Libya
The Libya War argument
Gadhafi's predictable demise no more resolves concerns about the war than Saddam's fall did about Iraq
People celebrate the capture in Tripoli of Moammar Gadhafi's son and one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, at the rebel-held town of Benghazi, Libya, early Monday, Aug. 22, 2011. Libyan rebels raced into Tripoli in a lightning advance Sunday that met little resistance as Moammar Gadhafi's defenders melted away and his 40-year rule appeared to rapidly crumble. The euphoric fighters celebrated with residents of the capital in the city's main square, the symbolic heart of the regime. (AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini)(Credit: AP) (updated below)
In April, 2003, American troops entered Baghdad and Saddam Hussein was forced to flee; six months later, the dictator was captured (“caught like a rat in a hole,” giddy American media outlets celebrated) and eventually hanged. Each of those incidents caused massive numbers of Iraqis who had suffered under his decades-long rule to celebrate, and justifiably so: Saddam really was a monster who had brutally oppressed millions. But what was not justifiable was how those emotions were exploited by American war advocates to delegitimize domestic objections to the war. Even though opposition to the war had absolutely nothing to do with doubt about whether Saddam could be vanquished by the U.S. military — of course he could and would be — the emotions surrounding his defeat were seized upon by Iraq War supporters to boastfully claim full-scale vindication (here’s one of my all-time favorites from that intellectually corrupt genre).
So extreme was this manipulative way of arguing that then-presidential-candidate Howard Dean was mauled by people in both parties when he dared to raise questions about whether Saddam’s capture — being hailed in bipartisan political and media circles as a Great American Achievement — would actually make things better. Dean’s obvious point was that Saddam’s demise told us very little about the key questions surrounding the war: how many civilians had died and would die in the future? What would be required to stabilize Iraq? How much more fighting would be unleashed? What precedents did the attack set? What regime would replace Saddam and what type of rule would it impose, and to whom would its leaders be loyal? That a dictatorial monster had been vanquished told us nothing about any of those key questions — the ones in which war opposition had been grounded — yet war proponents, given pervasive hatred of Saddam, dared anyone to question the war in the wake of those emotional events and risk appearing to oppose Saddam’s defeat. That tactic succeeded in turning war criticism in the immediate aftermath of those events into a taboo (the same thing was done in the wake of Mullah Omar’s expulsion from Afghanistan to those arguing that the war would result in a “quagmire”).
As I’ve emphasized from the very first time I wrote about a possible war in Libya, there are real and important differences between the attack on Iraq and NATO’s war in Libya, ones that make the former unjustifiable in ways the latter is not (beginning with at least some form of U.N. approval). But what they do have in common — what virtually all wars have in common — is the rhetorical manipulation used to justify them and demonize critics. Just as Iraq War opponents were accused of being “objectively pro-Saddam” and harboring indifference to The Iraqi People, so, too, were opponents of the Libya War repeatedly accused of being on Gadaffi’s side (courtesy of Hillary Clinton, an advocate of both wars) and/or exuding indifference to the plight of Libyans. And now, in the wake of the apparent demise of the Gadaffi regime, we see all sorts of efforts, mostly from Democratic partisans, to exploit the emotions from Gadaffi’s fall to shame those who questioned the war, illustrated by this question last night from ThinkProgress, an organization whose work I generally respect:
The towering irrationality of this taunt is manifest. Of course the U.S. participation in that war is still illegal. It’s illegal because it was waged for months not merely without Congressional approval, but even in the face of a Congressional vote against its authorization. That NATO succeeded in defeating the Mighty Libyan Army does not have the slightest effect on that question, just as Saddam’s capture told us nothing about the legality or wisdom of that war. What comments like this one are designed to accomplish is to exploit and manipulate the emotions surrounding Gaddafi’s fall to shame and demonize war critics and dare them to question the War President now in light of his glorious triumph.
Of course, ThinkProgress could have just as rationally directed its question to President Obama’s own Attorney General, Eric Holder, and his Office of Legal Counsel Chief, Caroline Krass, and his DOD General Counsel, Jeh Johnsen, all of whom argued that the war was illegal on the same grounds as Boehner did. Or they could have directed their comment to the numerous House Democrats who vehemently protested the war’s illegality, and to the 60% of House Democrats who voted to de-fund it. Or they could have even directed it to ThinkProgress’ own Matt Yglesias, who repeatedly expressed doubts about both the legality and wisdom of the Libya war, and last night wrote:
Let’s wish the best of luck to the people of Libya. Part of the problem with this intervention has always been that the fall of a dictator seems to me just as likely to lead to a bloody civil war or a new dictatorship as the emergence of a humane and stable regime. The effort to build a better future really only starts today.
Those are among the key questions that remain entirely unanswered. No decent human being would possibly harbor any sympathy for Gadaffi, just as none harbored any for Saddam. It’s impossible not to be moved by the celebration of Libyans over the demise of (for some at least) their hated dictator, just as was the case for the happiness of Kurds and Shiites over Saddam’s. And I’ve said many times before, there are undoubtedly many Libya war supporters motivated by the magnanimous (though misguided) desire to use the war to prevent mass killings (just as some Iraq War supporters genuinely wanted to liberate Iraqis).
But the real toll of this war (including the number of civilian deaths that have occurred and will occur) is still almost entirely unknown, and none of the arguments against the war (least of all the legal ones) are remotely resolved by yesterday’s events. Shamelessly exploiting hatred of the latest Evil Villain to irrationally shield all sorts of policies from critical scrutiny — the everything-is-justified-if-we-get-a-Bad-Guy mentality — is one of the most common and destructive staples of American political discourse, and it’s no better when done here.
