Libya: What has NATO accomplished?

As Libyan rebels consolidated their hold on Tripoli, President Obama attempted to put his stamp of approval on matters by telling the world what it already knew: That Moammar Gadhafi should step down for the good of his people.

No kidding. For the good of humanity Gadhafi should have been overthrown decades ago, or, better yet, never allowed to come to power. Like all dictators (especially dictators with oil-derived wealth), he is not a nice man.
So, for the good of the Libyan people, Gadhafi should bow to fate and surrender to the rebel Transitional National Council, who will of course be far more benign in their rule.

Or will they? Consider for a moment who makes up this group: Their chairman, Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil, has been Gadhafi's Minister of Justice since 2007, having been a judge in the Libyan judicial system since 1978--the system Gahdafi has controlled since seizing power in 1969. While Human Rights Watch did have some kind words for him for his stance on wrongful detention in 2010, he can hardly be called a dissident in the mold of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's Nobel Peace laureate and staunch pro-democracy advocate. The other members of the council have all served in various government positions under Gadhafi.

The council members have not been elected by the Libyan people--indeed, their legitimacy seems largely derived from the willingness of other nations to recognize them and not Gadhafi as the "legitimate" government of Libya, and therefore entitled to received arms and other assistance in fighting the Libyan forces loyal to Gadhafi. What historical commitment to democracy and the rule of law do these men actually have?

An even better question might be to ask what history the council has; it did not exist in any form before this past March, when the council, its web site, domain, and Twitter account all magically appeared (is it a real revolution if it isn't "facebook official"?).

While the civilized world may plausibly persuade itself that removing Gadhafi from power is by itself an advancement of freedom in the world, thus far there is little practical proof that those who aim to replace him will be much better--that they were willing to be part of his regime for the better part of their respective careers can hardly be counted as a ringing endorsement of their commitment to democratic government.

Obama says Gadhafi must leave for the sake of the Libyan people. For the sake of the Libyan people, I hope he's right.

Unreasonable Voices (aka Liberal Liars)

Matt Yglesias

I originally titled my contribution to the blogosphere "A Reasoned Voice" both as a reminder to myself and a suggestion to others--that while discussion and debate should be passionate, even heated, it accomplishes little if it is not firmly grounded in facts, in reality, and in (above all) reason. How reasoned my voice is I leave for others to judge, but I do believe I have largely held to that standard in my occasional offerings herein, even as I restyled this blog "A Voice Of Liberty".

I am therefore reasonably frustrated when I come across commentaries such as that from blogger Matt Yglesias from Think Progress, who takes issue with a Rick Perry comment about Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Bernanke.

Governor Perry, speaking in Iowa yesterday (Monday, 15 August 2011), offered up the following opinion of Ben Bernanke and his policies of "quantitative easing"--printing money to stimulate the economy:

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.

Yglesias' opprobrium towards Perry comes from the rather banal observation that treason is a capital offense (and--not mentioned by Yglesias--is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution). Yglesias is correct on that point, and he is well within his rights to be irritated or even outraged at Governor Perry's comment. Where Yglesias departs from fact and his rights is how he promoted that particular blog entry on Twitter:

Rick Perry proposes lynching Ben Bernanke

Merriam-Webster defines the verb "lynch" thusly:

to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction

The Constitution of the United States defines "treason" thusly (Article 3 Section 3):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. 

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Federal statute--18 USC §2381--declares treason punishable by death:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Such, then, are the facts surrounding Governor Perry's comment.

Could quantitative easing be considered "treason" per the Constitution? One could argue--albeit facetiously--that printing money, thus debasing the US Dollar, strengthens adversarial nations such as China and Russia, and would therefore fall under the heading of giving them "aid and comfort." It is a flimsy argument at best, laughable at worst, but it is an argument that can be made. 

It is also an argument Governor Perry conspicuously did not make; his condemnation was clear--more quantitative easing was "almost treasonous". Governor Perry's meaning is quite obvious: printing money is not helpful to the United States or the US economy. There is no second plausible interpretation of his words. Those words are a rhetorically forceful but cogent and valid statement of his view of proper fiscal and monetary policy. Those words are not an accusation of any crime, not even treason.

Further, an accusation of a crime, even if that were the import of Governor Perry's words, is not in and of itself a call to vigilante justice. Saying that "...we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas" is colorful, even perhaps provincial, but it does not suggest vigilantism. 

Matt Yglesias is quite within his rights to disagree with Governor Perry's opinions. That disagreement deserves to be heard, for it is necessary if there is to be vigorous debate on the issues pressing this country hard. To broadcast via twitter that Governor Perry suggested lynching Ben Bernanke is quite simply libelous, and arguably libel per se--which is defined as follows:

broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

I can understand that liberals do not like Governor Perry--I can quite easily fathom why liberal commentators such as Matt Yglesias are intimidated by Governor Perry's uncompromising rhetoric. Governor Perry uses language that is clear and unmistakable to stake out political and even moral/ethical stands that are equally clear and unmistakable; to respond effectively to such language would require an equally clear stance of opposition--something many would prefer to avoid. Yet when one's rhetorical arsenal is nothing but outright lies, surely that only strengthens one's opponent. It surely does not advance or improve the debate at hand.

