THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIII, Issue # 67, March 10, 2011
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
BACK TO THE SHORES OF TRIPOLI?
By Dr. Daniel Pipes
A QUESTION PROMPTED BY RECENT FIGHTING IN LIBYA: SHOULD U.S. TROOPS BE DEPLOYED TO LIBYA IN ORDER
TO FIGHT A GROUND WAR AGAINST & ASSIST IN THE OVERTHROW OF MU'AMMAR AL-QADDAFI'S TYRANNICAL REGIME?
THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN ENDEAVORING TO MAINTAIN A NO-FLY ZONE OVER LIBYA -- ALTERNATIVES TO A NO-FLY
ZONE -- THE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OF U.S. MILITARY ACTION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES: TO ACHIEVE HUMANITARIAN
GOALS FOR OTHER PEOPLES, OR TO FORWARD SPECIFIC AMERICAN NATIONAL INTERESTS?
FULL STORY:
The official hymn of the U.S. Marine Corps famously begins with "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,
we fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea." The reference to Tripoli alludes to the Battle of Derna of 1805,
the first overseas land combat fought by U.S. troops and a decisive American victory.
Recent fighting in Libya prompts a question: Should the Marines be sent anew to the shores of Tripoli, this time to
protect not the high seas but the rebellious peoples of Libya rising against their tyrannical government and calling for
assistance as they are strafed from the air by troops loyal to Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi?
My first instinct is readily to agree to a no-fly zone, thereby improving the odds for the valiant opposition. Several factors
encourage this instinct: Libya's easy accessibility from U.S. and NATO air bases, the country's flat and sparse geography,
the near-universal condemnation of Qaddafi's actions, the urgency fully to restore Libyan oil to the export market, and the
likelihood that such intervention will end the wretched 42-year rule of an outlandish and repulsive authoritarian figure.
But instinct does not make for sound policy. An act of war requires context, guidelines, and consistency.
However easy the operation might look, Qaddafi could have unexpected reserves of power that could lead to a long and
messy engagement. If he survives, he could become all the more virulent. However repulsive he may be, his (Islamist?)
opponents could be yet more threatening to U.S. interests. More broadly, meddling in an internal conflict could make more
enemies than friends, plus it would fuel anti-American conspiracy theories.
Further, airpower has not yet proven decisive in Libya (its impact has been mainly psychological and might not determine
whether Qaddafi manages to stay in power. Imposing a no-fly zone in Libya sets a precedent in situations where
circumstances are less favorable (e.g., North Korea). And who will follow Qaddafi's example and give up making nuclear
weapons if this eases his own loss of power?
Behind the Libya debate looms the specter of Iraq and George W. Bush's "freedom agenda." Bush's partisans see this as
pay-back time, while skeptics worry about unintended consequences. Were Barack Obama to use force in Libya, it would
be tantamount to his conceding he was wrong to savage Bush's Middle East policies. It would also, following Iraq and
Afghanistan, involve American troops fighting the forces of yet another majority-Muslim country, something that Obama,
with his emphasis on "mutual respect" with Muslims, must be loathe to undertake.
More fundamental is the imperative not to put American troops in harm's way on behalf of humanitarian goals for other
peoples; social work cannot be the U.S. government's purpose; rather, troops must always forward specific American
national interests.
That the U.S. military, as personified by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, shies away from taking on this duty,
emphasizing its costs and dangers ("a big operation in a big country"), serves as a salutary caution, especially given
lapses in U.S. intelligence. That Libyans are starting to turn to Islamists for leadership, however, could turn Libya into
another Somalia.
The American arsenal permits a president to ignore other states and deploy unilaterally; but, is this wise? Iraqi precedents
(1991, 2003) suggest it is politically worth the inconvenience to win endorsement from international organizations such as
the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Arab League, the African Union, or even the Organization
of the Islamic Conference.
As Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy notes, although a no-fly zone is what the opposition
requests, it is just one of many options available to Washington. Others include, from least to most ambitious: providing
opposition forces with intelligence, logistical support, communications hardware and training, sending them weapons;
helping defend liberated areas; rendering Libyan airfields inoperable; or actively fighting regime forces.
Taking these considerations into account, what advice to give the Obama administration? Help the Libyan opposition with
aid and escalate as needed.
Humanitarian, political, and economic reasons converge in Libya to overcome legitimate hesitations. Working with
international authorization, the U.S. government should fulfill its accustomed role of leadership and help Libya's opposition.
However risky that course, doing nothing is yet riskier.
© Daniel Pipes 2010
Originally Published in National Review Online, March 10, 2011
Republished with the Permission of Daniel Pipes
Reprinted from the Daniel Pipes Mailing List, March 10, 2011
URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/9586/the-shores-of-tripoli
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
North Africa -- The Arab States of Islamic North Africa
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
Dr. Daniel Pipes, a Ph.D. in Islamic History (Harvard University, 1978), is Founder and Director of the Middle East Forum,
Publisher of Middle East Quarterly,
Founder of Campus Watch, Taube Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, a
signatory of the Project for the New American Century, a former board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a former
adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Golden Circle supporter of the U.S. Committee for a Free
Lebanon, a former member of the U.S. Department of Defense Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology, and a
former lecturer at the U.S. Naval War College, Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and the University of
Pennsylvania. Dr. Pipes was the Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute from 1986 to 1993.
Author or co-author of eighteen books, Dr. Pipes is a regular columnist for National Review Online, Front Page
Magazine, the New York Sun, and the Jerusalem Post. His analyses of world trends and of forces and
developments in the Middle East have appeared in numerous North American newspapers, including the Washington
Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. He frequently appears on American network
television, as well as at universities and think tanks, to discuss the Middle East, Islam, and the Islamist threat to the
U.S.A. and the West. He also has appeared on BBC and Al Jazeera, and has lectured in approximately
twenty-five countries.
Dr. Pipes is a Polish-American Jew whose parents fled Poland in 1939, immigrated to the U.S.A., and assimilated well into
American society and culture. His father is Richard Pipes, an American historian specializing in Russian and Soviet history
and serving as Professor of History at Harvard University from 1950 until his retirement in 1996. During the Cold War, the
worldview of Richard Pipes was strongly anti-Soviet and anti-Communist.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIII, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity