Forex Floor

New York – From Iran to Algeria and across the Middle East, a generation of young people has demanded that its voice be heard, calling for new or reformed governments. On either extreme of the spectrum of Arab revolutions, there are two different models for today’s uprisings: Morocco and Libya, each with implications for stability in the region.

America’s support and involvement have wavered along a range, with serious implications, as well. We see the most drastic US action in the recent military strikes against Muammar Qaddafi’s forces in Libya, as part of a UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone and other necessary measures to protect the opposition and civilian populations. But such an intervention is fraught with complications that not only jeopardize the US but also the very people the allied military mission seeks to protect.

While Libya’s dictator, Mr. Qaddafi has fought protesters with brutal force, leaving as many as 10,000 dead, by some estimates, Morocco’s King Mohamed VI has agreed to slight reforms, in an effort to appease the protesters. Morocco has been under a sea of protests for over a month now. Many of the protesters’ demands are not different from those recently heard around the Arab world: more jobs and lower food prices.

The Morocco model for changeMr. Mohamed has responded with a speech in which he pledged to expand “individual and collective liberties.” He announced that he would give up power to name a prime minister. He also announced amendments to the constitution that include an elevated judiciary and a parliament drawn from free and fair elections.

But these reforms have not altered the very basics of the government as they have in Egypt, which experienced a drastic collapse of the government and an exit of its leaders. Morocco’s king will still retain most of his executive powers, and the nation remains a constitutional monarchy. Changes are much more conservative in nature: small incremental shifts that reflect the culture and times of the world without looking to radically alter or systematically change society in the name of ideology.

Though the chances that the Moroccan people will be completely and quickly lifted out of their poverty may still be slim, the compromise between the people and the ruling monarchy will make transition and eventual change much more stable.

Consequences of West in LibyaQaddafi’s Libya is another world entirely. The United States, Britain, and France, in their latest cold war victors’ reunion, have begun bombing Qaddafi forces. Once seen as the new prince of peace, President Obama recently gave a speech that could have been written by David Frum and other hawkish neocons: “Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.” Somewhere in the White House there is a portrait of Dick Cheney smiling.

But there’s plenty of reason for Americans and Libyans to be frowning. The intention of Western forces to protect opposition groups and civilians from Qaddafi’s planes and artillery will still not protect the civilians and rebels from his tanks and ground forces, which are far better trained and more well armed then the rebels. Facing a situation where he must act in haste for fear of continued allied military action, it is entirely possible that more civilians will be slain due to a scorched earth policy. The Western allies must remember: This is a man who has been in power longer then any other Arab leader, over 40 years. He has already promised “a long, drawn-out war.”

Complications of anti-US blowbackThe West faces another complication from military intervention in Libya: blowback. When the first Western bombs fell on March 19, an estimated 48 people were killed and 150 wounded in a civilian area, according to Libyan TV. If the collateral damage of intervention is a few dozen Libyan children and family members, what kind of deep resentment and anger can the US expect from their cousins, brothers, sons, and fathers? Will they answer the call of the radical sect of Islam against the West?

Anti-Americanism appears to run high in Libya. According to a Center for a New American Security blog, “Libyans were apparently more fired up to travel to Iraq to kill Americans than anyone else in the Middle East.” Based on an analysis of the Sinjar Records (Al Qaeda documents), CNAS continues, “On a per capita basis…twice as many foreign fighters came to Iraq from Libya – and specifically eastern Libya – than from any other country in the Arabic-speaking world.” Blowback may be brutal from a people who have not yet seen the complicated impact of the American military on their lives and land.

US can’t afford to fight this battleThe movement for a more democratic Middle East may be noble and in keeping with American ideology, but this battle is not America’s battle to fight. As the Western allies bomb Qaddafi’s forces to protect rebels and civilians, America is reeling from two other wars in the Middle East that have left it with 6,000 dead and 30,000 wounded and more than a trillion dollars in lost treasure.