Matt Yglesias lied about Governor Perry. He lied, and he libeled by lying. Thus does he cede credibility and correctness to Governor Perry.

Matt Yglesias lied about Governor Perry, and the blogosphere is diminished for his lie. The political process is diminished for his lie. Think Progress is diminished for his lie. 

Matt Yglesias should stop lying or stop blogging. There is no ethically sound third alternative.

Forward Or Backward?

Move America Forward, which presents itself as "the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization", has issued a call for ousted General Stanley McChrystal to "come public with the true extent of the Obama Administration’s disengagement with the war in Afghanistan."

“Now that General McChrystal is no longer part of the military chain of command, he is free to expose the mismanagement of the war by the Obama administration, which is what got him in trouble in the first place.” said Move America Forward’s Director of Communications, Danny Gonzalez. 

Has Obama mismanaged the situation in Afghanistan?  There is an argument to be made that he has--certainly there are deep divisions within the Obama Administration over Afghanistan, divisions Obama has not managed to heal, and it is the civilian side of the US presence in Afghanistan, not the military side, that has a growing rift with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Yet there are also complaints to be levied against the Pentagon as well.  The glacial pace of the troop buildup in Afghanistan for the "surge" strategy (the last of the 30,000 troops are only now arriving in Afghanistan) can only be laid at the feet of the Pentagon, not the Administration.

If indeed Obama has been "disengaged" from Afghanistan, creating a continuing public controversy over his handling of matters to date is hardly going to assist him becoming "engaged" now.  Operations in Afghanistan are still unfolding, and there will be ample opportunities for General McChrystal to lend his perspective to the strengths and weakness of the Administration's efforts.  To "come public" with inflammatory charges of mismanagement and misconduct does not help the Administration focus its energies on Afghanistan.

Obama has publicly re-committed himself to the "surge" strategy.  In announcing the replacement of McChrystal with General David Petraeus Obama stated: "This is a change in personnel, but this is not a change in policy."

If the goal of  Move America Forward is to ensure the Obama Administration is fully engaged and supportive of the troops in Afghanistan, McChrystal's career-ending flirtation with Rolling Stone has already done most of what can be done to achieve that goal.  Supporting the troops now means standing back and giving the Obama Administration the latitude to manage things as they wish.  Obama remains the Commander In Chief until 2012; for the sake of the troops, that needs to be respected.

McChrystal Out, Petreaus In, Challenge Remains

A day after Rolling Stone published a profile piece of General Stanley McChrystal in which McChrystal and several of his senior staff made caustic, derisive, and arguably insubordinate comments about Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and several members of Obama's administration, Obama fired McChrystal, replacing him with General David Petraeus, head of the US Army's Central Command (and, ironically, technically McChrystal's superior).

In many respects, Petraeus is an easy choice to make for McChrystal's replacement.  As the architect of the successful "surge" strategy in Iraq that for many has been the model of what needs to take place in Afghanistan, he is arguably the Army's foremost expert on counterinsurgency strategies and tactics (COIN, in the military argot).  As the general many credit with salvaging the situation on the ground in Iraq, Petraeus is quite popular with Republicans in Congress (there has been considerable speculation as to whether Petraeus would be drafted by the Republicans for the 2012  Presidential elections) Indeed, that the new assignment is technically a demotion for Petraeus only serves to underscore the heft Petraeus brings to the table.

What Petraeus does not bring is a substantial alteration to the situation in Afghanistan.  US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Obama's diplomatic lead in Kabul, has never walked back the opposition to a "surge" strategy he voiced  last fall in a series of classified cables to Obama (that were subsequently leaked to the New York Times).  Neither has Vice President Biden, who was quoted by Jonathan Alter in The Promise that "In July of 2011, you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out, bet on it."--an assertion Secretary of Defense Robert Gates emphatically rejected earlier this week.  Despite assertions by Obama in announing McChrystal's ouster that he could tolerate debate but not division, divisions over Afghanistan are everywhere in Obama's Administration:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gone along with the project, but Vice President Joe Biden—who might have been secretary of state had the cards fallen in a slightly different way—has not. Divisions within the administration grow by the day.

Nor does Petraeus have large numbers of troops in his back pocket to take to Afghanistan.  He flies to Kabul alone, to take command of McChrystal's men and execute McChrystal's strategy, on the eve of a major push to retake Kandahar, Afghanistan's second largest city.  The last of the 30,000 troops allocated by Obama to the Afghanistan "surge" are just now arriving on the battlefield--delays in their arrival have been a principal frustration of the Kandahar offensive.  Secretary Gates is counseling patience, to give the strategy time to succeed, but the political reality is that time is running out on Afghanistan; the July 2011 pullout date is fixed in the minds of many, and Americans, by a 53-44 percent margin, do not count the Afghanistan war as one worth fighting--and certainly one not worth American lives.

