No you aren't, and no we can't.

~

How long has it taken for me to respond to Warthog's insane column about Libya? In between then and now, Duke Nukem Forever came out. Jesus.

In that time, the Obama administration took Warthog's advice, paused to kill Osama Bin Laden, and now faces down congress over the fact that the campaign in Libya sailed past Obama's promise of "days not weeks," blew a kiss out the window at the 90 days allowed by law, and turned on cruise control as an open-ended proxy war.

Surely commitment got results! I'm scanning for reports of Gaddafi's crushing defeat. Let's see ...

In recent days Nato has intensified its efforts here, with warships firing at Col Gaddafi positions just along the coast, and Apache helicopters targeting heavy weapons near the town of Zlitan.

But the front lines around Misrata have barely moved in weeks. [...]

"They are volunteers not soldiers. But they have heart, and morale, and this is what matters."

As for Nato's performance: "They did their best in the last few days," he says.

"But we need more. And more, and more. We can do our best but we need support from friends."

The current Nato campaign is "not enough."

Ah. Some things are timeless.  

[Read More] 

... Profit! 

The rebels will win of course. If need be, we will drag their carcass to the goal line at the cost of a billion dollars a yard. There will be victory pictures in Le Monde. No one will mourn Mummar Gaddafi, because he is a terrible bastard.

But then what?

When he says "Fuck all of the complexity," what evidence does Warthog present that this rebellion and the people in it will be change Libya (and we) can believe in? When he says it does not matter "who or where the rebels ARE, but [...] what they REPRESENT," does he bother to investigate what they say they REPRESENT? Whether that statement is credible? How this can be divorced from who or where they ARE? 

He presents no evidence and gives no reasons. But I will. Warthog and Bill Kristol and Hillary Clinton and John McCain believe this stuff (or say it) because they want to. Because a simple world has a marvelous quality: White people with laptops can say big things about it. The "complex" world is less supple. Still, we have to live here.

Warthog? Warthog I see you in there. Come back. Your wife is worried.

In this world, when American leaders project Simple onto foreign policy, we get burned. When we look at a global challenge like Communism, or Militant Islam, and project our solutions onto proxy forces, things go to hell slowly. And they stay there. Saddam Hussein was the solution to Khomeini. Gaddafi was a tolerable, bought-off revolutionary. Osama bin Laden was a direct inspiration for Red Dawn.

Warthog gets it backwards:

While it is messy in the short term, supporting what these rebels stand for represents our only long-term solution to the so-called "War on Terrorism."

No. The clean campaign comes first. There are HD pictures from the front lines. Soft-focus stories on Our Rebels in the media. One-note tirades about Great Justice from otherwise intelligent people...

 

Known Unknowns

There is a tactic used by Discovery Institute scientists Michael Behe and David Berlinski. 'Because there are unsolved mysteries, we must believe in God.' Because biochemists or theoretical physicists cannot explain this, at the moment, then you are free to fill that space with your own beliefs.

Warthog's (and general Neocon) logic works the same way. The Lybian rebels don't have a central authority. They come from a closed society. The fog of war persists. We can't prove exactly who they are, yet.

Perfect! They can be the vanguard of people who "have lost their fear, and [...] haven’t embraced Al Qaeda." They can be democratic reformers! Starry-eyed students and petite bourgeois yearning to eat Burger King! They're plucky peasant rebels! They are multi-ethnic secularists! They will welcome us with open arms! 

I'd like to add they have flawless teeth, ride unicorns and take my side in arguments with ex-girlfriends.

Down with Galactic Emperor Gaddafi!

Sadly, what we don't know can hurt us. Here's a veteran journalist on the scene:

But Libya, one of the region’s most closed societies, is very different to its north African neighbors, with no established opposition groups, civil society groups or strong state institutions after 41 years of Colonel Gaddafi’s oppressive rule [...]

Eager for the uprising to be seen as a nationwide and not just an eastern-led rebellion, officials said the [rebel] council would have 30 members (later increased to 31) with representatives from across the country [...]

