#Philosophy can't justify a dumb war, whether just or not — Libya six years later

That said, the issue of just war is itself problematic, and has other "baggage," even if its separated today from its religious roots.

French bombing damage in Libya. / Wikipedia

This is adapted from an old post at my second blog, adapted and deeply extended, of a 6-year-old piece critiquing and downright criticizing philosopher Massimo Pigliucci's argument for bombing Libya. (I came across it while going through posts at that blog for other reasons, and knowing this is an anniversary of the start of that campaign, and given that Massimo remains pretty much a Democrats-only conventional liberal in terms of U.S. politics, while I'm a left-liberal and beyond, I wanted to update it for this and other reasons.

You can slice and dice logical arguments to support all sorts of claims. That includes what evidence you include as warrants vs. what countervailing empirical evidence you exclude from discussion.

Especially in real-world informal logic, how you frame the parameters of the argument is another way of slicing and dicing an issue to an already-held conclusion.

Sure, in a vacuum of Libya and no other foreign policy worries, might be great. But, why Libya and not Yemen? Or, why not Cote d'Ivoire a year ago? That, in turn, is ignoring how "problematic" civil wars are in general, and the Libyan Civil War was certainly no exception.

Massimo Pigliucci

Massimo goes on, in what is nearly 100 posts down the list, in response to me, to say he has non-humanitarian reasons, as well, to support intervention in Libya. I've asked what they are, because I don't see any that aren't either directly or indirectly related to oil. Terrorism? Since we intercepted the ship with nuclear supplies headed to Libya several years ago, Gadhafi had become "our guy," so scratch that, even if Massimo makes that claim.

Massimo also limits the parameters of the argument by saying his support for air strikes doesn't mean support for intervention. But, given criticism of the Obama Administration, that it doesn't have an exit policy, and that our British and French allies have pushed going beyond air strikes, if necessary, that "restriction" might work in formal logic, but, in a real-world political situation, doesn't.

Massimo also, basically, tried to claim in his last comment to me that I didn't know what I was talking about on just war. Actually, I do. But, since he apparently cares not to read Walter Kaufmann's "Without Guilt and Justice," which I highly, highly recommend, he doesn't really understand where I'm coming from. (Should Massimo see this, I'll leave it to his personal judgment as to whether or not he was trying that hard to understand, wanted that much to understand, or wanted to try that hard to understand.

That said, I'm going to further deconstruct, or just plain refute, some of his claims.

Obama's war sure to widen

With the U.S. and other major nations officially extending diplomatic recognition to rebels in Libya, the war there ought to widen, extend longer, etc.

But, but, but ... this Congress-free bout of adventurism is being led by Dear Leader, Barack Obama, and has the official imprimatur of the UN. So, Juan Cole should be happy.

And, here's the basics that both Juan and Dear Leader should have considered pre-fighting, and apparently have magically changed in some people's minds, though, I doubt, in reality:

For weeks, U.S. officials have stopped short of full diplomatic recognition even as they inched up support for the Libyan rebels’ cause. The main concern was over how capably and inclusively the rebel leaders would govern, said a senior U.S. state department official who was not authorized to speak by name. ...

The worry among U.S. and other foreign powers was that after Gaddafi falls, the oil-rich country could become embroiled in tribal conflicts or ethnic tensions. A British-led group planning for post-Gaddafi Libya is recommending that the Libyan army be left intact to avoid the tactical mistake made after the Iraq war, when U.S.-led forces dismantled Saddam Hussein’s army.

Wild card: Since he's got nothing to lose now, and Beijing wasn't one of the "recognizers," what's to stop Muammar Gadhafi from making a deal with Hu Jintao? Both China and Russia declined to attend the "recognition" meeting, so this isn't a totally unrealistic situation. China would, of course, walk the Arab League tightrope carefully.

The dangers of our Libya involvement

First, as I have noted before, there always were mliitary-related issues, such as mission creep, command and control, etc. And, those issues are raising their head right now, as allies continue to disagree on what the final goal of our work in Libya should be. Air power alone won't depose Gadhafi, unless ramped up to a point to offend Turkey and the Arab League, which really aren't on board with deposing him anyway.

For example, France has extended diplomatic recognition to the rebels. So, it's definitely going to have different strategy and aims.

As for that, those rebels, watch out what you ask for.

Both the Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal (h/t Salon) point out that the opposition to Gadhafi is not fully organized, but to the degree it IS organized, contains known Islamists, some of them of the same stripe that fought U.S. forces in Iraq.

Beyond Islamism, there's tribalism and other matters that reflect on the lack of organization, and lack of true national representation, in the Gadhafi opposition. More on that from McClatchy. That, in turn, means this current group could then devolve into civil war itself if it deposes Gadhafi.

And, Massimo Pigliucci, that's another reason you and other Wilsonian interventionists are wrong, and short-sighted to boot.

How the U.S. could intervene in Libya

The Department of Justice has never officially closed its case on the Lockerbie bombing. That includes never shelving the indictment of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, "compassionately" released to Libya by Scotland a year or so ago under major, lied-about pressure from London.

Suitable pressure on Gaddafi, with the "carrot" of a leave-the-country deal, could be put together.

Sarkozy’s Libya cuddle-up doesn’t please his own party

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he was “resigned”. to Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi’s visit to Paris while President Nicolas Sarkozy's junior minister for human rights said France shouldn’t do business with Gaddafi without getting more human rights guarantees. I guess Sarko really is trying to be more like U.S. leadership.

More seriously, can Sarko risk alienating too much of his Cabinet this early in his administration while dealing with the transport strike and other domestic issues?