Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003
Posted on 03/22/2011 by Juan

I've included the comments, here at the time, simply because they represent more criticism of a Juan Cole post than i've seen before ..

Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.

6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last “days, not months” before being turned over to other United Nations allies.

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

Posted in Democracy, Iraq, Libya, US Politics | 18 Comments | Print

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

§ 18 Responses to “Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003”

* eCAHNomics says:
03/22/2011 at 11:14 am

And why is this not Iraq NFZ 1991? Which solidified SH’s power, ravaged the population, and helped foster AQ?

* Evan says:
03/22/2011 at 11:14 am

I’ve been looking for a perspective in this complicated situation that I can be comfortable with. Yours goes a long way to helping me. But I’m still worried.

Everything you say here is true. But:

On Point 4, I am not convinced. The reactionary potentates are fine to see a republic go down the drain, but when it comes to one of their own (Bahrein), not so much.

On Point 5, eventually there will have to be boots on the ground, like it or not. No war’s ever been won with aircraft.

On Point 8, Libya is a patchwork of three statelets, one of which has retained a somewhat autonomous character. It is not hard to imagine that it might come apart. Moreover, it is a very tribal society. Libya’s integrity may become an issue.

In general, I hated watching Qaddafi rolling over his opponents with his tanks. But the Western forces are responding with some pretty heavy manners. Will the Arab countries (and the Arab street) go along with this? For what it’s worth, I see that Ralph Nader is calling for Obama’s impeachment over this.

* Rick says:
03/22/2011 at 11:24 am

What is missing from this posting is an analysis of what the “realist” wing of the US ruling circles expect to get out of the Libyan intervention. Without this, the posting seems unlikely to reassure those elements of the international community who oppose the intervention.

* Dinh Le says:
03/22/2011 at 12:43 pm

Your whole argument for intervention is based on the reported massacres of protesters by Gaddhafi and his forces. But the protesters are not all defenseless civilians. There are many armed men among them. And they don’t seem to lack ammunition. Many pictures even showed them with heavy tanks and heavy anti-aircraft guns. It looks to me more like a civil war (or tribal war?) — albeit with one side outgunned by the other side — rather than a one-sided massacre of civilians.

* Phoenix Woman says:
03/22/2011 at 12:55 pm

Please send this to Michael Moore. He’s been trying to imply that the Libyan rebels are icky ‘cuz some of them (some of the slim minority who actually know how to use rifles, much less operate tanks or planes) may have been part of Al Qaeda!!! In Iraq!!! (He glosses over the fact that Gaddafi’s been importing mercenaries from Chad and elsewhere, and the fact that the Taliban, Al-Qaeda’s best buds, have denounced both the rebellion and the aid given by the West to the rebels.)

* John Mullen says:
03/22/2011 at 1:16 pm

Genuine sense of outrage from those who had armed him for decades, and still support crushing rebellions in Bahrein and elsewhere this very week. Euh I don’t think so. If the West were seriously opposed to Gaddafi they coudl release to the rebels the billions of dollars of frozen assets Gaddafi has around, or give arms to the rebels. The intervention is much more about gaining a foothold again in the region. Highly selective outrage don’t hack it.

* Joe Buck says:
03/22/2011 at 1:19 pm

Prof. Cole, I’m sorry to see that you’ve decided to become a hawk. Yes, a legal procedure was followed, but now what? The rebels seem to be sitting around waiting for NATO to knock off Qaddafi for them; they certainly can’t do it on their own. The UN resolution doesn’t authorize the overthrow of Qaddafi, and in many places Qaddafi’s people can outgun the rebels without use of air power. Meanwhile, in Yemen and Bahrain the authorities are also killing protesters in large numbers, and Bahrain has imported mercenaries, um, Saudi troops, to fight its own people. Would your logic require intervention in Yemen and Bahrain next?

And when was the Constitution amended to allow a UN resolution to substitute for Congressional authorization to use force abroad? Candidate Obama said that the president does not have the power to do what President Obama just did.

