I haven’t written much about Libya, in part because there’s so much other crucial stuff to write about and in part because I think it’s only secondarily about oil (beyond the short-term price spike it’s caused).
It certainly is another good example of the White House’s poor messaging — see Dana Milbank’s skewering. Milbank directs us to this quote:
“I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle,” he told reporters once. “I’m not. Okay?”
It’s a silly thing to say and counterproductive to believe, especially for a White House that has no narrative to fall back on when things go south (or, in this case, when he goes south … America. Sorry).
Milbank writes about our attack on Libya in words that could apply to most major progressive issues, “Obama left a vacuum, and his opponents filled it.” (see “Relax, climate hawks, it’s not about the science. The White House is just lousy at messaging in general“)
But a commenter says Libya is an oil issue:
Joe: You haven’t had much to say about Libya. While I support Obama’s decision it is worth pointing out that this is basically another oil war. It was the oil that bought Gadhafi his weapons & without the oil we would not be nearly as likely to intervene.
Well, oil got him rich, but I don’t think oil is why we intervened. Everyone knows this isn’t going to lower oil prices (or have much effect either way in the medium term). Personally, I think this is a no-win for Obama. On the one hand, it is hard to see exactly what the objectives are, it is far from a sure thing the Gadhafi will be thrown out, it is even less of a sure thing that the result will be anything approaching democracy, and so there’s no clear or even semi-clear exit strategy. On the other hand, how would he justify stay out of this under the circumstances?
What do you think?
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I think Obama is interesting in that he truly believes he is at all times working to do the right thing. It’s hard to say that without any cynicism, but he’s still the ever-faithful idealist he was before, if you read between the lines. Even when he appears to be doing the wrong thing (extending ultra tax-cuts for the wealthy despite bloated deficit), he seems to see it as a temporary wrong that is only a means to do something right. In the case of tax cuts, it satisfied a completely inflexible Republican base and allowed for the passage of a few liberal staples, most notably the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, i.e., in the eyes of Obama, the right thing to do. Intervening in Libya, while justified in terms of our grim dependence on foreign oil, is also the right thing to do. And so Obama is happy to do it.
As for climate change, perhaps he’s similarly holding out for the right moment. He’s still hurting from the 2010 elections, and sees the topic as poisonous given our super-warped political atmosphere. What is infinitely worse than failing to pass carbon-limiting legislation in this presidential term is allowing Republicans to gain control of the Senate, or worse, the presidency, in 2012.
Bob Woodward was on Talk of the Nation yesterday: http://n.pr/hF1Xd2
“Since he took office, President Obama has conducted the gradual withdrawal of American forces from Iraq on the timetable established by President George W. Bush. And after sometimes heated debate among his advisors, he tripled the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
Now, in contrast to his predecessor, he waited for the Arab League to call for a no-fly zone in Libya and followed the lead of France and Britain to get approval from the United Nations Security Council.
Some critics say he dithered and should have taken decisive action earlier. Others argue that the military steps he’s taken don’t match his actual goal of regime change. Still others wonder how he can justify a war to support protesters in Libya and not in Bahrain or Yemen.”
I thought it was an interesting show.
That would be to step aside so the oil
companies could hire security firms to
fight it out over the oil so that innocent
peoples all over the world could enjoy
a temporary ease of lifestyle. Oh, and
accept that he would be blamed for it
being un sustainable.
Ron Paul is the only one speaking out against this nonsense.
Nothing good will ever come from our dropping bombs on Arabs, regardless of which side we have picked as the good guys.
Sudoku is fun because if it is
Played right , there is a correct
answer. Try using a bicycle for
transportation and care for your
footprints upon nature.
The problem that I see is that even if Gaddafi is overthrown the Libyan Nation has been so eviscerated by Gaddafi’s extended rule that any rational progressive replacement will be extremely problematical. The moneyed interests will either gain complete control up front or a puppet ruler will be “Elected” to protect the moneyed interests at the expense of the well being of the people once again.
Gosh did I just describe the recent years of the US? Substitute Bush for Gaddafi, Obama for “Puppet Ruler,” and “moneyed interests” are one and the same. We here on CP are the members of the rebellious crowd that would quickly be dealt with in Libya. Electrodes to the gonads and/or drill bits to the knees would convince most of us to see the error of our ways.
While the ones that are left quietly await on roof tops for “Free World Fighters” to set up a no fly zone so the remainder of us could have a fighting chance to establish a “democracy.” Alas all too late to save Gaia and Humanity in the end…
So it goes…
“Nothing good will ever come from our dropping bombs on Arabs”???
Explain that to the Lybian rebels, and why you think it should be better to let “Arabs” dropping bombs on them…
I’m tired of those who believe in american exceptionalism, and believe that we can and should impose our will wherever we desire. Reports are that we will wind up spending at least 1 billions of dollars on this intervention in tribal civil war. All the while we’re exploring cuts in social security, food stamps, planned parenthood, etc etc etc.
This is just part of that giant sucking sound cause by the military industrial complex, which is siphoning money from average americans and giving it to the rich.
I must say that after all the hope I had while casting my vote for Obama, I now probably won’t vote ever again. The elites do whatever they want, break any law, and there are zero consequences.
Kasra:
Duh. The practice of “holding out” for the 100.00000% perfect moment is exactly what cost him the 2010 midterms in the first place.
