Wesley Clark rewrites history

Posted By David Bosco Monday, March 14, 2011 - 1:58 PM Share

Former NATO commander Wesley Clark entered the fray on the question of Libya intervention this weekend. He surveys the recent history of U.S. interventions and concludes that Libya doesn't meet the threshold for action. While I'm sympathetic to his general argument, he's confusing on several points, notably the issue of international authority. Clark's essential argument is that intervention must have broad support and legal authority:

Offensive war is, in general, illegal. In the Persian Gulf War, Iraq’s actions in 1990 were a clear case of aggression; we obtained full U.N. support. We had a congressional resolution. And we enjoyed the overwhelming backing of our allies and Arab partners. They even paid most of the cost of Operation Desert Storm, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. The resulting military action was widely hailed as a legitimate and moral victory. In 1999 in Kosovo, the United States and NATO had a humanitarian U.N. resolution backing our actions.

Clark starts from a sound premise of international law; that non-defensive uses of force normally require clear authorization from the UN Security Council. But his claim that Kosovo had such authorization is clearly wrong. True, there were a number of Council resolutions dealing with Kosovo but none authorized the use of force. Russia balked at that step, and the absence of legal authority almost fractured NATO unity on the operation (Germany was particularly hesitant to support action without the U.N.'s imprimatur).

The former general then goes on to contrast his revisionist legal history of the Kosovo operation with the current situation in Libya:

In Libya, Gaddafi has used and supported terrorism, murdered Americans, and repressed his people for 40 years. The American public may want to see him go. But his current actions aren’t an attack on the United States or any other country. On what basis would we seek congressional support and international authorization to intervene in a civil war? Do we have the endorsement of the Arab League? A U.N. Security Council resolution?

First, the United States at this moment has as much legal authority to intervene in Libya as NATO did in Kosovo, which is to say not much. Second, there's no mystery about the basis on which the United States would seek international authority to intervene. It could do so on any number of grounds from humanitarian concern to democracy promotion to the possible threat to regional security. Clark acts as if the absence of such authority at this moment is itself a substantive argument against intervention. But international authorization does not spring magically from the Security Council. Someone (usually the United States) needs to strongly advocate for it. The Obama administration is doing no such thing. Instead, Paris and London have been the most assertive in pushing for Security Council approval. Essentially, Clark is arguing against intervention because of an absence of authority that the United States is itself perpetuating.

(2)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

KAFLINN

2:17 PM ET

March 15, 2011

No, General Clark didn't 'rewrite history'

With all do respect Mr. Bosco, I must disagree. NATO force in Kosovo didn't happen until after pretty much every other option had been exhausted - to the tune of seven U.N. resolutions between 1998 and 1999, and violent displacement of more than a quarter million Kosovar refugees began flooding into bordering countries...for a start.

General Clark did not advocate not intervening in Libya - he advocates not doing it until a) we have a much better idea of what we're interveening in; b) have a plan to successfully carry out such an intervention; c) have a fair idea we aren't going to make matters worse, both for Libyans and the personel who'll be doing the interveening; d) have exhausted all other options so force is a last resort, as innocent people tend to get killed along the way, to start. Doing these things first is the method to gain the legal basis for intervention.

At the moment, however horrible the circumstances for many in Libya - and I've no doubt they are just that, horrible - they are in the beginnings of a civil war. Kosovo isn't a fair comparrison. Libyans are not under-going ethnic/religious cleansing and persecution by the hundreds of thousands, so far that any news is saying. That gave the U.N. a basis for declaring an humanitarian catastrophe was in progress, and would liikely destabilize neighboring countries.

In the case of Libya, individuals who are thought to be rebels, by Gaddafi's regime, are being targeted and brutally supressed - yes, and rebel forces are fighting Gadaffi's forces, yes. That's a civil war - not ethnic cleansing. Get Gadaffi indicted for war crimes, massive corruption, parking tickets, being a sick twisted bastard, anything...then by all means take him, and his regime, out anyway that works and is permanent. Then, stay only as long as we're invited and not a second longer.

Let us not forget something - possibly one of the main reasons General Clark is advocating his position - there is a near-absolute when it comes to freedom fighters: once they win, they almost invariably become what they fought against. Often times, they end up being worse. The U.S. has a bad habit of jumping into other countries' civil wars - to promote our own self-interest in spreading our brand of Democracy (which, while wonderful for us, isn't necessarily wonderful for other cultures) - before we've thought it all through, and then it comes back and bites us in the ass - Iraq being but one of so many examples.

For once, let's try learning from history rather than blindly repeating it - I think that's really all Wes Clark is saying. Nothing revisonist there - just wise.

DAVID BOSCO

2:43 PM ET

March 15, 2011

You've made some good

You've made some good arguments, and so does Clark. My beef with him is over his discussion of international authorization. As you point out, there were plenty of Security Council resolutions dealing with Kosovo--but none of them authorized force. Clark clearly implied that the Kosovo war was authorized by the UN. It was not.

For the record, I supported the Kosovo war and am quite skeptical of intervention in Libya. I just think Clark's discussion of international authorization was confused.