President Obama's recent
actions have set a clear black line which repressive governments now
cannot cross. By targeting and destroying Qaddafi's heavy weapons, navy
and air-force, in the timely and precise way the US military is
specialized to do, it shows when, and what the United States is willing
to do to enforce international humanitarian norms, while also limiting
the roles the US is willing to play in such enforcement, if NATO and
other countries will step up and affirm their obligation to
international norms of human rights. This line is crossed when
dictators use heavy arms or aerial bombardment on their own people
during peaceful protests. This is particularly important in a time of
high technology weapons which can precisely target unarmed civilians
from safe distances, while allowing young soldiers to feel as if they
are playing a video game, when in the past they would have to go hand to
hand with 10 protesters for every 1 they shot. The law enforced is the
law of proportionality.
There is now a simple
line both liberal democracies, and the more authoritarian people's
democracies in the east can follow. If a town rebels, as a town in the
FL keys did in the late 90s, the government cannot bomb and shell it to
teach it a lesson. This is a simple line. It may send police officers
to arrest them, and if they resist arrest escalations of proportional
force may legally occur. However, no disproportionate force may be
used. Obama enforced this line. It is much more difficult for the
military to maintain its morale when they can no longer shell their
opponent into near exhaustion, before storming them. Officers are less
willing to shoot at their own people when they can see their faces when
their bullet hits. Hence the employment of Serbian and other foreign
mercenaries by Qaddafi, who hate Muslims to begin with.
Obama
should set an additional precedent by offering the mercenaries a one
time amnesty. While this may cause a boom in the mercenary supply due
to the increased perception of safety among the mercenaries, it will
lessen its demand, since a dictator would know that when international
law is broken, hired security contractors not only may legally return to
their home countries without reprisals for having turned on their
hiring countries, but also may receive more money than they are being
paid by the dictator to leave. Mercenaries would be disincentivised to
fight against the rebels. The bounty can be phrased as a general
demobilization reward, as not to directly affect rebels.
With
Allied European countries now taking responsibility for the second
phase of the air battle, the United States can stand back, and allow
allied forces to gain experience so they can also bear their
responsibility for the Humanitarian common grounds which most of them
enjoy because of the burden born by Americans for too long. The
President has also created a new international precedent where the
United States follows, but willingly uses the leading edge of its
military to overcome armored units, and pass the more labor intensive
functions to her allies. There is an implicit trust that needs to occur
here between the US, Japan and the EU, and perhaps one day China and
Russia. They are specializing their roles in international humanitarian
norms enforcement.
Precedents have now
been set to ensure that people's movements may remain peaceful and have
some hope of changing regimes from the inside. I would be willing to
bet, that no other Middle Eastern regime, except perhaps Iran, will be
willing to use artillery or tanks and airplanes on their own people.
They will still use automatic weapons, but no machine gun batteries. No
helicopter ships. No Snipers.
Obama's use of force so
quickly, despite the political cost was as brave as it was brilliant.
Moments of Revolution, as moments of Birth, are as critical to the
outcome of a situation, as years of slow therapy because of initial
neglect. The illustrative example is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan,
who many people are referring to, despite the very different
circumstances both displayed -- neither was in a period of revolutionary
fervor. A week of consultations with Congress would have resulted in a
still birth. Obama was managing an emergency.
The United
Nations has just approved a resolution allowing a no-flight zone in
Libya, an obvious emergency which would have required the attention of
Congress, and the Congress decides to take a week of recess. Who is
responsible for setting the schedule? The same speaker of the House,
the honorable Mr. Boehner who found it "regrettable" that the President
didn't consult with the congress he himself dismissed. He might ask
himself "What Would Boehner Do" in a similar situation, and hope we have
the rationality to elect a much different congress in 2012.