Obama may think he’s planning for the long haul, but can one plan for the long haul without making sure that one has a long haul to plan for? As long as he refuses to come up with a clear message stating what on earth’s he up to, he will continue to lose ground.
– frank
Bahrain – The Kingdom has a strong vested interest in Bahrain and we will not militarily oppose the wishes of The Kingdom. Remember, when Libya first erupted we all waited to see how The Kingdom would react…they had no interest.
Yemen – Problem is, as had been true with Egypt, we support the ruling government. We are working diplomatically to quell the violence. Besides, unrest in Yemen will not have much impact on the price of oil.
We have never intervened in Syria’s problems before and I don’t think we will start now. Jordan is a close ally and we will do all we can to support that regime.
Back to Libya. I do think oil was also part of the equation. It makes Libya that much more strategically important but I think it really has more to do with Gadhafi. I really think it was very personal for the Brits, France, and Italy and they were able to persuade our reluctant President to go along. That is only my opinion because I have not heard of any heated negotiations between the Whitehouse and any of those governments. I do however think that we can withdraw anytime the situation becomes shaky. Like the sudden emergence of a rebel leader who is not really the “peoples choice.” As long as it remains an air war we can stop at any time. We just need to have a good excuse ready.
dorveK,
We thought we were the good guys in Iraq and Afghanistan, too, but ended up switching sides almost as often as the natives did.
The only democracy in the Middle East is Israel. There is no evidence that whoever replaces Khadaffi will be any better. There will be many more of these flareups in the Middle East in the future, and protecting our oil supplies is costing way more than conversion to wind and solar would.
Al Quaeda loves all this American cowboy crap, since it drains our resources and increases hatred of us by everyone in the region. We cannot afford these adventures. If we cut half our military budget and used the savings to convert to renewable energy, the whole world could change.
i agree with a friend that countries in disagreement with the united states can read this intervention very simply:
2003: gaddafi agrees to dismantle his strategic weapons
2011: gaddafi is attacked by the united states
i understand that sometimes the desire to act is too strong to resist, or too correct to resist, but in this situation, his government agreed to disarm, and now may be overthrown for it. that’s not a good way to sell nonproliferation.
RE # 1
Kasra
A sometimes difficult pill to swallow:
What is infinitely worse than failing to pass carbon-limiting legislation in this presidential term is allowing Republicans to gain control of the Senate, or worse, the presidency, in 2012.
but, in your face reality nonetheless.
The absolute worse evil to beset America would be the repugs owning the Congress and White House in 2013.
John McCormick
If it isn’t about oil and military presence then I don’t know what is! but Obama says they are beginning to retract for other warring allies to take charge. nothing diff will come out of it than originally planned.
I too does not think this is about oil, because libya supplied italy and other nations. I worry about the safty of the libya nuclear plant and think this is now a opportunity to prepare libya for solar energy, which they could export to europe.
Btw. are there any statistics about uptake of worldwide conflicts?
Since the US only truly cares politically about the Middle East because of its petroleum reserves, it’s hard to justify action in Libya almost as much as action in Sudan or Yemen. However, the US does have a humanitarian interest here. Frankly, Western involvement in Libya is due largely to the fact that the EU does NOT want hundreds of thousands of refugees from Libya spilling into Europe, and the US is supporting them.
I feel that the US should engage with NGO’s to help the rebels set up a civil society and parliamentary government. It would go a long way to winning the favor of a new Arab Twitter generation that has suddenly emerged in the ME. They would not have forgotten that the US and NATO did nothing to help a people’s revolt against that nut-job Caligula. In the long run, the action in Libya has nothing to do with the climate crisis.
MarkR “In the long run, the action in Libya has nothing to do with the climate crisis.”
Ofc it does. If libya decides to deliver electricity and would stop exploring oil. This would be a huge win for the earth and at the same time, they could still collect money from the exported energy. And i see no alternatives to this if you want to combat climate change. The world needs a ban on fossil exploration.
Call me naive but I’m glad we didn’t stand by and allow another Rwanda as we did with Dafur. It’s refreshing to not have US (western imperialist) flags being burnt in effigy and I hope that now other dictators will think twice before they attack their people with impunity when they dare to protest against their rule. Meanwhile…
Libyan Council Forms Government
The Benghazi-based National Transitional Council has taken the step of declaring a government, to be headed by former foreign envoy Mahmoud Jibril http://www.newslook.com/videos/299640-libyan-council-forms-government?autoplay=true
Frank:
I’m by no means excusing the current Obama strategy, but that doesn’t mean he’s not going to keep at it. The WH is in full defensive mode, and in most cases that means avoiding the toughest issues for as long as possible. This is based on the fact that he won’t even utter the words climate change, even when discussing clean energy investment. It’s an issue he won’t touch, because it’s so politically tainted. Why else would he spin green energy as a tech race with China? Isn’t saving the planet also worth discussing? No, because it’s so fraught with political tension that it would destroy his chances at reelection (or so he thinks).
I’m not excusing it, but I think it’s reality. Obama likes to present tough issues on his own terms, and the terms on climate change are very much set.
Sorry, this was about Libya.
4 Times Journalists Held Captive in Libya Faced Days of Brutality http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/world/africa/23times.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
@21: The Times should cosponsor a policy conference with Qaddafi, and various other dictators. Frank Rich could give a talk. Maybe then the world’s dictators would be nicer to the Times’ reporters. They might even score some exclusive interviews or at least sell some ad space.