After an unfortunate "what the Left thinks" introduction, Prof. Cole describes the Libyan opposition as "not al-Qaida" and working class. I certainly accept that. This is sort of "they won't become the Taliban" type of argument.
Then Cole continues by explaining that "[a]s Qaddafi’s tank brigades reached the southern districts of Benghazi, the prospect loomed of a massacre of committed rebels on a large scale." I certainly accept that Gaddafi and his loyalists are capable of committing massacre on a large scale. But then Cole makes a leap that is offensive and outrageous:
If the Left opposed intervention, it de facto acquiesced in Qaddafi’s destruction of a movement embodying the aspirations of most of Libya’s workers and poor, along with large numbers of white collar middle class people.
That is a despicable lie and beneath Prof. Cole who ironically started his article by stating he seeked "a calm and civilized discussion of the rights and wrongs here." Well, he just committed a wrong that makes it difficult to treat him with civility.
Here is the problem with Cole's formulation - simply imposing a no fly zone of undetermined duration will not end the risk of massacre at some time. Indeed, the surest way to avoid massacres is for the insurgents to acquiesce to Gaddafi. Some will be killed of course, but no massacres would likely occur.
Cole's "unabashed cheering" for the insurgency in Libya does not mean he is de facto "acquiescing" in massacres. And not supporting intervention does not mean anyone "acquiesced" to massacre. Cole has sadly adopted the rhetoric of the neocon here. It is despicable.
I wlll put that aside and continue to consider Cole's argument. Cole states that:
The arguments against international intervention are not trivial, but they all did have the implication that it was all right with the world community if Qaddafi deployed tanks against innocent civilian crowds just exercising their right to peaceful assembly and to petition their government.
The world community often protests the repression of civilians "exercising their right to peaceful assembly" without engaging in military action. Not exercising military action does not mean that the world community viewed it as "all right." If so, the precedent has long been set, and Libya would be just one more instance of this. This "precedent" argument is wholly without merit.
Cole continues:
Some have charged that the Libya action has a Neoconservative political odor. But the Neoconservatives hate the United Nations and wanted to destroy it. They went to war on Iraq despite the lack of UNSC authorization, in a way that clearly contravened the UN Charter.
This is a "hand waving" argument. Neocons hated the UN if the UN did not agree with them. Here's the question for Cole, what if the US had acted in Libya unilaterally? Would he oppose the intervention? Of course he wouldn't. He would be railing against the UN just as the neocons would. This argument also fails.
Cole states "The intervention in Libya was done in a legal way." This is not true under US law, imo, but I think Cole is referring to international law. I think this is a straw man argument, no real objections are being raised on the grounds of violations of international law.
Cole finally gets to the crux of the issue when he writes:
Assuming that NATO’s UN-authorized mission in Libya really is limited ( it is hoping for 90 days), and that a foreign military occupation is avoided, the intervention is probably a good thing on the whole[. . .] Qaddafi only had 2000 tanks, many of them broken down, and it won’t be long before he has so few, and and the rebels have captured enough to level the playing field, that little further can be accomplished from the air).
(Emphasis supplied.) Now we get to the point. What happens AFTER the air campaign (which Cole glides over, is beyond what the UN sanctioned anyway) can not accomplish anything further and Gaddafi remains in power? What then?
Cole is completely silent on this point. As he must be for it destroys his argument. Ironically, Cole admonishes "the Left" to understand that:
Military intervention is always selective, depending on a constellation of political will, military ability, international legitimacy and practical constraints. The humanitarian situation in Libya was fairly unique. You had a set of tank brigades willing to attack dissidents, and responsible for thousands of casualties and with the prospect of more thousands to come, where aerial intervention by the world community could make a quick and effective difference.
Cole's argument then is that if air power is sufficient, then we should do it. I can accept that argument conditionally here. To Cole, Libya is like Kosovo. I am not convinced that is true. Cole blithely ignores the history of escalation of military actions that litter world history.
In any event, time will tell. Whether "the Left" supports or opposes the Libya intervention, it is happening. We'll see in 90 days where we are and what Prof. Cole says then.
If a land action is proposed, will Prof. Cole then say he opposes? I doubt it. He does not say in this article.
I would love to have heard his argument on THAT.
