|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Field Manual for DespotsPosted on Apr 21, 2011WASHINGTON—If I were a Middle Eastern despot, I’d know how to handle the pro-democracy movement that threatens my rule: Crack down viciously, using deadly force against civilians, and make no meaningful concessions. The West will fulminate and posture but won’t intervene decisively. I can survive. Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh, Bahrain’s al-Khalifa royal family and others have surely been watching events in Libya and taking notes. The NATO-led attempt to dislodge Moammar Gadhafi is going nowhere fast. Bickering allied leaders have no stomach—or popular support at home—for war making of the kind that would be necessary to defeat Gadhafi’s army and take Tripoli. The regime is bloodied but unbowed. One wonders why we bothered at all. Seriously, as the Libya operation is now being conducted, what’s the point? The intervention surely saved many lives by halting Gadhafi’s forces just hours before they would have swept into the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. But now the conflict has devolved into a bloody stalemate in which Gadhafi clearly has the upper hand. How many Libyan rebels and civilians will die in the coming weeks, months, perhaps years? When we look back at the eventual human toll, what will we have accomplished? President Obama made the intervention possible by giving his approval and committing U.S. assets. He declared that Gadhafi was no longer Libya’s legitimate leader and that his ouster was the explicit goal of U.S. policy. It was tough talk—and it must have unnerved the other embattled autocrats of the Arab world. Advertisement The rebel forces are brave but overmatched. European air power alone has proved inadequate to protect civilians in contested cities such as Misurata—where hospitals are filled with the wounded and the dying, and where acclaimed war photographers Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros were killed Wednesday, apparently by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by Gadhafi forces. On most days, the opposition is fighting desperately just to protect the territory it holds, not to seize more ground. Allied frustration is mounting. French, British and Italian leaders are taking the next step and dispatching military advisers to try to whip the rebel forces into fighting shape. The United States, after deciding to send uniforms, body armor and vehicles, announced Thursday that it will use armed Predator drone aircraft in Libya. This is “mission creep,” all right—but only in the sense that the military mission, as authorized by the United Nations, is limited to the protection of civilians. The political mission, as laid out by Obama and his European counterparts, is regime change. The effort so far won’t begin to close the wide gap between the allies’ stated goal and the resources being deployed to achieve it. European officials have begun to grouse that the United States is not doing enough. Vice President Biden shot back, in an interview with the Financial Times, with a sharp rebuttal. “If the Lord Almighty extricated the U.S. out of NATO and dropped it on the planet of Mars so we were no longer participating,” Biden said, “it is bizarre to suggest that NATO and the rest of the world lacks the capacity to deal with Libya—it does not. Occasionally other countries lack the will, but this is not about capacity.” A telling blow against Gallic pride, perhaps, but not against Gadhafi’s army. All this can only give hope and confidence to Syria’s Assad and Yemen’s Saleh as they dispatch troops and thugs to kill peaceful protesters. It can only bring contentment to the al-Khalifas of Bahrain, who know their deadly suppression of pro-democracy protests will be excused, and to the House of Saud, which should no longer feel pressure to deliver on the democratic reforms it has long promised. Realism in foreign policy is neither good nor bad. Ultimately, it is inevitable. The United States and its allies are not willing to seize control of events in Libya and the region. Unless this changes, it is cruelty, not kindness, to pretend otherwise. Eugene Robinson’s email address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.  Previous item: Beware of Vampire Squids and Their Stadium Schemes Next item: Is the World Too Big to Fail? New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
Real American Boy: How Our Byzantine Immigration System and Failed Economy May Have Made a Terrorist
 . '/' . substr('9780143038771',-6,3) . '/' . '9780143038771' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Blackspeare, April 25, 2011 at 7:43 am Link to this comment
reynolds: “i hate eugene robinson for his freedoms.”
Now that is funny. Nice use of what is probably one of George Bush’s most idiotic statements. Unfortunately, the under-educated masses bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Report thisBy reynolds, April 24, 2011 at 9:53 am Link to this comment
i hate eugene robinson for his freedoms.
Report thisBy Grady Lee Howard, April 23, 2011 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment
What is the master plan consensus among the American Oligarchy? Which dictators are undermined by US intelligence agencies and the “real Dept. of State”, and which are reinforced? None of these things are to be sorted out in press releases. Some more Wiki-leaks might have helped.
Robinson seems to believe the hype. He has to behave as if the hype is real to keep his career. He’s certainly not informing citizens who care by mixing bad apples with soured oranges. What is better to own, the Washington Post with its phony colleges, or a sports stadium gifted by taxpayers. Report on that, Eugene.
Report thisBy reynolds, April 23, 2011 at 11:08 am Link to this comment
i hate eugene robinson for his freedoms.
Report thisBy JDmysticDJ, April 23, 2011 at 7:11 am Link to this comment
Robinson is known for being a critic of the Iraq War, I’m wondering what his opinions were prior to the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Hind sight is 20/20.
Seeing into the future can only be speculation, but I’ll speculate that Robinson might be walking back his support for intervention… in the future.
