revolutionary wave in the Arab world is a stroke of good fortune given us by the gods. It creates circumstances of historic dimensions wherein we can restore our credibility and our standing as the 'good guys.' Obama and his minions seem to have no awareness of this whatsoever.

4. The challenge is to seize that opportunity while not disregarding our valid, tangible interests that do not fully coincide with our longer term interests in being the godfather and underwriter of democracy in the region. The pivots of our strategic position have been four preoccupations: Terrorism, Iran, Israel and oil. The first three have become obsessions that defy reason and logic. A saner, more reasonable estimation of authentic interests and threats in regard to all three would markedly alter how we balance our divergent concerns and make tradeoffs between short-term and longer-term perspectives. By devaluing the multiform 'war against terrorism,' we lower our stake in Bahrain naval bases, in potentates like Yemen's Saleh, and in keeping Shi'ites at bay wherever they raise their heads.

5. The stickiest issues are raised by Saudi Arabia - because of its key role in the global oil market and because there the fall of the House of Saud could bring to power truly disagreeable people.

6. The Bahrain/Saudi link is there although I lack the expertise to estimate possible spillover effects. I do think, though, that there is no compelling reason to have Mr. Gates personally put the American imprimatur on the Bahrainian royal family, or for us to embrace whatever is left of Mr. Saleh's fragile regime.

7. This is the critical moment to fight free of the lethal Israeli embrace. Two passive acts could vastly improve our position in the region and the world: leaving Bahrain and Yemeni rulers to their own devices; lowering the temperature of our campaign against the Mullahs' regime in Iran. Two active acts complement them: calling out the Israeli government; and intervening in Libya. The last is of far greater importance than the place's nominal value. Pat Lang is absolutely correct on this. Nearly everyone in the world outside of the U.S. knows on which side decency lies. They also are looking at the United States to redeem itself. It is not mainly a matter of means but of ends. Very few would mistake a focused, multilateral intervention to turn the military tide there (with no follow-an occupation) with our savaging of Iraq and Afghanistan. Peoples’ instincts usually are truer than we give them credit for. This is especially true when the lines are so sharply drawn and everyone's consciousness heightened.

Dr. Michael Brenner

Comments

[different clue]

The problem is that many Americans would consider any action in Libya to be a continuation and extension of our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And most of us here view Iraq/Afghanistan through the end of the telescope which makes it look like "trauma" to us. It certainly seemed to look that way to Secretary Gates who wet-blanketed a no fly zone so fast and hard that one suspects he saw the mere mention of it as being a deliberate plan to involve America in a quagmire occupation.

I don't think a traumatized government and public can think fast or gracefully or focused-ly enough to see the difference or how to do it differently. Those Americans in or near government or force-levers who do see the difference and understand how to do something different in a different way will have to figure out how to work with and through the Europeans over the next few days to destroy Quadaffi's weakest links and sharpest spearpoints so as to buy the rebels enough time to shame and embarrass an unwilling world into helping the rebels even more substantially.

Those "in" governments who believe in this may have to act "around" or "against" their governments to get this done in the next few days. As someone rightly pointed out very recently, the big power governments are afraid that their exploited citizenry might take such heart from a Libyan rebel success that they (we) might try to insurrect in some way against our own Upper Classes. And the upper-class-front American government would rather see millions of Libyans die than to see millions of Americans take such inspiration from a Free Libyan success that they (we) might try something analogous against our own Koch Brothers, for example.

So people "in" the governments of America AND Europe will have to figure out how to act fast, hard, and successfully before their government-employers can shut them down cold.

[different clue]

(Let me clarify that I surely mean legal non-violent economic and political insurgency here in America, such as what is just barely beginning now in Wisconsin against the Koch Brothers front "Governor Walker" administration. That's the sort of thing that Obama and his sponsors want a stop put to real fast and hard. They certainly don't want to see a successful Free Libya inspire yet more "Wisconsins" here in this country.)

