Premature Calls for Intervention

The realpolitik doesn’t justify a military intervention in Libya yet.

Sanctions, blocking financial accounts, embargoes, ejection from the U.N. Human Rights Council and an investigation by the International Criminal Court of possible crimes against humanity — nearly every diplomatic avenue against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime has been exhausted, and still the killing in Libya goes on. The dictator isn’t considering stepping down, and his opponents aren’t strong enough yet to win the civil war they’re waging against him. The status reports two weeks into the Libyan uprising still read: a bloody stalemate.

Does this situation justify a military intervention in Libya? And would such an intervention make sense or even be possible?

These questions may be answered with burning emotions or with a cool head. Idealists push for an intervention without delay; those who must observe the realpolitik and refrain from making decisions based on conscience arrive at differing conclusions as to what steps are necessary. Intervention demands political will, military capability, clearly defined tactical goals and, above all, an exit strategy. Action plans for Libya run into difficulties on all those considerations.

Politically, there is no unity for a military intervention. The United States and a few of its allies are keeping all options on the table. Russia, China, India, Turkey and, last but not least, the Arab nations are against it. Under these circumstances, the necessary U.N. Security Council resolution to intervene is hard to imagine even if the “responsibility to protect” resolution (in which the U.N. permits actions against a government that attacks its own people) is invoked.

A unilateral intervention by the United States or NATO, on the other hand, is militarily feasible but politically very risky. Because setting a no-fly zone over the coastal area between Tripoli and Benghazi is considered by most military experts to be of minimal effectiveness, it would be necessary to intervene using ground troops. If the United States or NATO puts troops on the ground in Libya, the U.S. or the NATO alliance would become a party to war and inherit all the responsibility for the civilians in the occupied territories.

Such U.S. involvement — and Washington would be the major military player in any case — is not politically possible at present. Americans are already questioning the wisdom of their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should Gadhafi’s thugs resort to some horrible atrocity like the use of chemical weapons, or should a takeover of the entire nation by radical Islamists threaten (Hillary Clinton described that scenario as Libya “becoming a giant Somalia”), American public opinion might change from the current preference to abstain from intervention. But it would still be unclear how quickly the United States could shed its duties as an occupying power.

Of course, these are all theoretical deliberations at a time when innocent people are dying in Libya. But they have to take place nevertheless because not everyone is in Austria’s cozy position of never having to make the tough decisions before sending soldiers into Libya. That’s something war-hungry kibitzers such as Rudolf Burger* need to consider here at home.

*Translator’s note: Rudolf Burger is a controversial Austrian philosopher often critical of government actions.