Libya, interests and the use of force

By Dave Anderson:

A month ago I argued that the United States should realize that it has very few core interests, and that most events, regions, and disputes in the world are not among those core interests.  Secondary interests should have a much higher bar to clear before the United States commits military force to a particular arena:

the major American interests; territorial integrity, a reasonably stable European core, a reasonably stable East Asian littoral and open sea lanes. Everything else is at least a secondary interest including who in particular is selling the United States its oil, and what forms of government distant nations have. The overall DoD budget would shrink significantly as expensive aviation is de-emphasized and mission scope is dramatically reduced to align with actual core interests instead of identifying everything as a critical American interest. These interests are not irrelevant, but they are not vital interests. Main body or large scale commitment of military force should be reserved for critical interests. Anything else is the engagement of force, treasure and attention in the pursuit of expensive luxuries...

Michael O'Hare at the Reality Based Community is arguing that the United States and France, the two major Medittarrean naval powers should militarily intervene in Libya as the first step in establishing or entrenching a new global norm:

I cannot understand that we and the French need more than about an hour to inform Ghaddafi that all military air operations will stop at once, either by orders from him or by force from the Sixth Fleet: that we did not sell him these toys to kill his people with.  We have bombed Ghaddafi�s headquarters in the past, and it would not be out of order to light it up again if the killing doesn�t stop...

Maybe it�s time to revisit the rule that oil belongs to whoever happen, through no effort of their own, to live on top of it, and make possession and disposition of natural resources conditional on compliance with basic principles of humanity and decency.

 

Right now the Quaddafi regime in Libya is in its death throes as major components of its support base have defected or have decided to sit out the current conflict. It is dying in a spasm of violence. However that violence is no worse than a bad week in Baghdad, 2007; it is not system destabilizing violence. 

There are many other ways the United States can side with Quaddafi's opponents without committing scarce military, and diplomatic resources.  The easiest and the cheapest is to begin broadcasting on every available frequency and web-channel the movement of Libyan government forces that are observed by US surveillance aircraft operating in international air space, or spotted by American satellites.  The next is to sic the lawyers and accountants on regime cash flows with an offer that if Quaddafi and his inner circle agree to go into exile, they get to keep $3 billion dollars that they have siphoned overseas if they leave tomorrow, and $2.9 billion if they leave on Thursday and $2.8 billion if they leave on Friday.....

There are numerous other levers that the United States could manipulate to advance our interests of system stability while supporting the protesters without direct military intervention.  And those are the levers that a secondary interest such as a civil war in Libya the United States should use.  Not everything everywhere is a vital American interest. 

The more disturbing argument advanced is the idea that only US/UK/French approved regimes should be able to sell and profit from oil.  Using this argument, the US should start preparing to invade Russia as it is an autocratic regime that greatly benefits from its happenstance of sitting atop of massive oil reserves which it uses to fund internal repression.  It is an argument that is a slightly reworked argument that we have to invade Iraq for the Iraqis own good and we'll be greeted with chocolate, flowers, parades and plenty of virgins throwing themselves at their brave liberators. 

Yes, there are some totally sucktastic regimes in rentier economies based on natural resource extraction.  However, it is not the burden of the United States to bomb, beseige and occupy those nations for their own good.  Establishing links, enhancing connectivity and creating incentives (both positive and negative such as my $100 million dollar a day exile tax) for governance change can be appropriate policy; not military intervention. 

Not every trouble spot, front page crisis du jour or conflict is a vital American interest.  And right now, Libya is not a vital American interest.