By replacing McChrystal with Petraeus, Obama is essentially rebutting the crux of McChrystal's Rolling Stone complaints, a lack of strong support for the troops.  However, if all Obama does is replace McChrystal with Petraeus, he will have largely validated McChrystal's complaint.

He may be gone, but McChrystal has managed to box Obama in yet again.

McChrystal and Rolling Stone: Why Obama is losing the Battle of Kabul

General Stanley McChrystal, by opting to be the subject of a profile in Rolling Stone Magazine, to be published in issue 1108/1109 of that publication, touched off a firestorm with the biting criticisms attributed to him and his staff of several members of the Obama Administration, including Barack Obama himself.  The profile piece may very well cost him his career, and could send US military efforts in Afghanistan spiraling into chaos.

There can be no doubt that McChrystal erred by speaking as he did, and by allowing his subordinates to speak as they did, to reporter Michael Hastings.  Not only does Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly make the President the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces and therefore McChrystal's superior in the chain of command, but Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes insults and criticisms by military officers of the civilians placed over the military an offense punishable at court martial:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Yet what many have overlooked is that the Rolling Stone article portrays McChrystal's deepest conflict as being with US Ambassador to Afghanistan former Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry:

By far the most crucial – and strained – relationship is between McChrystal and Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. According to those close to the two men, Eikenberry – a retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 – can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general. The job instead went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill – a move that effectively increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a powerful rival. "In reality, that position needs to be filled by an American for it to have weight," says a U.S. official familiar with the negotiations.

The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos."

McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so."

While the comments attributed to McChrystal in the Rolling Stone profile do indeed make him and his staff appear, in the words of John Dickerson of Slate magazine, "petty, frustrated, and reckless," Eikenberry's cable last fall--and its subsequent leaking to the New York Times shows him to be equally so (it was Eikenberry, not McChrystal, who alienated Afghan President Hamid Karzai by attending news conferences called by Karzai's opponents in last year's elections).  That incident also showed the intense competition between Eikenberry and McChrystal for resources and support from Washington:

General Eikenberry has been an energetic envoy, traveling widely around Afghanistan to meet with tribal leaders and to inspect American development projects.

He has been pushing the State Department for additional civilian personnel in the country, including in areas like agriculture, where the United States wants to help wean farmers off cultivating poppies. The State Department has tried to accommodate his requests, according to a senior official, but has turned down some because of budget constraints and its desire to cap the overall number of civilians in Afghanistan at roughly 1,000.

He played a significant role, along with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in persuading Mr. Karzai last month to accept the results of an election commission, which called for a runoff presidential ballot.

That Michael Hastings was granted nearly two months of access to the inner workings of McChrystal's staff shortly after the New York Times piece where Eikenberry undermined McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy leaves one wondering if this was not the latest in a tit-for-tat media conflict between McChrystal and Eikenberry.  Even if it is not, there is no denying that Obama's top diplomat in Kabul and Obama's top general in Kabul do not like each other and are taking steps to undermine each other. There is also no denying that Obama appointed them both to serve at his pleasure; it is difficult to envision Obama being pleased with either man at this juncture.

What Michael Hastings has revealed to the world is that the real battle for Kabul is in fact a clash of egos between the leaders of Obama's military and civilian strategies in Afghanistan--strategies which require each other if Obama's chosen task of building the Afghan nation is to succeed.  McChrystal and Eikenberry appear to view each other as more of an enemy than the Taliban or al Qaeda.

While Eikenberry is poised to win that battle (by default, as McChrystal is likely to be forced to resign), there is little likelihood of the clash of egos ending.  McChrystal's staff and deputy commanders are quite loyal to him personally, and any McChrystal replacement needs to come from those ranks if Obama is to avoid any major disruptions in the execution of the counterinsurgency strategy Obama chose in his speech at West Point last December.  The profile piece showed that McChrystal's staff and deputy commanders share his criticisms of the civilians involved in Afghanistan.

What is most disturbing about this ego clash is that it has been going on even as the military and diplomatic situation in Kabul deteriorates, and that it has been going on under Obama's ultimate leadership; nor is there indication of any effort by the Obama Administration to bring McChrystal and Eikenberry to some form of modus vivendi.  The Obama strategy for Afghanistan is a two-pronged strategy that involves defeating the Taliban militarily while building up the Karzai government diplomatically to withstand other insurgencies in the future.  That strategy demands cooperation and coordination between the military and diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan--between McChrystal and Eikenberry.  Not only has Obama not been getting that cooperation, he seemingly has not been demanding such cooperation.

Whether or not McChrystal loses his job over this is problematic, but regardless of that, unless Obama can get the civilian and military personnel in Afghanistan to play nice with each other, he faces a very serious risk of losing Afghanistan.  As the battle for Afghan hearts and minds has played out thus far, the clear loser at this juncture is Barack Obama.