The opposition’s disorganization and lack of clear leadership structures has been at its most conspicuous with its fighting forces.

Here's another, reflecting on the recent past:

[...] on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, many from the city of Darnah. Others came from Surt and Misurata to the west.

On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge" of young men eager to kill Americans.

So we are in the dark about who exactly makes up this rebel army we're backing, and they can barely speak for themselves. A self-appointed council made up of men abroad (The ambassador to India, a UW professor) is rushing in front of Western reporters to assure us that, once we arm and fight for this group, they will swoop in to make the whole thing national and organized and democratic.

Warthog's dreaming aside, theirs is the bet we're taking. Because like our 30 year saga in Iraq, this story has classic commitment creep. Our few days of airstrikes are already a stream of cash and ammo, special ops training, and round-the-clock warfare on Gaddafi.

When we commit ourself to "liking" the Libyan rebels, conflating their cause with our own, we put our name on several blank checks at once. We promise whatever it takes to help them win. We promise the world a good result. We promise they will govern, and act, and speak, and fight Al-Qaeda, in ways that will justify our investment. We promise to invest in that. 

Why does Warthog believe that investment will pay off?

Because of that council?

 

Our Man

Tom Clancy's fantasies came true! (No, not those! Wash yourself.)

The United States is occupied. The Eastern Alliance has us uneasily under thumb. They need to get our industries moving again, control the highways, and hunt down that high school football team in the hills.

Governing the US from afar, looking for local authenticity, who does the EA appoint as their consultant? 

Probably Roger Ailes.

Self-promoted voice of Authentic America. Head of the largest cable network. Known and loved by the EA's own leaders. Well-connected, well-traveled, and ready to re-make this troubled land in his own image. Their Man in America.

He's a happy collaborator. So long as the EA keep the money coming, believe everything he says about our culture, and back his turf wars. The occupation provides the power Roger's always dreamed of. He can silence his enemies and make this country what it really ought to be.

How terrible a partner is for the Alliance? They never stopped to understand that three million viewers is a drop in the US bucket. They are exposed to a Beltway clique's theories and boasts to be the Voice of Real America, and not to the large, deep, complex character of our people.

Hiding behind the Wall of Order in central DC, the occupiers dispatch paranoid columns of teenagers, to hunt the 250,000 Black Panther commandos Ailes assures them are out there. Handlers insist a killer army of Weathermen are behind every building in Portland, but who's to tell? All the fucking hipsters look alike. Hong Kong-trained interpreters are barely able to understand Minnesotan or Kentucky dialect. When the Michigan Militia ambush a convoy, Ailes assures them it's a trick. That those were Canadian Weathermen in disguise. They need to carry the war to Ottawa, or else that border will be a safe zone for their enemies.

By the way ... as long as you're bombing Canada ... Roger has the man you can trust, to tell you how to run things up there. He, like Ailes, is the Misunderstood Voice of the People! 

Obviously, Ailes is also funding the MM, arming his allies for when he will lead the Uprising, and be hero, and patriot, and President for Life. The occupiers hunt his enemies, his friends hunt the occupiers. Everyone, eventually, needs Roger Ailes. 

Foreign occupation creates a Roger Ailes. Or a King Herod. Or the men American presidents and policy experts have called the real 'voice of their people.'

 

He wants the job. That's a warning.
 

When that mismash of Libyan rebels takes Tripoli, things will get complicated. The people Warthog just "likes" will suddenly become tribes, cliques and families. They will need to govern. 

We are invested in a telegenic, Western-friendly outcome to this conflict. Who can provide that for us? Who will be able to explain to Americans what needs to be done, who we can trust, and who will be the 'real voice' of those plucky rebels we like so much? Who on that  rebel "council" will stand out, take control, give us what we want? 

Someone like this.

Ten years later, when he's led us into a terrible hole, we will be the worst enemies of the Lybian people all over again.