[Clifford Kiracofe]

"They also are looking at the United States to redeem itself."

So true, well said.

[Retired (once-Serving)Patriot]

They also are looking at the United States to redeem itself.

Sadly, this very noble aim is directly at odds with this equally true statement:

That [American] idealism has been badly eroded at both home.

Thank you Dr. Brenner for a superb piece. And thanks to this Committee of Correspondence for the rare greenspace of thought in today's dimmer, dirtier world.

RP

[jon]

Very good points, and they can guide action, but they do not indicate what the US might do. I would set our goals vis. Libya to support the populace in their struggle for liberty and democracy. That should take precendence over our commercial interests in the country. And it might include persuading the rebels to give up rapidly if their position is hopeless, and giving them asylum.

I believe that when the dust settles the wider Middle East will see that the US acted with restraint and on behalf of greater liberty and democracy throughout the region, and that this will help to improve their opinion of the US. This may have commercial and diplomatic benefits.

I do not see the US pressing the Saudis very hard, as the pressure on lesser partners has been tepid and measured so far.

Even less do I see any rapid or substantial change in relations with Israel. Israel will be able to point to their democracy and stability throughout all this turmoil, as the rock the US must rely on in the region. Any change in status with Israel is likely to take a long time and be minimal, unless Israel acts precipitately to force greater US distancing. Given what they have done previously, I'm not sure what that might require.

[Patrick Lang]

jon

"And it might include persuading the rebels to give up rapidly if their position is hopeless, and giving them asylum," and yet you write that our goal should be freedom and liberty for the Libyan people? Strange. As to the"How" TTG has spelled that out clearly. I support his position. pl

[FB Ali]

In his usual manner, Dr Brenner has eloquently and succinctly put the case, on both moral and practical grounds, for the US to support the Libyan revolt for freedom.

I would add one other practical consideration. If the rebels are crushed, as is likely if they receive no aid, the message to all those young Arabs and Muslims who aspire to be rid of oppression and misrule would be: your only friends and allies are al-Qaeda and the jihadis.

[William R. Cumming]

General Ali! Pretty much agree with your comment and now of course the US military/industrial complex does need an enemy just not a very competent one.

What are prospects post insurgency that MQ realizing how really incompetent the US and EU are will strive to be a dominant player in the Maghreb? And Arabia? He seems meglomanic to me so the world may seem to be his oyster!

[Sam Will]

Dr. Brenner and Pat Lang are absolutely right on every count..., re Libya and the broader MENA implications...and beyond.
PL,
I agree with you on Rami Khoury and others, like Michael Young..., sometimes they get it, a lot of times they don't...but they have a smooth writing style...pleasing to the West somehow...

[rjj]

...message ...your only friends and allies are al-Qaeda and the jihadis.

ohhhh merde - not unintentional? tactical fecklessness?

[Sidney O. Smith III]

Glad to see the good professor is back. Thought we had lost him to the allure of the Huffington Post.

For what it is worth, I draw a sharp distinction between assisting rebels in an organic revolution, already begun by the people, in which the aim is self determination as contrasted to a Jacobin revolution that operates under the pretext of spreading democracy via military conquest.

The differences are stark and cannot be overemphasized.

Self determination by those involved in the rise of Islamic awareness may not lead to the freedom and democracy as envisioned by Westerners, particularly as was espoused by Jacobins who successfully promoted engineered revolutions built upon lies, including the pretext of spreading democracy.

The notion of "deconstruction" followed by "reconstruction" has little to do with self determination.

Anytime a Jacobin speaks of spreading freedom and liberal democracy in the Middle East, one, imo, should apply a strict scrutiny standard to determine intent.

Odds are reasonable that rebel leaders who are Muslim and educated as to US foreign policy in the Middle East would do the same. Could explain why so many say, “Yankee go home” or equivalent thereof.

If we want to become the “good guys” to use the good professor’s words, then, imo, the focus should stay on self determination for the Libyan people and nothing more.

[tunde]

fantastically written piece, professor.