#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.

Oct. 7 news briefs roundup — Libya, Tricky Ricky, more

• What I take away from the Libya and Somalia raids by our Special Forces?

Beyond the obvious ones, namely that Somalia is a failed state and there's limits to our power in a lot of places unless we want to shed a lot of blood (remember that, you "Syrian action" fanatics) is that our exercise in nation-building in Libya seems to be pretty much of a flop (remember that, too, "Syria action" fanatics).

Also, that, among Obamiacs as well as Bushies, the continued blindness toward this thing called "boots on the ground" seems only to grow in response to concerns like the one I just expressed.

• This NYT piece hits the nail on the head: Rick Perry's job hunting trips are likely not even about recruiting jobs to Texas but instead about a 2016 presidential run.

• Immigrants can help revitalize a "dying" city; one such city, Dayton, Ohio, is actively pursuing them.

• A liberal Catholic philosopher agrees with my insight and says there's no doctrinal changes out of the mouth of Francis the Talking Pope, just "changes of style and tone."

#Benghazi, #IRS, #Obamacare, #AP snooping: What Obama needs to do

Eric Hitler, er Holder has crossed a bridge too far.
Time for Dear Leader to push him out.

First of all, that political consultant is me.

And, he's going to give Obama some tough advice, starting with the guy in the picture.

Setting aside that, as a left-liberal in American terms, I've found his stimulus response to the Great Recession, the whole semi-bollocks of Obamacare, and other actions less than ideal, the constitutional law scholar president appears out of his element, even after four-plus years, at the hardball of elective politics.

So, he needs help.

That would start with bitch-slapping him a couple of times, or more than a couple, before he finally realizes, and admits, that "Kumbaya" ain't in the GOP hymnal, that his self-loved mellifluous voice sounds discordant to many on Capitol Hill, and that his White House staff could use somebody with more legislative experience to work the Hill.

Now, on to some specifics.

First, the AP snooping. I don't care if you're having gay sex with him on the down low, at a point not immediate, but after a reasonable amount of stonewalling, if Eric Holder was directly connected, plugged-in, etc., to the AP snooping, can his ass. Period. It's triage and you need to manage it. (As long as you weren't in the loop yourself, and nobody leaks that you were after he gets fired.)

Then, to shore yourself up with Democrats, especially more liberal ones, appoint a new AG with better civil liberties cred. Of course, Holder needs to go, anyway. And, you need to stop the snooping and leak-plugging, not that the non-political consultant me expects that.

IRS? Steven Miller is an acting commissioner. Schmooze GOP Senators about a permanent replacement while cutting the House GOP out of the loop. Hell, tell Mitch the Turtle you'll name his venal wife, Elaine Chao, to the position. (Well, that might be a bit much, but you get the idea. Schmooze.) And, it looks like Obama's made a start here by accepting Miller's resignation. That said, Holder's finger-wagging, again, about IRS criminality and investigations makes me want to fucking barf.

It makes me barf more now that we see this is less of a scandal than Benghazi, because liberal groups got the same treatment. The bigger scandal is that the IRS is overburdened, likely because the GOP wants to starve it. 

Beyond this, any other scandal is Dear Leader's reaction to what is even more a non-scandal than Benghazi is starting to look like the Shirley Sherrod fiasco when Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, with some knowledge by Obama, threw her under the bus.

Obamacare? Namely, the concerns that Kathleen Sibelius shouldn't be soliciting money from health care organizations to help pay for educating the American public about this.

Ain't this what Organizing for Action is for? To shake down rich donors but outside of of electoral politics, as it reportedly says its about? Surely there's room to launder some money in a theoretically legal way.

Benghazi? Even if you don't want to be totally honest (as Republicans don't either) about what the fuck the CIA was doing there, roll out a sacrificial lamb. Or better yet, tell the GOP that you WILL spill the full beans unless it shuts up.

And, if not me, I'll bet Bill Clinton would give you advice halfway like this. Because, if nothing else, and speculation is true, he doesn't want your fortunes to be a lead anchor around Hillary 2016.

(Of course, the left-liberalish part of me, thinking of that, says "please don't take a word of advice, but instead, drag her down with you.")

Beyond that, Ambassador Stevens himself twice rejected additional military protection. 

I am beginning to think that no "scandal" story deserves attention until McClatchy writes something and gets at least in the reasonable ballpark of reality.

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.

More on the maybe not-so-dumb Obama-IEA oil dump

That joint agreement by the United States and the International Energy Agency to release crude oil from strategic petroleum reserves? The one that had everybody scratching their head over its timing?

Well, there's more to it. As in, this may have been the equivalent of a pool bank shot, primarily involving Washington, the EU, speaking through the International Energy Agency, ... and the Saudis.

As early as May 11, Mr Obama telephoned King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to “discuss bilateral issues”, according to the Saudi press agency.

Boom ...

And, this wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing:

For three months, dozens of senior oil officials from the US, South Korea, Germany and Japan worked secretly to execute what was one of the most daring moves by the International Energy Agency since its creation in 1974.

And, that's about the time we first started bombing Libya, on the usual delusional American belief that we'd topple Gaddhafi in a week or two.

There's one "interesting" part. In a story about how the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is investigating "suspicious" trades in oil just before the decision was announced, it notes the Saudis had already agreed to a production increase.

Maybe the White House thought it would take too long. Or that it would be of too low a quality compared to Libya's vaunted low-sulfur crude.

Or maybe all involved wanted to send a double-slapdown message to ... ohhh ... Iran and Venezuela?

Per the FT article linked at top:

In early May, Mr Obama dispatched a team of senior advisers to the region, including Michael Froman, White House deputy national security adviser, Daniel Poneman, deputy energy secretary, and Neal Wolin, deputy treasury secretary, for talks with Riyadh, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

Washington found the Saudis willing to ensure adequate supply.

The IEA nonetheless decided to send a clear message to the market that it was ready to act. On 19 May, at the conclusion of a regular meeting of its board of governors in Paris, the agency said: “We are prepared to consider using all tools that are at the disposal of IEA member countries.”

Venezuela and Iran, along with Algeria, were the three hardliners in the most recent OPEC meeting against raising production.

At the same time, Western nations didn't want to look like this was being done for too narrowly economic reasons, but, after the Saudis couldn't "carry" OPEC with them, decided to act. Japan, Britain and South Korea were other major "movers" on getting the IEA to act.

The primary beneficiary? Most of Libya's oil, of a very high quality, goes to Europe. So, even though the White House started the ball rolling, Europe had good reason to jump in, via the IEA.

The U.S.? Well, analysts as far away as Hong Kong are saying this will be the gateway for more "quantitative easing," but by different name and means. In fact, Forbes calls it QE2.5. If that's the case, and if it actually gets Obama himself, not just Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, to do something more in the way of stimulus-like action, then that's good.

#Bush, #Obama and #JuanCole — discrediting vs co-opting

Wired and several other sites are breaking the story that University of Michigan Arab scholar Juan Cole, blogging here, and blogging hard against invading Iraq and questioning specific decisions in Afghanistan, looked into using the CIA to shut Cole up in some way.

Of course, this is reprehensible, but not surprising.

And, unnecessary.

As Obama's bombing of Libya, and Cole's hugely uncriticial acceptance of said bombing, shows, all Bush had to do was somehow get a UN fig leaf for invading Iraq and Cole might well have supported it lock, stock and barrel.

Cole is right that these allegations need to be addressed.

As well as looking at the possibility that Team Obama, just as it has adopted many other things from BushCo, is doing similar as we speak.

Beyond that, as an Obamiac, Cole and his followers expecting an investigation from the man who pledged to "look forward"? I hear a petard being cranked up right about now.

==

Update, later today:

I posted a comment broadly on the lines above at Cole's comment-moderated blog. He has yet to approve it, so I noted that on Facebook. And, I tried again, and he wouldn't post that one, either.

===

Update, June 18:

First, another tidbit on Cole: Per a cached version of a blogpost at another website, he's "good" about trying to cover his tracks when he's caught, well, making shit up.

Second, the ex-spook making the spying claim has a book coming out.

Publicity stunt by him? By Cole? By both?

Libya - the 'rough beast'

Former Lt. Gen. Robert Dubik has both advice and hindsight on Libya for President Obama. Among the best hindsight, that Juan Cole and other liberal interventionists need to heed, comes from Bosnia, per Dubik, but could also come from Afghanistan or even, to some degree, Iraq, and that is — air power doesn't "win" anything. Libya once again shows that, if not boots, tanks and Bradleys on the ground are necessary.

