The Goal in Libya

Much has been made lately about what our "goal" is concerning the military action in Libya. Obama has stated that Gadhafi has got to go. But he's also stated that this is a humanitarian intervention and not a regime change action. I guess we'll get the details on Monday during his speech. As far as pragmatism goes here's my take on it.

Our goal is apparently to simply negate Gadhafi's significant advantages in the realms of (1) air power, (2) armor, and (3) command and control. Calling this a no-fly zone makes point 1 obvious -- since Gadhafi can attack via helicopters and planes with impunity, we are there to negate that advantage. When we consider the targets that have been reported by the press, we can see that this is more than just a no-fly zone. Tanks and other armor have been targeted as well. Those don't fly. Obviously we aren't just worried about a no-fly zone. The resistance does not have many (if any) armored assets. We've also targeted his own compound and other infrastructural buildings. The resistance themselves have commented on their difficulties in organizing especially between cities.

I agree on the importance of having a clear goal in a mission. I also realize that this is a difficult thing to articulate in situations of extreme dynamics with the risk of massive civilian deaths. So in some cases I can let the clear goal slide. I don't think, however, that our job should be simply to level the playing field. If our goal was humanitarian intervention, our targets would be limited to ones that threatened humanity. But now that things are becoming clearer, it is also becoming more apparent that this intervention is not justified.

Just War and Libya

This is a tough one. First, there's some considerable differences between Libya and both Iraq and Afghanistan. Concerning a legitimate authority, Libya is the only one of the three to show that there is a resistance force capable of self-governing at least parts of the country. If it weren't for this, the resistance itself would not be legitimate. The second side of the legitimacy issue is who authorized the "no fly zone." In this case, it went through the UN with a vote of 10-0 with China and Russia abstaining. That is pretty substantial. This is the sort of multilateral effort that was lacking certainly in Iraq and to a degree in Afghanistan.

Considering just cause, the waters get a little more murky. Sure, defending unarmed civilians is a great cause, I'm just not sure if it merits millions of dollars worth of aircraft, logistics, and cruise missiles. The word "genocide" has been tossed around as well. I admit not knowing a lot about the population of Libya, but can it really be considered a genocide? Are the resistance fighters of a specific race or ethnicity? Not sure. "Massacre" or "bloodbath" would seem more accurate. Do we have a responsibility to prevent massacres and bloodbaths? I suppose so. But this no-fly zone seems to have been pushed more by European nations than by the US. France especially appeared the most hawkish. Which begs the question. While a blog isn't an academic publication, I do like to cite when I'm able. This next tidbit I can't though. Probably some NPR show -- Europe is more dependent on Libyan oil than the US because Libyan oil is chemically better for diesel (Europe uses a much higher % of diesel than the US). This might be a small cause and would definitely be unjust, but I think there's a bigger issue at hand -- refugees and immigrants. Continental Europe already has huge problems with Muslim immigrants. France and Italy especially. Given these two countries' geographic location compared to Libya, I could see this being a greater cause than any aversion to massacres. Just cause, in my opinion, is not met.

Last resort is a toughy. In a situation that is so rapidly developing and amorphous, it's very hard to tell what other options might have been pursued. It definitely felt like Gadhafi was on his last leg about a week ago. Could the world's leaders have either persuaded or coerced him to step down when his position seemed bleakest? Possibly. I suppose we'll know in 15 years when "True Hollywood Stories" takes up the issue. Last resort is going to have to be a push for me. Not enough information on hand right now (unfortunately I don't have to time to research it any more).

So, is the action over the weekend in Libya justified under the "rules" of Just War? I'm not really sure. I'd lean towards "no." But I am heartened at the multilateral cooperation and specifically the reliance on the UN. In this respect, I can state confidently that whether or not this action is justified, (and this next part admittedly is irrational -- in a "yes" or "no" question you can't have "less of a no") it is more justifiable than Iraq or Afghanistan.

James Burke is Awesome

This Foucault class got me thinking about James Burke again and his series "Connections." I saw this back when I was in High School and it was running on TLC (back when TLC had LEARNING shows -- go figure). Burke's view of history is very similar to Foucault's -- there are so many seemingly random events that come together in history that there is no way to portray history on a linear timeline, much less any way to accurately predict what might happen in the future. Here's a link to it in case anyone is interested in learning more about the series. It's a DVD set and a book. Connections

I'm going to use two quotes from the first episode in my paper on the financial crisis. Burke's illustration of the technological trap can be expanded by Foucault's notion of "technology" where it isn't related only to scientific advancements, but also social, structural, power, etc. advancements that work on us. Anyways, the quotes:

And as the years of the 20^th century have gone by, the things we take for granted have multiplied way beyond the ability of any individual to understand in a lifetime. The things around us, the man-made inventions we provide ourselves with, are like a vast network each part of which is interdependent with all the others . . .. Change anything in that network and the effects spread like ripples in a pond. And all the things in that network have become so specialized that only the people involved in making them understand them.

Yea, welcome to post-modernism!

And the technological trap:

This is one of the more perfect examples of the of the kind of technological trap that we set for ourselves: the lift, the elevator; I mean, what is this? It's a steel box with some buttons in it and maybe a trapdoor for emergency. But whoever looks that close except when this happens [lights go out]: Where is it? And even in this situation, closed in, with an escape route that we can't handle, we behave like many of those New Yorkers did: we strike a light and we look around to see how badly things are. And, if we find in this case an emergency button, absolutely great; we sit back, and we wait for help to come. We wait for technology to come back and save our lives, because it's inconceivable that it won't isn't it? I mean if you admit that, you've got to admit that every single day of your life, in some form or other, you unconsciously walk yourself into a technology trap, because that's the only way to live in the modern world.