* Sophie says:
03/22/2011 at 1:20 pm

The representative of Libya at the UN had sided with the revolution and was in favour of the NFZ and the resolution.

* jan chapman says:
03/22/2011 at 1:27 pm

Juan, have Qatar or Saudi Arabia participated in the air strikes, as I heard they had promised? Is this a realistic expectatio? I know it would make me feel better. Are they still fully behind this military intervention, or are they having second thoughts?

* Don says:
03/22/2011 at 1:55 pm

Juan,

I also have to take issue with number 1. Yes, the UN Security Council approved a measure, but now both Brazil and the Chinese government have come out against the measure, so it seems clear that they were opposed to it. One can only imagine why they abstained instead of voting against it. It is no secret that the US yields great power in these matters.

* Bill says:
03/22/2011 at 2:06 pm

Why ten? Are you going on Letterman or are those just all the reasons? They all seem pretty solid though. You might have added that the Pottery Barn rule doesn’t necessarily apply here. Once the Libyan government is broken we don’t own it. Libya’s own people have given a pretty convincing demonstration of their desire to self govern. And you don’t have the sectarian divisions you described in Iraq. But maybe that’s restating things.

Just curious , as in Egypt, to what extent would the country’s military and bureaucracy be willing to take orders from elected officials?

* Piotr Berman says:
03/22/2011 at 2:48 pm

The last point is rather weak. Libya cannot realistically influence neighbors too much. But the other points are valid and important.

* Brian says:
03/22/2011 at 2:56 pm

Dear Dr Cole

While many of these points may be valid, there are some things you have not considered.
1. The generals, right from last weekend, were talking about doing far more than what has been authorized.
2. Ditto a number of politicians, Prime Minister David Cameron among them, who said Qaddafi has “to go.”
3. There is a loop-hole in the agreement that more or less gives carte-blanche to breaking it by conceding all necessary measures to implement the purported purpose of protecting civilians.
3. Hence the no-fly zone seems to include bombing military equipment on the ground (tanks fly along with pigs).
4. Qaddafi has been targeted, whatever the generals or the
politicans say.
5. Your point 7 is naive. The idea that the UK, France, Canada, et al., could muster the will and power to do this?
polticians say–some admit it, some don’t.
6. Your point 8 is just wrong. Look up Justin Raimondo’s recent article on the artificiality of Libya, its origins as three distinct regions.
7. Your point number 10 is categorically about pre-emption, reminiscent of George Bush. You are speculating about the evil the man might do–which a no fly zone could not prevent, but regime change will. Therefore you are advocating regime change, I’m sorry to say.
Time to think again, Dr cole.

* Trombie says:
03/22/2011 at 2:57 pm

11. A Republican was President during the Iraq situation, and an immaculate Democrat is President now.

* mg says:
03/22/2011 at 2:59 pm

It’s amazing that this stuff has to be pointed out.

* David Johnson says:
03/22/2011 at 3:08 pm

Prof Cole has given us an excellent summary of the differences between Iraq and Libya. They could hardly be more different. It was wrong to invade Iraq. It is right to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya.

* Andrew says:
03/22/2011 at 3:12 pm

“President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last ‘days, not months’ before being turned over to other United Nations allies.”

To me, this is the sticking point. What if the action authorized by the UNSC resolution is not enough to turn the tide of the conflict? Will NATO and the US let its allies lose, or widen the scope of the conflict? And if it is the latter, will they seek UN/Congressional approval, or act on their own authority?

* Martijn Dekker says:
03/22/2011 at 3:16 pm

Good commentary!

I’m quite a fan of “alternative media” (e.g. “conspiracy theory”), but I’m quite saddened by the various reactions on the intervention in Libya.
Everywhere people seem to be convinced that all this must be an imperialist motive to grab the oil of Libya. I strongly disagree (although things could still develop into a regretable scenario).
Gaddaffi really was making a massacre and had to be stopped. It is important that the “coalition” doesn’t enter Libya with ground-forces… but so far, I think they are doing a good job.

cheers, Martijn