Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Libya, the Obama Administration, and Communication
President Obama addresses the nation on U.S. military operations in Libya Monday night.
The operation started nine days ago. Since then, Obama has faced criticism from Republicans — and some Democrats — for not having stated firm goals, and for not getting congressional approval first.
The speech from the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., will be his first major attempt to explain his thinking.
Sec. Gates said yesterday, correctly, that Libya is not in the vital interests of the United States. He then, added, also correctly, that the United States has (presumably non-vital) interests in Libya and that Libya is part of a greater region in which the United States does, in fact, have vital interests. But the reason Sec. Clinton jumped into the conversation and immediately "clarified" the remarks of Sec. Gates is because she knew he had just committed a Kinsey gaffe*, which is to say he had spoken the truth when, ahem, something else would have perhaps been a better political option.
Vital interests are those interests for which you are willing to bleed. And so if we have no vital interests in Libya, why are F-15 pilots punching out and having to be rescued by Marines? As Steve Biddle argued in an op-ed on Saturday, we have gone to war in Libya not to protect any vital interests but because events in Libya "offend U.S. values [and] threaten peripheral interests."
***
When interests are unclear or peripheral, communicating one's actions is more important than than when interests are clear or vital. The administration has a communications problem on our military intervention in Libya, but it is a communications problem the administration has only half diagnosed.
On the one hand, the administration is rather understandably struggling to explain to the American people why we went to war over something that did not happen. The administration would have gotten plenty of blame had there in fact been a massacre in Benghazi -- a non-event which is, like all non-events, impossible to prove would have happened -- but will not get similar credit for averting disaster. This is unfair, but this is the nature of crisis prevention -- it's more important than crisis response but gets none of the credit because the public cannot see the alternate universe in which you did not act to head off a crisis. Trying to communicate why something terribly dangerous and expensive was necessary when nothing happened is always difficult, and the administration has my honest sympathy in this regard.
On the other hand, the administration has communicated poorly during this crisis, and though I suspect that Obama's aides would agree with that statement, I do not in fact mean that they have not be "out front" with "the administration's message" in the media. Let me explain what I do mean.
I have played competitive team sports all my life, and though I have never been the greatest athlete, I, like Camus**, have learned most of what I have learned in life on the playing field.
One of the things I have learned is the importance of communication. On the playing field, no matter what the sport, you have to be in constant communication with your teammates. And you communicate so that you and your teammates create a shared understanding of your environment, what you want to do in that environment, and how you will collectively respond to adversity in that environment.
Sometimes, as I always tell my teammates, the primary reason I am talking on the field is not so they understand where I am and what I am doing but so I understand the environment and what I am doing. By talking through things to ourselves, we force ourselves to systematically consider our situation and also allow others to interject and tell us where we are wrong or how we need to adjust to something we either cannot see or did not consider.
When the administration went to war in Libya, it did so without talking through the crisis of Libya, its possible responses to the crisis, and the consequences for action or inaction. As a result, nine days into the intervention, we are at war without a clear policy, clearly defined goals, or stated assumptions. Instead, we are at war with a laundry list of activities -- things we are doing, but things untethered to a broader framework.
Although some of the administration's most vociferous detractors have claimed the president "dithered" on Libya, the reality is that the administration deliberated and then acted on Libya in too hasty and too closed a manner. The debate on whether or not we should intervene in Libya was a debate carried out in the highest echelons of the administration but without much outside consultation or opportunity for others to question the validity of the administration's assumptions. And though humanitarian/liberal interventionists and neo-conservatives were, perhaps correctly, warning of dire consequences of immediate inaction, the administration did not go to war following a careful discussion of interests, strategic goals and assumptions about the environment and our capabilities.
The result of all this haste is the situation in which the president finds himself today. However you feel about the president's decision to send more U.S. resources in Afghanistan, when the president did so, those decisions -- in both March and December of 2009 -- followed both deliberate strategic reviews as well as public addresses in which the president explained to the American people why his administration was doing what it was doing. The fact that the president did none of this prior to our military intervention in Libya has resulted in a public confused and frustrated: confused because it is unclear about what we are doing in Libya and frustrated because it knows what we are doing carries with it tremendous opportunity costs in the current financial environment.