 

Timid Empire

All this happens because the USA is a terrible occupier. We suffer the same handicaps (language, culture, stress on personnel) as anyone else who tries, and then we bind our own legs. And arms. And eyes. 

In the most friendly port, our overseas forces are litigating, compromising, self-exposing and hesitant. In the most hostile country, we bow to brutal rules of engagement. We document our own atrocities. And call them atrocities. When we behave like a real, traditional occupier, we recoil in shame. We bathe local chieftains in money. We buy our way out of war. 

That's awesome. Because we are not Mongols.

Our handicaps reflect the core of our conflict with Al-Qaeda. They stem irreplaceably from a functioning society in which, as Warthog says, a man can

... rant in a newspaper article, organize a petition or a protest ... have your complaint heard in a series of courts ... go to school, find a better job or start your own business ... turn to the church of your choice, and seek spiritual solace.

(Alliterate abusively without being caned in his cajones!)

These points are totally ignored by Warthog as he advocates the USAF and CIA blast into the Lybian desert, and "make the society that they, and we, want to see."

The society that we want to see is not a Libyan society. It is our pluralist, parliamentary, free-wheeling, tie-wearing world. To create that society requires Romanizing you can accomplish with either:

A) Real empire. The kind that doesn't suffer local culture or dirty religious insurgents. That doesn't care what it costs, what anybody thinks, or who gets in the way.

B) Lying. With a tortured, halting, half-occupation that goes on forever, and ties us to bullshit artists and false friends, who will help us lie to ourselves. 

This is how, as they say, the terrorists win. Al Qaeda announced long ago that the plan was to force the Trap of Empire on us. To empty our bank account, stretch us thin, and force us to be the clear face of occupation. It's almost as if someone had encountered the words "heighten" and "contradictions," at some point.

Christopher Hitchens was right to say that the Chomsky/Moore crowd take these points too far, in service of their own fantasies. Warthog is right to say that the "Arab Spring" represents an opportunity to break out of the trap. But in houding Obama to bring the New American Century out for a second act, both misunderstand our chance. 

If Libya is to have a post-Gaddafi future, or Afghanistan a government, it cannot be a U.S. government, with streets patrolled by MPs from Oregon. It cannot be a television future, with paper presidents signing Constitutions enforced by the USAF for the approval of AFP.

It does not work. We have a ten-year demonstration of why it does not work. Wait, did I say ten? How about forty? How about 100? 

The United States will continue to be a great nation, and a clear alternative to the thug-or-mullah cycle, only if it gets out of this racket.

 

"No, we can't, you bloody fools."

Obama has been smart in the details of this operation. He has bound NATO and the UN to our work. He has closed the entire western noose on Gaddafi. He has bought into our escalation slowly, slowly, slowly. He has roped the French to the effort, more tightly than ourselves.

(Dear god is that a false positive. Bizzo must have a "but" coming!)

But. His illusion of control is the same as Warthog's. No matter how deftly we work into a Non-Invasive Intervention / Non-Committal Guarantee of Freedom, we don't control what happens next. And as a non-Mongol non-Empire, our tools for managing chaos are costly and fragile.

There used to be a major space in our discourse for unromantic, historical, vital points like this. Republicans used to say these things. In between their (less well grounded) ethni-panic, some of them still do:

Some children will be left behind. You cannot “remake the Middle East” or “defeat evil.” The poor will always be with us ... Russia will not become Sweden ...
Yes, we can!
No, we can't, you bloody fools.  

(I edit that hard to talk around the ethni-panic. But Seward, Lincoln, Coolidge and others articulated this well before the tradition got stapled at both ends to nativism. In 2011, I think it is a point worth polishing off and saving from Pat Buchanan.)

To escape the Trap of Empire, we must deny our fantasies. That 1946 is forever. That the USMC can be someone else's neighborhood watch. That we can appoint a Chalabi as our King Herod, and make it work. That we can get into a "limited engagement" in which we tie ourselves to one side's victory.

Do I like the Libyan rebels? I don't know them. And neither does Warthog, and neither, if you believe their track record, will the CIA.

But we're their mercenaries now. Except, we pay them! 

Bloody fools.

 

Conclusion

When Warthog says it comes down to whether we "like the Lybian rebels," he's asking us to not consider how little we know, or can know, about these rebels and their long-term goals. To not worry when airstrikes become ammo and cash become CIA "advisors" become green berets, or when 90 days just fly away. When a conflict in which we have a small, uncertain stake becomes one more Arab Street we must win. To defeat Al Qaeda.

But Al Quaeda has been rejected on that Street. They were beaten by their neighbors in Iraq, who presented it to us as a fait accompli. They were kept away by the young, angry people in Egypt and Tunisia, while we still had our chips in with the dictators. They were sold out by informants in Kurdistan and in Pakistan and killed by Special Forces. In the coming weeks they will look down gunsights at other Muslims in Yemen and Syria, and they will probably lose again.

Martyr this.

How does our 50 years of meddling weigh in? If we don't back the Shah of Iran or the Mujahadin, do we ever see 9/11? Do we ever invade Iraq? Once? Twice? Does the Muslim Brotherhood take over the hemisphere, if we don't back Mubarak's repression? Does Gaddafi ever lose his nerve gas without us down the street? Does he ever come to power in the first place, without our Cold War sacntion? 

I don't know. But in 2011, we have enough evidence that:

1) the tide is moving against Al Qaeda and their nihilistic brand of Revolution.
2) we have consistently failed to back the right horses, or occupy these countries effectively.
3) because of commitment creep. our small wars spiral into decades-long imperial adventures.
4) these adventures pull us into a role at which we are terrible, and in which we bankrupt our country, degrade our values, and frequently make things worse.

So when the President appears to tell us about a new "limited engagement" in a far country, in support of one tribal faction, to 'help them gain their freedom,' we shoud

5) not buy those goods.

Congress should keep their spine, hold the Administration to its word, and take control of this conflict.

We should declare that we stopped a massacre, indicted Gaddafi, provided humanitarian aid, and thus, kept our vital obligations to international law. 

That we will welcome a new Libyan government into the fold of functional, free nations. And that such a government must be the Libyan people's to create, and within their power to uphold. 

Then we must leave.

Before we start the cycle over again.

 

But Then What? (Afterthought)

I'm sure there are smart uses for a Rumsfeld-Gates military. China, Iran, Russia and everyone else will not play clean in the worldwide scramble for Oil, or natural gas, or shipping lanes, or fiber-optic cable. Western ideals and institutions are worth defending, and feed our prosperity. There is good reason to keep our Carrier Groups as a gift from the 20th century.

But to use that gift, we must give up the fantasies of empire. Including the idea that we can solve big global problems (Al Qaeda) by burying ourselves elbow-deep in distant civil wars.

This does not prevent us (even the CIA) from seeing a massacre coming in Benghazi, or Sebrenica, or Kigali and using our unique power to prevent it. But the day after we scatter the killers, it must become the duty of the Congo, or the AU, or the EU or of Egypt. The month after that it must start to become the duty of the men on that street. The year after, it must be normal  that the people there will not dig graves with bulldozers.

This is a difficult goal. It requires an effective military, a working network of alliances, good human intelligence, a sharp diplomatic corp, and trust.

Trust that when the USA flies in to enforce our treaties, support our allies, or advance our interests, we will not stay.

Trust that when we say stable trade, real order, and Western standards are our goal, we mean it.

Trust that when we send a volunteer military into a hard campaign, we will give them an achievable mission. That they will not become Redcoats on eternal campaign. Stuck guarding palace-embassies for the dreams of theorists who swear - just one more year! - we all will see the point.

Which is the ultimate result of deciding who we "like," tying our success to their street fight, and giving them the blank check of being our surrogate.

Just say no, kids.