'Don't arm Libya's rebels!'

Via FLC

"... Bout’s case is one way to enter the debate—apparently under way within the Obama Administration—over whether to arm the Libyan rebels who are seeking to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi. Under what doctrine or posture might the Administration prosecute Viktor Bout on the one hand and, on the other, provide weaponry to ragtag Libyan rebels whose principles, capacity, training, discipline, and understanding of international human-rights norms seem so doubtful—and may prove to be no better than those of many of Bout’s alleged African clients?

The rationale for French, British, and American intervention in Libya was humanitarian. Qaddafi said he would slaughter Benghazi’s citizens; he had the means and opportunity to do so; he had a track record that suggested his rhetoric should be taken seriously. In those circumstances, intervention under international law was justified. I thought President Obama was right to act, notwithstanding the ambiguity of the case and the obvious problems involving what to do next, after Benghazi was protected.

Now the Administration’s policy may be migrating toward the idea of supplying the rebels with weapons. Yet the rebels have as yet no command and control; they serve a political entity (if that is not too generous a way to describe the councils that have been set up in eastern Libya) that is recognized as legitimate by France alone. There is no way to police the rebels’ conduct or to hold them accountable for their actions on the battlefield. It is not clear what the rebels are fighting for, other than survival and the possible opportunity to take power in a country loaded with oil.

It might be justifiable to arm the rebels if that were only way to achieve the humanitarian objectives of the intervention. Yet there isn’t any evidence that it would be necessary to do so to defend Benghazi as a sanctuary. It seems clear that Benghazi can be defended from the air by NATO, even if that requires enforcing “no-drive” zones occasionally. That may be expensive and the aerial operations may last longer than American or European publics might wish, but if those are the decisive points then the intervention should not have been undertaken in the first place and Benghazi’s civilians should have been left to their fate; the high cost and indefinite duration of the aerial intervention was completely predictable. It cannot be policy to protect the lives of tens of thousands of Libyan civilians only if the intervention meets certain standards of cost effectiveness from week to week..."

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 11:41 AM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian