The Conversation: Libya

Kevin: Here are the Pew poll statistics about how the public views the conflict in Libya: 47% think airstrikes were the right decision, 60% believed involvement in Libya would last "for some time," 39% thought the U.S. coalition lacked a coherent goal, with 46% opting for Gaddafi's ouster and only 43% voting to focus more on civilian protection.

I have a few questions, Harry, but they all pertain the effectiveness of the United States' operations there. How can we be so sure that our involvement will be brief when we have a tendency for setting new records on our nation's longest wars? And how can we be sure that a multilateral effort will not become dysfunctional under an incoherent agenda?

Harry: Involvement in a situation like this cannot be 'brief,' as in six months of operations. However, military involvement can be brief, as we have the resources to move quickly and crush Gaddafi. We also have an obligation to protect civilians, and we can do that by removing Gaddafi. Our efforts at the present time will allow for a stalemate. What about all the civilians under Gaddafi's rule? We must protect them as well. Anyhow, back to my main idea, after Gaddafi is removed from power, we can progressively scale down our military involvement until we leave the area under its new government. Our agenda has been defined under various United Nations resolutions. But, those goals need to be expanded.

Kevin: We sort of had the same 'progressively-scaling-down-military-involvement' mentality in Iraq, except it took us 8 years to scale down there. Aren't these in-and-out military operations much more complex than they seem? Remember the fiasco during the Somali Civil War/Operation Gothic Serpent? On the other hand, the 1999 bombing campaigns on Yugoslavia were enough to pull Yugoslav troops out of Kosovo and to end a genocide--overall, a successful 3-month campaign despite many civilian casualties. Anyway, back to my original point, these operations are wild cards; they can go either way, often with unintended consequences.

Harry: Gothic Serpent did not go well mainly because of (I'm talking about the Battle of Mogadishu here) improper air support. We have a large coalition backing us here. We can pull off military involvement (what I meant by the 'six months' thing) very quickly. To respond to your other point, all military actions have 'unintended consequences' in some way. In fact, all international actions have these. We can foresee some of the ripples that this involvement will make. We cannot foresee others. But, that does not mean we should not do anything.

Kevin: Sure, we have a lot of manpower and might be able to pull this off in six months or under. But what is meant by 'this': deposing Gaddafi or protecting civilians? Or do they go hand in hand?

Harry: I feel that deposing Gaddafi and protecting civilians do go hand in hand, as Gaddafi is the one attacking civilians in the first place. He also has civilians in his areas, and he will try to engage them in some way. Gaddafi will also wait for the UN to move on to other matters, and then just attack the rebels again. So, if we do not finish the job now, it will come back and bite us.

Kevin: So how do you think this will all play out? Is it like David Brooks says, that Gaddafi could be deposed in three different ways: by being defeated by the rebel army, by voluntarily exiling himself before he gets killed, or by his own minions defecting and leading to the collapse of his entire regime?

Harry: Option number one will not happen now. It could have happened about two weeks after the start of the rebellion. It would be problematic for us if Gaddafi exiles himself, as he is a known terrorist supporter and leader, so I think we will take measures to prevent that from occurring. The third option is the most viable. Gaddafi's lieutenants and mercenaries will stop fighting for him, and either run away or defect. This can occur rather quickly, if we show the proper amount of force.

Kevin: Rather quickly, you say? 200 Tomahawks have been fired already, 193 from the United States. (Talk about equally shared efforts in a coalition. What can you do?) We're also bombing the Libyan army to smithereens and attacking their psyches with radio transmissions telling them that there is little hope in favor of Gaddafi. As Admiral Gortney said recently, "Our message to the regime troops is simple: Stop fighting, stop killing your own people, stop obeying the orders of Colonel Gaddafi."

Harry: This seems rather quickly to me. Yes, we do take a good deal of the costs, but, like you said, it's either that, or nothing gets done. Gaddafi's military will fall apart in about six months or less. Once he cannot pay his men, most of the remaining ones will defect.

Kevin: So what happens after we get rid of Gaddafi? Democracy doesn't just instantly blossom; it takes years of cultivation as we see in Iraq. As the New York Times' Ross Douthat explains, "Twice in the last two decades, in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, the United States has helped impose a no-flight zone. In both cases, it was just a stepping-stone to further escalation: bombing campaigns, invasion, occupation and nation-building."

Harry: After we remove Gaddafi, we will be able to scale down our military involvement in the situation. After Gaddafi, help must be provided to the Libyans to properly rebuild their nation. But, that will take less money. At that stage, the only military forces there would be involved in reconstruction and aid operations.


Kevin: Less money? Really? Each troop currently deployed in Afghanistan costs $1 million per year. Isn't nation-building usually the most expensive part about this? I thought it took more money and more time.