The advice? If we're not going to pull out or just "avoid losing," then we have to do more, he says:

To give (rebels) a fighting chance, NATO must put military advisers and combat air controllers on the ground — not just British, French and Italian, but also a small number of American ones.

Try selling that to Congress and the American public, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize. Actually, no, let war hawks Lindsey Graham and John McCain go on the sales line first.

Then, let's see the Juan Coles of the world are still so gung-ho about interventionism.

The "rough beast"? Riffing on W.B. Yeats, Libya is part of the Arab gyre of Roger Cohen's focus. And, Bethlehems in the Middle East as birthplaces for world-transforming events are few and far between. The actual site is the birthplace, if anything, to riff on the Arab world, of Israeli perfidy, Palestinian Authority ineptness, corruption and weakness and ... a Hamas threatening to be born with more virulence than ever.

With that in mind, Preznit Kumbaya had better be damned sure he gets different rebels in Libya straightened out before further intervening.

Cluster bombs - more U.S.-Israeli hypocrisy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is semi-officially condemning Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi for alleged use of nasty cluster bombs.

Two SLIGHT problems, though.

1. We, along with Libya, have failed to sign a 2008 convention against cluster bombs' use. Our military-industrial complex is a huge maker of the devices. And, as the second page of the story notes, we sold plenty to Israel.

2. Which used them indiscriminately in Lebanon and elsewhere:

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

I guess the military-imperial U.S. establishment thinks that in the days of Google, it can still get away with telling such monstrosities.

More on the issue and our similar hypocrisy on land mines here, from Human Rights Watch.

The AP story, in the top link, pulls some of the info together in one graf, that may get cut in many hardcopy newspapers:

The campaign against the weapons picked up steam after Israel's month-long war against Hezbollah in 2006, when it scattered up to 4 million of the munitions across Lebanon, according to the U.N. In response, more than 100 countries pledged to ban the bombs. The United States has rejected the call, insisting that the bombs are a valid weapon of war when used properly. Libya also has never signed a treaty banning them.

Agreed that Libya may be targeting civilians. That said, that's what Israel did in Lebanon. That's what we allegedly did in Iraq (and, like Israel, with white phosphorus, too).

Meanwhile, in the world of realpolitik, Clinton hasn't said what the U.S. will actually do about this. Team Obama is caught between the rock of Wilsonian idealism and the hard place of further mission creep. (See Kurds, Iraq, and George H.W. Bush.)

Kevin Drum hits new low in Obama butt-kissing

When running the Washington Monthly blog, he was bad enough, although much better than Steve Benen. (I haven't even gone there in more than a month.)

But, his new low? Well, many Democratic partisans rightly attacked Bush on Iraq. And, they fought back against wingnut bloggers who said, "You can't question the president in a time of war!"

But, Drum's now close to that same territory with Obama.

Here's the nut graf (courtesy Greenwald):

So what should I think about [the war in Libya]? If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted.

Of course, I haven't read MoJo in a while, either. And, with crap like that, I doubt I'll resume anytime soon.

Update, April 3: Drum has a follow-up post in response to Greenwald, where he shifts the goalposts a bit:

I think pretty highly of Barack Obama's judgment. But what does it mean to say that? Just this: that I think highly of his judgment even when I disagree with him. How could it be otherwise, after all? If, when you say that you trust somebody's judgment, what you really mean is that you trust their judgment only to the extent that they agree with you, that's hardly any trust at all. Just the opposite, in fact.

To make this more concrete, I also think highly of Glenn Greenwald's judgment on issues of civil liberties and the national security state. This means that when he takes a different position than mine, it makes me stop and think. ... This doesn't mean that I've outsourced my brain to Glenn, but it does mean that he influences my judgment, and that's especially true on issues that I'm unsure of.

Ditto for Obama. Unlike Glenn, perhaps, I'm unsure about the wisdom of our Libya intervention, and the fact that I'm unsure makes me more open to giving Obama's judgment a fair amount of weight in this matter. That's what it means to respect another person's judgment. On the other hand, as my post made clear, it doesn't mean that he's persuaded me. As I said twice, I think the Libya intervention was mistake. I wouldn't have done it. But partly because a president I respect disagrees, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. His position has made me stop and think.

The first graf? A straw man, of the particular type I call "false polarities." I don't know about Drum, but here's how I operate on partitioning and sharng trust. I can disagree with someone on one issue yet trust their judgment on that issue, but I can also disagree with someone on an issue, even if I respect that person overall, yet NOT trust their judgment on that particular issue.

Take Greenwald. I agree with him on a lot of issues, and, respect him, but I've busted his chops before here, and will do so again, now, for not speaking out about ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero teaching the Ford Foundation how to comply with the patriot Act, and the big ACLU board brouhaha and ultimate dissenters' purge that follows. I know Glenn is solid with the ACLU, but I think he's too tight; he doesn't promote alternative groups such as Center for Constitutional Rights on anything close to a regular basis.

Drum then has a second straw man: that one MUST show one's brain has not been co-opted by disagreeing with someone, and making that protest in public. Silence is another way of doing that.

That said, Kevin, in the original post you said:

I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own.

Earth to Kevin: Your brain has been co-opted.

And, as for Greenwald taking an "appallingly hostile" reading of your original post? In his follow-up, he was pretty darn generous. In fact, too generous, in my opinion.

Gohmert Pyle strikes again

Arguably Texas' most nutbar emissary to the Congress of the United States, Rep. Louis Gohmert appears determined to top himself, time and time again.

The latest? President Obama's military action against Libya is possibly part of a nefarious Obamacare plot.

It's a bad bill. And then when you find out that the prior Congress not only passed that 2,800 page bill with all kinds of things in it, including a new president's commissioned officer corps and non-commissioned officer corps. Do we really need that? I wondered when I read that in the bill. But then when you find out we're being sent to Libya to use our treasure and American lives there, maybe there's intention to so deplete the military that we're going to need that presidential reserve officer commissioned corps and non-commissioned corps that the president can call up on a moment's notice involuntarily, according to the Obamacare bill.

No, really.

Don't believe the pull quote? Here's Gohmert Pyle in his own words.



And, as we see him in gear-churning action, this isn't surprising ....

Matt Dowd likes Obama's 2012 chances

He says three things have to happen for the GOP to topple him, and only one — a charismatic candidate — is in GOP control.

The other two are the economy and foreign policy.

And, in the Libya case, they're kind of linked.

If Obama can get lucky enough to get that resolved quickly (oh, by the way, B.O., to where will Gadhafi go in exile??), then oil should stay below $110/barrel through next year. But, he's going to have to do more than Kumbaya on energy policy issues.

If oil stays below that benchmark, I think unemployment will be below 8.5 percent at the end of this year and around 8.0 percent by Election Day. Not as good as Reagan had in 1984, but it could be good enough.

As for the charismatic? The most charismatic GOP candidates, actual or hinted, are also its most nutbar. That's Bachmann, semi-charistmatic Gingrich, and the in-the-wings Palin. Of course, on religious beliefs, you have the non-charismatic nutbar Mike Huckabee.

The unbearable Libya lightness of Juan Cole

Cole is someone for whom I, like Glenn Greenwald, had a lot of respect for on issues related to Iraq and Afghanistan. But, with a breezy, one-paragraph defense of the Libya incursion, based largely on the fig leaf of UN blessing (a fig leaf that at least Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinks is selective, and not blocking the U.S. from selling arms to the rebels), it's really hard to take him seriously on his defense.

I left a comment on his one-paragraph blog post, asking if he agrees with Clinton, that we have the right to arm the rebels now.

We'll see what his answer is, and we'll see how this shows how little or how much the two magic letters "UN" are a shibboleth for him.

Here's Greenwald's open letter to Cole.

Or, Juan, what do we do if, say, the UN Security Council calls for members to act in the Ivory Coast?

Or, what do we do when the other 14 Security Council members condemn Israeli settlements? Well, we just found out the answer to that one.

The "liberal" half of America's ruling class will exploit "UN" in whatever ways it wants. And you're dumb enough to tag along and provide "cover."

Beyond that, his father's years of service in the Army Signal Corps (per Cole's Wiki page) and his admission that he sometimes does consulting work for the military (details, Juan?) might mean we need to raise an eyebrow at just how liberal he actually is.