*One of Andrew Sullivan's readers spotted one of my more hilarious typos. That's what I get for forgetting an L!
**Camus, once a promising goalkeeper in Algeria, once famously said that "all that I know most surely about morality and obligations, I owe to football."
The criticisms of Obama
The criticisms of Obama vacillating, or dithering, or being in a fog all make no sense to me. His actions are entirely consistent with a plan to watch-and-wait, and react to conditions. After all, we did not start the uprising. Early on, a NFZ did not seem necessary, and then when events turned, it did become necessary -- if you believe that it was necessary to stop a likely bloodbath and to send a message that we (and others) will not stand idly by if the government cracks down. Further, I suspect there actually is some planning and coordination that has to go into a NFZ, contrary to cavalier statements like Gingrich about setting up a NFZ the same night.
Although the right like the theme of weak and vacillating, Obama's actions were consistent with the Weekly Standard (for what that's worth). The WS editorialized against a NFZ, and then a piece by Kristol praised the actions -- but had to mention the dithering and vacillating without any sense of irony. Gingrich would have had it the other way around (NFZ before, but not now), which makes utterly no sense. At least Gingrich has been consistent in that he will be against anything that Obama does.
Warning - rambling, musing
Warning - rambling, musing comment to follow:
1. You are describing the same tendency toward throat-clearing with confusing and contradictory information that we've received on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia - you name the foreign policy question du jour.
2. The Biden gaffe on that morning show (about the troop withdrawal in Afghanistan that he had to clarify) is in the same vein.
3. Why does this seem to be a theme of the Obama foreign policy team? Is the administration itself confused? Who is in charge? Why is there no verbal discipline?
4. I have a funny thought: is it that this is a progressive administration and DC is a progressive town and some people are more apt to let their guard down within that environment? Conservatives are probably distrustful of that environment and might shut up more often.
5. Or is it the now-not-so-new media environment with too much microfocus via blogs, Twitter, tumblr, and all of that stuff that used to interest me but is now boring me, a bit? Hey, I tend to be an early adopter so what does that mean....
6. Hmmm, I'm channeling some more of my possibly crazy, don't-make-sense theories. Or, does any of it have merit?
I think confusing rhetoric probably stems from confusing policy.
I don't know. I am humbled by these events and the foreign policy community in DC must be thrown for a total loop. All that you were taught in all those fancy schools and International Relations programs and whatnot....
What I mean is that I have no frickin' clue what is going on in the Mideast, wish very much that the protests represent genuine movements of liberty (note, I don't say democracy. We should talk liberty and minority rights more often. Too much focus on voting and not enough on how you protect minority rights and prevent tyranny), but as a skeptic I worry that the movements will be hijacked in one way or another. I just don't know. And I bet a lot of people paid to know aren't so sure of themselves, either, but unfortunately they have to keep going to work and getting the job done in this environment.
So, some sympathy for the administration here. But show some discipline, please.
"Libya is not in the vital
"Libya is not in the vital interests of the United States."
After 9/11, there was lots of navel gazing about "why do they (Muslims) hate us" (the US). Answer: Because the West, especially the US, was talking about democracy all the time but in fact supporting dictatorships all over the Middle East.
Supporting the current revolutions, including Lybia, is the best chance for the West since WWII to put it's relationship with middle eastern countries on a new footing. Helping to birth genuine democracies in Northern Africa will do more to secure the Middle East in the long run than the Iraq and Afghanistan missions combined.
Are there risks involved? Sure. Democracies can fail. But wasting this chance by not trying would be worse than a crime imO - it would be incredibly stupid ... (I just hope the Europeans are willing to follow up by helping to establish a modern police force and by investing into the future of these countries ...)
"the reality is that the administration deliberated and then acted on Libya in too hasty and too closed a manner."