UPDATE: Former MSNBC Donahue producer Jeff Cohen, in his book “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media,” documented the following from MSNBC in April, 2003, as U.S. forces entered Baghdad:
On April 10, three weeks into the war which he portrayed as mission accomplished, [Joe] Scarborough delivered a wacky commentary demanding that “disgraced” war skeptics like Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kucinich admit that “their wartime predictions were arrogant . . . misguided . . . and dead wrong.” This on a show in which he spoke of Iraq possessing WMD. Scarborough was gleeful that antiwar “elitists” like Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and Janeane Garofalo were facing cancellations and boycotts. [Michael] Savage joined the conversation to say that “Hollywood idiots” are “absolutely committing sedition and treason.” Scarborough responded, “These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass. Isn’t it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views?“
With Gadaffi reportedly on the verge of falling, there certainly is a lot of similar chest-beating and boastful demands that war critics confess their shameful error — as though anyone ever doubted that Gadaffi would fall — and it all seems every bit as premature and manipulative as this April, 2003, orgy of self-celebrating war dances that took place on the MSNBC precinct of The Liberal Media.
Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald. More Glenn Greenwald.
How to stop the bleeding
A year after Chris died, I was still shocked by how little I knew about being in combat zones. It was time to learn
The author with his friend Chris Hondros, right, who died in Libya in 2011. (Credit: Nicole Tung) A tourniquet is a simple tool, but I found it practically impossible to deal with when I needed it the most. Slickened with blood, the inch-wide Velcro-backed webbing slid through my gloved hands like a wet snake when I tried to pull it tight. In an adrenaline panic fueled by the sound of gunfire and explosions, I hadn’t noticed that it had twisted under Darryl’s heavily bleeding leg, giving the Velcro nothing to grab when I was finally able to cinch it down. I needed to sort it out fast, or my colleague was going to die.
Continue Reading CloseGreg Campbell's new book is called "Pot, Inc.: Inside Medical Marijuana, America's Most Outlaw Industry." He is the author of "Flawless: Inside the Largest Diamond Heist in History," "Blood Diamonds: Tracing the Deadly Path of the World's Most Precious Stones" (the source material for the Leonardo DiCaprio movie of the same name) and "The Road to Kosovo: A Balkan Diary." Campbell is also an award-winning journalist whose his writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal Magazine, The Economist, The San Francisco Times, Paris Match, and The Christian Science Monitor, among others. He lives in Fort Collins, CO. More Greg Campbell.
Libya’s escaped criminals
As the new government tries Gadhafi loyalists, thousands who fled jail during the revolution arm themselves
In this Saturday, Feb. 24, 2012 photo, a fighter loyal to the former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi argues with the prison guards in Gherian, Libya (Credit: AP Photo/Manu Brabo) TRIPOLI, Libya — At the height of the Libyan uprising, the country’s prisons were in chaos.
Hundreds of guards had left their posts to help control the streets. Others simply fled for fear of reprisals by a population angry after four decades of oppression.
By Feb. 15 of last year, about a month into the uprising, the doors at most of the country’s prisons and jails began to swing open, allowing thousands of criminals to flee.
Continue Reading CloseWhen I was captured by Gadhafi’s forces
After the Libyan rebels we were embedded with came under fire, we became hostages of the regime VIDEO
Libyan rebels head towards the front line outside the eastern town of Brega, Libya Friday, April 1, 2011 (Credit: AP) There is a single main highway along which lies every major city between the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the east and the capital Tripoli in the west. It snakes along the coast and passes through Ajdabiya, Brega, Sirte and Misrata, cities made world famous by months of back and forth, and deadly, conflict.

The four of us were riding in the back of a blazing red minibus at the beginning of April, approaching the strategic oil town of Brega, where the worst fighting of the conflict had been taking place. Our driver was a teenage boy, like his friend in the passenger’s seat. The so-called front in this war was always changing. But we had already passed the last rebel checkpoint and we knew whatever front existed was beginning to reveal itself.
Scandal-prone GOPer resurfaces in Gadhafi scheme
Operative who once worked for Michael Steele's troubled RNC reportedly tried to get a gig with the Libyan dictator
Michael Steele and Moammar Gadhafi (Credit: Reuters/AP) The New York Times has a must-read story today about a motley group of American political operatives who tried to get a $10 million consulting contract with Moammar Gadhafi earlier this year. Depending on who you ask, the plan was to either help Gadhafi cling to power, or to find him refuge in a friendly Arab country.
It turns out one of the operatives reportedly involved in the failed scheme has a history of getting caught up in scandals, and his hiring by the Republican National Committee last year helped discredit then-chairman Michael Steele.
Continue Reading CloseJustin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica. You can follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More Justin Elliott.
Polygamy in Libya — and beyond
As the country's interim leader makes plural marriage easier, a look at the practice in reality versus theory
Mustafa Abdel Jalil (Credit: Reuters) A collective face-palm could be heard throughout the Western world when Libya’s interim leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil announced that he was overturning Gadhafi-era restrictions on polygamy. However, from a certain liberal American perspective, the idea of plural marriage doesn’t seem so outrageous.
As Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, argued in a New York Times Op-Ed this summer, “Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith.” Indeed, the ongoing U.S. battle over marriage equality has highlighted the injustice that can arise when the state sanctifies certain unions and forbids others – all on religious and moral grounds. And while the Warren Jeffs trial brought attention to the dangers of cloistered polygamist societies in a major way, there are also normalizing examples at hand, albeit on TV via “Big Love.” In such a context, it can seem a basic issue of the freedom to define our families for ourselves.
Continue Reading Close
Tracy Clark-Flory is a staff writer at Salon. Follow @tracyclarkflory on Twitter. More Tracy Clark-Flory.
Page 1 of 53 in Libya
