By William Saletan
Your sons and daughters in Libya fighting for France.
Yesterday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates went on the Sunday shows to defend the U.S. military intervention in Libya. They emphasized its humanitarian motives noting repeatedly that Muammar Qaddafi had vowed to crush his domestic adversaries with no mercy. But under interrogation Gates and Clinton exposed whats really driving our participation in the Libya campaign: the wishes of other governments.
On This Week Jake Tapper asked Gates: Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States? Gates answered It was not a vital national interest to the United States but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about: the engagement of the Arabs the engagement of the Europeans the general humanitarian question … On Meet the Press David Gregory asked why were committing military resources if Libya isnt a vital U.S. interest. Clinton responded by citing other considerations:
Do the Libyans have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration? And you know David that raises a very important point. Because you showed on the map just a minute ago Afghanistan. You know we asked our allies our NATO allies to go into Afghanistan with us 10 years ago. They have been there and a lot of them have been there despite the fact they were not attacked. The attack came on us as we all tragically remember. They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya we started hearing from the U.K. France Italy other of our NATO allies. This was in their vital national interest. The U.K. and France were the ones who went to the Security Council and said We have to act because otherwise were seeing a really violent upheaval with a man who has a history of unpredictable violent acts right on our doorstep.
In short attacking Libya was the Europeans ideanot just for moral but for self-interested reasonsand were going along to pay them back for helping us in Afghanistan.
When Clinton tried her humanitarian shtick on Face the Nation Bob Schieffer pointed out that we arent attacking Syrias ruling family which has massacred many thousands of dissidents. To this Clinton could only answer Well if there were a coalition of the international community if there were the passage of a Security Council resolution if there were a call by the Arab League if there was a condemnation that was universal …
In other words morals alone wont move us to attack. Well do it only if other nations care.
When Tapper asked the same questionwhy were attacking Libya but not Syria or the Ivory CoastClinton argued Theres not an air force being used. There is not the same level of force. The situation is significantly different enough that the world has not come together.
The no-air-force claim may be true of the present crackdown in Syria. But in 1982 Syrias ruling family used its air force to bomb a rebellious city and then sent in tanks and ground troops to complete the massacre. Amnesty International estimated the death toll at 10000 to 25000. In the current Libyan crisis by comparison Amnesty reported a week ago It is clear that hundreds have died in Libya since unrest began. This has included people deliberately killed killed as a result of excessive or indiscriminate use of lethal force those who were caught in the ongoing armed conflict and as a result of human rights abuses.
Thats hundreds versus thousands. So a regimes level of violence against its citizens obviously doesnt drive our military decisions. Nor does the use of air power to slaughter civilians. What has drawn us into Libya but not Syria is the last thing Clinton mentioned: The world has not come together to call for action in Syria or the Ivory Coast. Fatalities and air power dont matter unless they produce international support for intervention.
Each of these situations is different said Clinton. But in Libya when a leader says Spare nothing show no mercy and calls out air force attacks on his own people that crosses a line that people in the world had decided they could not tolerate.
The key phrase isnt no mercy or air force. Its they could not tolerate. Not we but they. Were outsourcing our standards for intervention.
Thats why our role in the Libya mission is so limited. This project isnt our baby. Were doing it for the Europeans. As Clinton put it:
NATO assuming the responsibility for the entire mission means that the United States will move to a supporting role. Just as our allies are helping us in Afghanistan where we bear the disproportionate amount of sacrifice and the cost we are supporting a mission through NATO that was very much initiated by European requests joined by Arab requests.
So the good news is that exposure of U.S. forces in Libya will be carefully restricted. The bad news is the reason for this restriction: Were just there to do a job for the Europeans.
That doesnt mean were insincere about the moral case for intervention. But it does mean that ultimately were basing our military decisions on the wills of other governments. In fact the Obama administration appears to be taking this idea one step further. Tapper asked Clinton to reconcile the Libya mission with two quotes from 2007. One was Obamas: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. The other was Clintons: If the administration believes that anyanyuse of force against Iran is necessary the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
Yesterday looking back Clinton explained the discrepancy this way: I dont think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.
In other words when the mission is internationally authorized the president doesnt have to consult Congress.
Im no Tea Partier but that sure sounds like a substitution of foreign for congressional authority. Its worse than outsourcing. Outsourcing is when you hire somebody abroad to do what you want. In Libya were doing the opposite. Were hiring ourselves out to do what somebody abroad wants. Were providing what Gates calls our unique capabilitiesscores of Tomahawk missiles tanking equipment surveillance and reconnaissance systemsto an international coalition whose authority somehow replaces consultation with our elected representatives.
I dont see any basis for that in the text or spirit of the Constitution. And when many of the regimes being consulted arent exactly democratic themselves I wonder where this doctrine of deference will lead us.
