Putting a Weak Horse Out of Its Misery

    Politicians and political operatives tend to be hawks or doves. A term of journalistic art for left-wing hawks: “liberal internationalists”; for right-wing hawks: “neo-conservatives.” I find the terms of historical art invented by Walter Russell Mead to be illuminating: one might refer to left-wing hawks as Wilsonians, to right-wing hawks as Jacksonians, except that neo-cons properly so-called are Wilsonians. Left-wing doves, to channel Mead’s taxonomy again, might be referred to as Jeffersonians, right-wing doves as Hamiltonians. For an overview of Mead’s spectrum, go here.

    President Obama has declared war on Muammar Gaddafi on the basis of humanitarian concerns. He has dressed himself up as a Wilsonian. In my view, he does so in good faith. Many academicians assume Obama is like them a Jeffersonian, but there is little evidence beyond campaign rhetoric for that. Obama has often noted his debt to Reinhold Niebuhr, a Wilsonian during WW 2 and the Cold War. In his Oslo speech Obama took pains to develop a just war doctrine.

    Will the same alliance in the American polity that propelled the US to topple Saddam Hussein – a three-way of Wilsonians, Hamiltonians, and Jacksonians - succeed in toppling Gaddafi? The current administration does not have the best track record when it comes to establishing benchmarks and attaining them.  Still, taking down Geddafi should not be that different from putting a weak old mare out of her misery.

    Another question: will the same alliance stick together in the messy aftermath of this military adventure? After all, the so-called Pottery Barn rule will apply: “you break it; you keep it.”

    All things considered, though at great cost to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, things have worked out well in Iraq but not so well in Afghanistan. How will they work out in Libya? They could work out at least as well as they have in Iraq, in light of the cultural, political, and economic givens of Libya. On the other hand, the most basic rule of war is the following: what can go wrong will go wrong.

    For background to date on the enfolding events: go here; discussion here. 

Comments

[Angela Erisman]

I have an American friend who lives in Iraq who, based on what she sees on the ground, would dispute the notion that "things have worked out well in Iraq."

[JohnFH]

That's a fair point.

The general rule for Iraq is that Kurds and Shia are, objectively speaking, in a far better place than they were during the Saddam era, or at least, as is now true in South Africa for the black majority, they now have mostly themselves to blame for things not going as well as they would like.

The Sunni and the Christians however, since they have lost the privileges they had under the old regime, may well regard the Saddam era as the good 'ol days.

In fact, many Sunni have yet to return and may never return. Return to what? The Iraq they knew, with an "uncle" in charge, no longer exists.

[Nell 4]

I was deployed overseas to Iraq in 2009-2010 and with all the stories I have heard I was expecting for the worse. When I went on my first mission outside of the wire life around me was calm and that made me wonder. But it didn't take long for me to realize that with all the controversy and wars that went on their, it comes with time for everything to get better. I know from 2003-2007 those were some tough years for Iraq. I can't say Iraq is perfect now, because honestly no country is perfect. As for Afghanistan and Libya it will be sooner or later for the countries to calm back down. It’s really all about establishing the problem and finding a concrete solution. As you can see for Iraq that took years, but now for the most part they are doing well as whole, because it’s very rare you hear them on the news. No country is the same and all have different problems, it’s all about trial and error.

[Chariots of Fire 5]

John,

Why do you consider, “…taking down Geddafi should not be that different from putting a weak old mare out of her misery”? Are you trying to say that Geddafi is so weak that it would be nothing to take him down, or do you mean whether it is ethical or not to declare war?