Change in Arab governments may come conservatively, as in Morocco, or drastically, as in Egypt, or with the blood of thousands, as in Libya. However, it is not in the American interest to adopt Middle Eastern nations to democratize. John Quincy Adams once cautioned, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” The United States must return to being or remain (depending on your worldview), in Mr. Adams words, “a well-wisher to freedom and independence of all…. the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

US intervention, like that being undertaken in Libya, may result in massive civilian causalities, anti-American blowback, and an hasten US bankruptcy.

Ryan James Girdusky is a senior at Queens College and former president of the Queens Young Republicans. He has previously been published on World Net Daily and is a frequent contributor on the radio show Living Truth with Gina Loudon.

New York – Ignore the president’s hysterical critics. Obama’s aim is to topple Gadhafi — and he knows the stakes are high

The commentary on the president’s course in Libya has been instinctively adversarial. Much of the press may be compensating for its cheerleading or supine acquiescence in the fraud of the Iraq War. So reporters chase administration officials around briefing rooms and TV studios pressing questions that can’t be answered at all (about operational details), or can’t be answered candidly — for example, about the targeting of Moammar Gadhafi. On both sides, partisans join in — some Democrats apparently against any conflict anywhere — and Republicans who never questioned Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, but somehow would scorn Obama even if he got Iran to surrender its nuclear weapons.

Having forged a genuine multilateralism on Libya and pulled off the miracle of no Chinese or Russian veto in the Security Council, the administration now has to speak diplomatically while wielding big missiles. But through the white noise of the media and political scrum, some truths ought to be clear even if Obama and company can’t clearly say them.

First, why did Obama dither?

He didn’t. He was waiting until conditions were right and perhaps hoping, at least at first, that the rebels would win on their own. The president did lean forward, announcing that Gadhafi had to go. John Kerry wrote an early op-ed advocating a no-fly zone.

Too much of the internal debate — and credit-claiming from insiders — ended up on the front pages. But all along Obama kept all options on the table. At about the time any prospect for unaided regime change was being rendered forlorn, the Arab League took the unprecedented step of asking for outside intervention. Now Obama could exercise the option of force without risking America’s standing — and vital interests — in the Middle East. Would that George W. Bush had dithered instead of dissembling America into a war where the first casualty was truth, and the toll is measured not only in lives and dollars, but in diminution of our moral authority and global influence.

Second, why engage in yet another conflict in a Muslim country — and can we afford it? This line of questioning is both superficial and hypocritical. Superficial because one bad war in Iraq and one badly fought war in Afghanistan don’t constitute a reason to reject action when and if it’s right in Libya. Hypocritical because complaining about the relatively modest cost of that action comes with ill grace from those in Congress who over the past decade didn’t care about spending a trillion dollars (and the total’s still climbing) on the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Third, didn’t Obama violate the constitution by not going to Congress for a resolution or a declaration of war? I have three words for the critics here: Grenada, Noriega, Balkans. Ronald Reagan, the first Bush, and Bill Clinton didn’t wait on legislative approval before invading two countries and bombing Belgrade when they decided the issues were urgent and the cause was just. Indeed, the last Declarations of War came against the Axis powers. Since Korea, presidents have acted again and again without either a formal declaration and often without any form of explicit legislative approval. Imagine if Obama had gone to Congress this time. In the Senate, Rand Paul would have filibustered while Benghazi burned. And perhaps the unserious Dennis Kucinich would have insisted on establishing his Department of Peace as Gadhafi slaughtered thousands. Enough said.

Fourth, why intervene in Libya, but not Yemen or Bahrain? The question reflects a simplistic equivalence that ignores a fundamental reality: Despite the rhetoric of universalist democracy, effective foreign policy demands a balance between our interests and our ideals. In Bahrain, a longtime ally at a strategically important location on the Arabian Peninsula, the conflict is at least as sectarian as it is political. It would be a disaster to have one free election there where Shiites sympathetic to Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs prevail and then close the process down, allying or ultimately even merging with Iran, which covets Bahrain as just another Iranian province. This wouldn’t be democratic in any true and lasting sense. That’s something else Obama can’t say, so he urges a process of peaceful consultation while Saudi Arabia dispatches troops to restore order. Maybe, just maybe, there will be some incremental progress toward wider political participation. But Bahrain isn’t Libya — and the pursuit of American values can’t be a heedless exercise that vitiates American interests.

To accept a balance between interest and ideals isn’t comfortable, but the world is complicated. In the 1980s, William F. Buckley, Jr. once asked me why we liberals wanted to be so tough on human rights with nations like El Salvador, but not equally confrontational with the Soviet Union. I answered that on El Salvador, we should do it because we could. The small difficulty we had to take into account when dealing with the Soviets was that they had nuclear bombs — and we could only push so hard without creating an existential threat. Each situation has to be judged circumstantially; today, a 180-degree turn in Bahrain, followed by the destabilization of Saudi Arabia, would be a catastrophe on all counts — for the global economy, for US security, and even for any prospect of peace in the Middle East.

Fifth, what’s our vital interest in Libya? And why not just let Gadhafi impose his reign of terror? This is a case where morality and realpolitik coincide. The president, like France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron, had said it was time for Gadhafi to go. (Actually at least five American presidents have said that.) Firmly back in power — and he was on the brink of that on the eve of the West’s bombing campaign — Gadhafi would be a mortal enemy, an incubator of terrorism, an unpredictable madman who would hate the United States, the West, and his Arab neighbors — and harm them and us in any way he could.

So the intervention is not merely about saving Libyans, although that’s a worthy purpose, but about our own national security. Simultaneously, it enhances our credibility and our long since shattered popularity in the Arab world. Who ever thought we would see the day when an American pilot shot down over an Arab country would be rescued and cheered by local villagers hailing the United States not as an adversary, but as a last, best hope.

Finally, will this work, and how? Why has Obama ceded leadership to the French and British without clear lines of authority? Is the no-fly zone enough? Are we willing to let Gadhafi stay in power — or is he a target? There are plain answers to all of these questions — but they can’t come from the administration — at least not yet.

The United States is a driving force here, but it’s better for us that we not be seen as such. Multilateralism can be messy, but the details of the command structures will be resolved. By the way, ask Gadhafi’s forces if they sense no clear lines of authority as the cruise missiles rain down.

They also know all too well that this intervention involves not only a no-fly zone, but an assault on their troops and tanks on the ground. When Bill Clinton launched an air campaign in the Balkans, we were warned that air power alone wasn’t enough — that it would never dislodge the genocidal Slobodan Milosevic. It did, and he was being tried for war crimes in the Hague when he died.

As for Gadhafi, our objective — the only acceptable outcome — has to be regime change. The president can’t say that either, because the U.N. resolution doesn’t; that was the price of diplomacy. But surely this can’t constrain the final outcome. And of course, Gadhafi ought to be a target even if a U.S. general says he isn’t — and that we simply bombed his fortress to knock out military communications, not to get him. Why is the killer-in-chief off limits if a 19-year-old conscripted into his brutal army has to face the bombs and missiles of March?

Given all this white noise, it’s no surprise that a Gallup poll reported this week that Americans support the military action in Libya by a relatively narrow margin of 47 percent to 37 percent. But curiously, the interventions that have commanded that lesser level of support — in Grenada, in Haiti, in Kosovo and the Balkans — have been far more successful than Iraq and Afghanistan, which registered approval levels between 76 and 90 percent.

In the end, the nitpicking and point scoring of the moment won’t matter. The stakes are high, and Obama has to know it. America will be strengthened, and so will he, if the enterprise succeeds — and he will be blamed if the mission isn’t actually accomplished. For the president and for the country, as well as for the people of Libya, there is no substitute for regime change there. Otherwise, we will face a higher likelihood of regime change here.

View this article on TheWeek.com
Get Libya: Can Gadhafi survive? Opinion Brief: Is Libya on the brink of civil war? Opinion Brief: Violence in Libya: Should the world intervene? Like on Facebook