Libya no-fly zones don't create no-fight Gadhafi — what next?

First, it's clear that pro-government forces in Libya have plenty of fight left.

So, what's next?

For the Nobel Peace Prize Preznit Kumbaya, it's yet more mission creep, apparently.

That includes now using A-10 close-level attack planes on Gadhafi's ground artillery and urban defenses. (And getting the U.S. mainstream media to not immediately report advance discussion of this for "patriotic" reasons.)

That includes possibly arming rebels in spite of UN prohibition. (Guess that UN fig leaf is a selective one for liberal interventionists.) And, I left a semi-snarky comment for Juan Cole, asking him to address that within his defense of the Libya incursion.

It's also a problem the U.S. is considering arming the rebels despite still not knowing them well.

Beijing chuckling over Libya?

Stephen Walt, in discussing the difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionalists, closes with a somber bit of realpolitik.

Beyond worrying about mission creep, undefined exit strategies and other things, he asks who is a likely winner over the Libyan escapade?

Back in Beijing, China's leaders must be smiling as they watch Washington walk open-eyed into another potential quagmire.

I can't argue.

Obama on Libya: Facts vs. reality and bipartisan hypocrisy

Contrary to President Obama's speech tonight, we have NO "responsibility to act" in Libya. We have no need to act, either.

And, in his speech, he failed to make his case. Didn't come close. Beyond the lack of need and responsibility to act, he didn't address a number of other issues.

Those include:
1. Mission creep, which has already happening and could gain a whole new phase with discussion of arming the Libyan rebels.
2. Why Libya and not, say, Yemen? (More on this below.)
3. What happens if the rebels, at current empowerment, can't dethrone Gadhafi?
4. What if the "days" stretch into "weeks"?
5. Will he ask, or does he think he will need to ask, for a supplemental funding appropriation? (And wouldn't the GOP like to attach that to the ongoing budget fight?)

That said, the GOP is already going partisan. Here's Texas Sejavascript:void(0)n. John Cornyn, saying what he never said in six years of Bush wars:

"When our men and women in uniform are sent into harm's way, Americans and troops deserve a clear mission from our commander in chief, not a speech nine days late," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Armed Services Committee and head of the Senate Republicans' political arm.

So, while Obama may be a hypocrite (more on that below), your average GOPer has already demonstrated himself to be a bigger one.

Further analysis?

This AP fact check analysis has several good points, including and starting with the idea we're not likely to take a back seat within NATO. And, right, mission creep means our mission already isn't as narrow as Obama claimed in his speech. And, it's a flat lie from where I sit to claim this is a vital strategic interest. Finally, it's true that, contra Preznit Kumbaya, we've taken a blind eye to plenty of other countries' nefarrious actions against their own citizens, including ones like Ivory Coast on his watch.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

Petard is cranking up.

Mission creep hits Libyan intervention

Gadhafi's forces have halted rebels' westward drive. In fact, they could well hurl them eastward again.

But, that's only temporary; mission creep is hitting again as Obama talks about arming the rebels. We've already had mission creep in redefining what it means to establish and enforce a no-fly zone. Now this.

Indeed, the justifications for expanding the air war have already proven to be somewhat controversial.

Now, some Republicans are opposing this just because Obama is in charge. Of course, GOP freshman will make the claim that they weren't around when Bush started wars without a Congressional vote, but I'm sure tea partier types would have supported the Bush warsw= anyway.

Four questions for Obama on Libya

Ross Douthat pretty much nails it, includ Defense Secretary Gates' comment that Libya isn't, in his opinion, a vital interest. World markets have already factoed its instability into oil prices, and otherwise, he's right.

So is Douthat with his four questions for Obama, really, four questions that Obama needs to answer to the nation.

I especially note that "mission creep" can include time creep as well as involvement creep. Douthat is right that having been in Libya a week already, Obama's claim that we'll be there days not weeks looks .. iffy, like many of his claims.

Juan Cole still gets it wrong, or half-wrong, on Libya

In this "open letter to the left" supporting current (and possibly additional?) intervention in Libya, Cole has several things with which I disagree.

First, yes, the AP and other mainstream media may have overstated to some degree the amount of Islamists in the opposition. And, its of "al Qaeda" for Libyans who fought in Iraq may be a bit imprecise.

However, with those claims, I get the impression Cole is trying to sweep any concerns with the nature of the Libyan opposition under the rug. Even if "al Qaeda" is a wrong identifier, nonetheless, a number of fighters in the Iraq war are now back in Libya involved in the opposition. So, too, are other Islamists. It's interesting that after knocking down a semi-straw man, Cole doesn't provide his own actual guesstimates.

I get the impression that the bottom-line issue for Cole is the UN OK, or perhaps, in lieu of that, a NATO OK. After that, whenever it happens, he's OK with being a Wilsonian, realpolitik be damned.

Second, he doesn't further look at the opposition in other ways. How organized are they? How tribalist are they? How well are their leaders likely to be significantly better than Gadhafi?

Third, he erects other straw men as to why some in the left oppose, or at least question, U.S. intervention. Meanwhile, for we pragmatics of the left, he nowhere addresses concerns such as mission creep, exit strategy, funding, etc.

And, speaking of mission creep and NATO, supposedly it's now debating arming the rebels.

So, we've gone from enforcing no-fly zones to actively targeting Libyan artillery, whether anti-aircraft in specific or not, and now, arming rebeles whose cohesion or goals we're not even sure of is being discussed. Wunderbar.

And, way to go, Cole on the UN fig leaf. And, also, Massimo Pigliucci on the "just war" nonsense. Way to go both of you on not thinking this through.

A question for Wilsonian idealists

Samantha Power is a strong Wilsonian interventionist within the Obama administration. VERY strong:

Per this story, she's apparently so powerful, and perhaps so worrisome to Team Obama's PR on interventionism, that she wasn't made available for an interview for the story, as this indicates:

Precisely what parts of the unfolding policy (in Libya) Power advocated or opposed aren't clear. She declined a request for an interview, and White House officials declined to comment on her role.

On the political fallout issue, here's her POV:

Power has long argued that politicians shy away from humanitarian intervention because they see too much domestic political risk with little payoff for saving foreign lives. ...

The prevailing political theory in the United States, Power said, is that "you don't get any extra credit for doing the right thing," that U.S. casualties for the sake of humanitarianism cost politicians power and support. "It's up to us on the outside" to change that calculus, she said.

Beyond the domestic political risk, let's take a look at a nut graf:

After the publication of "A Problem From Hell," Power said in a wide-ranging 2002 discussion with Boston interviewer Robert Birnbaum that she believes "there is a moral obligation to do something about gross human rights violations" even if they don't meet the definition of genocide.

But, to do WHAT? And, by what moral calculus do we judge what to do?

Why Bosnia but not Uganda, back in Clinton Administration days? Was it white and European vs. nonwhite and African?

Why Libya and not Yemen today? Is it oil or the lack thereof? Or, with Bahrain, the fact that we have such a military presence there already as to be semi-intimidating without further effort?

Along those lines, if any intervention is done in the name of "international stability," first thing I am going to do is check how much oil that country produces.

And, sorry, Ms. Power, but the U.S. checkbook isn't unlimited. Are you going to dun the rest of the UN every time you decide the U.S. should intervene somewhere? Are you, per a Bob Herbert, going to try to sell the American public on every price tag? Or, like Bush with his two wars, will you not only not ask Congress for declarations of war, but will you try to run every intervention "off budget"?

Remember, the French Revolution started not just because of bad harvests, but because Comte de Vergennes had bankrupted France ... by intervention, intervention in the American Revolution.

Beyond the finances, what about human lives, especially when it becomes clear that air power may make a Roman-style, if temporary, "desert" out of mini-Carthages, but, it won't quell unrest on the ground. Will you try to sell that cost to the American public?

And, again, on what utilitarian calculus? Libya's level of unrest IS just about the same as Yemen's. So, why are we there?

How great a level of civil unrest is "permitted"? Is an "Obama doctrine" forthcoming?

Millions for Libyan no-fly zones, but not one cent ...

Bob Herbert's farewell column for the New York Times is here. Apparently, he's leaving now, unlike Frank Rich. Interesting. Anyway, he goes out with a bang - call it millions for Libyan no-fly zones, but not one cent for the U.S. homeland.

Ironic, indeed, since the Tripoli pirates of Marines' Hymm and "millions for defence, not one cent for tribute" fame were from ... Libya, among other places.