How could it have been "too hasty" when the forces of the regime where just about to wipe out the rebels? Hasty, yes - but necessarily so, driven by events, therefore not "too" hasty. In real life, you don't always have the chance to deliberate for months before you act ...
Actually, if I am really
Actually, if I am really being honest I would have to say that I don't have that too much sympathy for this administration.
What I mean is this: I think all of these people were trained in all the late-20th-century-bureaucratic-statisms and secretly thought the old Mideast system would go on forever and ever and ever....or, at least, until the end of their political careers.
Progressivism can be very unprogressive at times. Like expecting 20th century entitlement systems to work in the 21st century :)
Say, reading that NYT piece about Yglesias and the rest. Goodness, I had no idea the prominent bloggers on the left were so young, or were mostly students, until they were bloggers. I thought they were a bit older and at least had worked in something or other for a little bit.
Don't know why that really struck me.
This came to mind. In the
This came to mind.
In the discussion on the Sunday talk shows, Gates and Clinton gave the administration's position on Libya.
One thing that was glaringly MISSING through out the Libya discussion were the American People. It was all about Libya this and Libya that, we care so much for Libya.
Since the mid-term elections, this administration has hardly paid attention to the American People.
Clinton gleefully said, "We are willing to take inputs".
Hillary, are you also willing stay in America long enough to listen? What a crock of crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SkeGC-5gXQ
................Hear that Libya is looking for a new leader, don't come back.
It is
It is interesting...........
If the US is going to extend our "Interests" to the "ME region" as justification for Libya, then why did POTUS piss off the Saudis so bad that they would not accept GATEs and Hillary?
Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt hardly pump enough crude to wet the US whistle !
Some one F'ed Up, it wasn't Gates. If I was an established government in the ME right now, I would be digging very deep hole right now because of the actions of the Obama administration!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuniKsBxZ10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T5Q4i3mvXI
Hear that if you call the Saudi Embassy in Washington, you here this..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG14OkSd8j0
Attacked from the Left Flank
Attacked from the Left Flank - Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2289568/
"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: We're just there to do a job for the Europeans..."
Nice post, Abu. The "vital
Nice post, Abu. The "vital interests" gaffe highlights a truly worrying trend I've noticed among the foreign policy iluminati in this country: EVERYTHING is now considered to be within U.S. vital national security interests. Literally, you pick a country or region and I can point you toward a foreign policy expert, if not an actual government official, who has declared that the situation in country X or region Z is firmly within vital U.S. national interests.
Why have we seen this expansion or "extension" of our national interests? Because then our leaders feel justified in deploying the resources of our government toward "fixing" whatever problem has been observed in country X or region Z. This trend is so crucial and so worrying for exactly that reason: it is the default argument for using taxpayer money to deal with something that MAYBE affects taxpayers indirectly.
I mean, when you have the fucking secretary of defense being immediately walked back by the secretary of state on a simple statement like, "Libya is not a vital interest," something is amiss, both in terms of the government's internal conception of vital interests, as well as how they are being presented to the American people. The foreign policy community needs to remind our government that, unless our country harbors ambitions about becoming a global world order on the model of "Brave New World," we need to clarify our actual vital interests and stop attempting to portray every civil war in another country as though its outcome is vital for John Q. Idiot in Newark, New Jersey.
"I can point you toward a
"I can point you toward a foreign policy expert, if not an actual government official, who has declared that the situation in country X or region Z is firmly within vital U.S. national interests. "
Or in the interest of that FP expert, or govt official. Let's face it we have a Persian Satrapy Govt.
I do love the irony of the Saudi's seeing their Mameluke's turn on them...or at least begin to..