Report thisBy secretmojo, April 23, 2011 at 4:31 am Link to this comment
I honestly can’t tell whether this article is just trolling or sincerely advocating Manifest Democracy. Either way, it’s bunk.
The basic line of reasoning is that not-war is dangerous in various terrifying ways (like despots being emboldened, whatever that means), therefore we should engage in war. It’s a stupid argument, and it doesn’t matter how much you doll it up by projecting yourself into the minds of despots or scrying the deaths of millions, the premise is the same: “Peace will cause more horror than War”.
Bull.
Report thisBy MeHere, April 22, 2011 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment
There’s much too much misguided thinking in this article.
Robinson says “one wonders why we bothered at all.” One answer could be
because we don’t know what we’re doing. If we knew, we wouldn’t have a
president who declares that Gadhafi is no longer a legitimate leader and that
his ouster is the goal of US policy. Imagine the magnitude of such an imperial
statement and its repercussions. He was partly honest here, but what he failed
to say is that we wouldn’t mind a despot as a leader as long as he could keep
things quiet and stable for US interests in the region.
Since when these armed interventions have not thrown countries into chaos,
killed many people, and destroyed a lot of infrastructure? And when have they
produced stable, ideal “democratic” governments? Lately, they don’t even seem
to be producing ideal puppet governments for the US and its Western allies. Shouldn’t they be allowed to follow their own historic destiny and our role be limited to help people in a truly humanitarian way?
Eugene Robinson, do you ever wonder why we don’t “bother” to try a different kind of foreign policy?
Report thisBy samosamo, April 22, 2011 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment
****************
Report thisAw, come on, eugene. If you were a despot, the cia and a host
of foreign diplomats, under the guise of imf, wto, trilateral,
world bank and such, would all be waiting your call to ‘advise’
you on your next step. And don’t be surprised if they tell you
to ‘fall on your sword’ because they have a replacement
already lined up, most likely paul wolfowitz as he is adept in
driving despot’s countries into the ground.
By TDoff, April 22, 2011 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment
One wonders, should a pro-democracy movement arise in the US, whether the despots in charge of the nation will merely increase and enforce their current policies of reducing and eliminating essential services the people need to survive, hoping the movement members will be so busy just trying to survive that they will not have time to yearn for the figmental ‘democracy’ they mistakenly believe is their birthright. And/or that the protesters will just weaken from lack of sustenance and lack of health services, and rapidly die.
Or whether they will follow Eugene’s advice to despots, and roll out the heavy armor, and the drones, and the ‘Special Forces’, and slaughter the movement and it’s members in their tracks.
Report thisBy FRTothus, April 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment
The West follows the same, damn playbook for despots, and we’d be fools to imagine otherwise. The West wrote the book, in fact. The West detests democracy, at home and abroad. Truth be told, I am certain that Obama and the Pentagon would themselves deal with an armed insurrection supported by foreign powers like the one taking place in Libya in the same way, if not with even more brutally. Gadhafi’s reactions to his insurrection look positively civilized when compared with how the US reacts or would react. I doubt that Western leaders, or their lackeys such as Robinson in the press, would have such high praise for the “brave rebels” were they to be of a domestic variety. On the contrary, they would be the first and loudest in denouncing threats to “order and stability”, and if it were discovered that the “rebels” were being armed by a foreign imperialist power which wanted to steal our resources, there would be no end to the vitriol and hysterical calls from the “liberal” press and apologists for Empire, to kill every last of these “brave rebels”. My guess is Robinson would be, as he is now, among the first in line.
Report thisBy madisolation, April 22, 2011 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
“This is “mission creep,” all right—but only in the sense that the military mission, as authorized by the United Nations, is limited to the protection of civilians.”
And how, pray tell, Mr. Robinson, are those drones Obama dropped on Libya just today limited to the protection of civilians? Are they “humanitarian drones?” “Kinetic military interventionist drones” perhaps?
and:
“He declared that Gadhafi was no longer Libya’s legitimate leader…”
Well, my, my! Ladies and gentlemen! I give you the King of the World, Barack “Savvy Drone Dropper” Obama! All ye who gaze upon him, bow down!
Report thisRobinson’s a warhawking hack for Obama and the Democrats. But we already knew that. I imagine he’s published here for comic relief.
By who'syourdebs, April 22, 2011 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
I’m surprised to see Mr. Robinson pounding the drums for a new war—uh, in addition to those wars we already have. You know, those ones we have no means of paying for. Not only are we fighting in Afghanistan, but US troops are not out of Iraq or the Balkans; US troops are not even out of Western Europe 65 years after the fact.That gargantuan defense budget is not just bombs, guns, airplanes, and bullets; US bases stretch around the world. Our country has not apparently learned from the colonial mistakes of our European cousins. To many in power, world domination is our divine “manifest destiny”, but this is a sick and fascist belief system that presumes much and ignores more. Instead of the impossible task of playing policeman to the world, invading countries with leaders we don’t like, I’d be pleased if the US just ceased propping up the dictators it does like, a course Democratic and Republican administrations alike have pursued throughout the 20th Century and the first decade of this one. But perhaps even that is too much to hope for as long as the President and Congress can send poor people’s children to fight.
Report this