March 28, 2011 Best
March 28, 2011
Best Filibuster Ever
From Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate:
"In January 1923, the Democratic minority in the Rhode Island Senate began a low-intensity filibuster against all major legislation in an effort to force the Republican majority to call for a new constitutional convention. They were aided by a Democratic Lieutenant Governor presiding over the Senate, Felix Toupin, who refused to recognize any Republicans seeking to make motions, except a motion to call for a convention. This conflict reached a peak in June, 1924 when the Rhode Island Senate stayed in continuous session for 22 hours until the Republican majority simply got up and left. Three days later they returned for a 42-hour day-and-night session which began with a mass fistfight over control of the gavel and ended when Republican operatives placed a poison-soaked rag behind Toupin to gas him out of the presiding officer's chair. No one was permanently harmed, but the Republican majority relocated to Rutland, Massachusetts for six months until Republican victories in the 1924 elections put an end to the struggle."
Good post as usual. Have to
Good post as usual. Have to nit-pick on one generalization though: "This is unfair, but this is the nature of crisis prevention -- it's more important than crisis response...."
As important as crisis prevention, by definition, obviously is, the fact that outcomes are unknowable--and bad outcomes are a consequence of good/benevolent interventions--makes crisis prevention, in reality, far less important vis a vis crisis response than it is in theoretical terms. The last decade, arguably, has seen far more calamities, or their unnecessary extensions, based upon poor reaction/responses to disasters--be it manmade or nature-based--than the event(s) themselves.
salaams, O Father of
salaams, O Father of Proselytizers.
Pardon, but Obama is not having a communication problem......you are having an understanding problem.
Obama is just trying to build some some goodwill with the future United States of Islam where he can.
haha and they all have the same RELIGION.
I guess you missed the Egyptian vote. 25% of All the Arabs There Are just voted for shariah law in Egypt.
There are no parallels between Libya and Iraq. You should instead be paying more attention to the parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam. I think we are headed for the Fall of Kabul and a replay of Operation Frequent Wind.
@MikeDC The problem for
@MikeDC
The problem for American interventionism in Syria and Yemen and Jordan, is that those revolutions are all sponsored by branches of the Muslim Brotherhood; Syrian MB in Syria, IAF (the political arm of the MB) in Jordan, and al-Islah in Yemen.
So any democracy that arises post-rebellion will naturally take the form of the MB imbued democracy in Egypt.....islamic democracy.
Do you know the Muslim Brotherhoods slogan?
Islam is the Answer
Gates didn't make a gaffe. He
Gates didn't make a gaffe. He just isn't going to lie to Americans about an operation he didn't even want, especially when he's on the way out of a long career anyway.
To Madhu: it's
To Madhu: it's understandable to be confused, and also to not see a big picture going on. Bush supposedly had a grand vision of democracy*, but we did not withdraw funds from Egypt, or support from Jordan, or Bahrain, or Yemen. But Syria is bad, and Libya was bad, but being courted anyway for the last few years.
Obama, like his predecessors, has inherited a legacy of decades of friends and enemies. But in 2011, events are forcing the US to talke positions, like bombing Libya and saying little about Bahrain.
The cynic might look to Noam Chomsky -- not as in fashion these days, but his approach of viewing foreign policy through the lens of US business interests has got to be at least as valid as through the lens of human rights and democracy.
*Obama seems to have a similar notion. While he generally does not use the word "democracy", he describes as basic fundamental rights the right to have a say in government, faith without persecution, and free speech.
Supporting the current
Positroll
Because supporting a UN resolution condemning the continuation of American/Israeli real estate development into the Occupied Palestinian Terrritories is just totally outside the realm of all possible actions.
***
Representing political alliances, even within parties, as monolithic is no more useful, I conclude, than it is to view global populations in that manner, because of what elements of culture we perceive as shared. Our country is governed by a coalition of factions. Obama went to Brazil; Clinton went to the Middle East.
Or, in other words: Ross? You have got to be kidding me. Agggh.
yhSI87 qxfmgxtkyhop,
yhSI87 qxfmgxtkyhop, [url=http://ziosfnzdqmin.com/]ziosfnzdqmin[/url], [link=http://fzfbvzffflvk.com/]fzfbvzffflvk[/link], http://qridohllozch.com/
Add your comment