I am not a pacifist, though I think that erring in the direction of non-violence is almost always preferable to erring in the direction of violence. My own problem with military service is not that it necessarily involves killing an enemy, although I have little taste for that. My problem is with the loss of agency -- with deciding when someone has gone so far that killing them to make them stop is a reasonable, even advisable, response.
What is happening now in Libya helps explain why I am not a pacifist. Sometimes non-violence is not going to work. Sometimes people need to be stopped by force.
I am not something else as well, which may be more controversial here. I am not uniformly anti-war. While it is best to see "change from within," sometimes change can only come from without.
Libya is, so far as I can tell, getting to that point. Maybe the mostly unarmed protesters in Tripoli and the west can survive the paramilitaries intent on slaughtering them -- and maybe not. If not, then an insistence on opposition to war is to leave them, and their dreams, to die. In a circumstance where war might end the slaughter quite easily -- that is, in a circumstance where the killers are willing to kill because they are both fighting for their privilege and in very little danger -- then war may be the most moral choice to make.
By the way, and I'll say this before the jump: I don't think the U.S. should invade!
Who should not invade
Certain countries should, under almost all circumstances, be excluded from being considered acceptable candidates for such an invasion. The U.S. is, at present, disqualified; we've shown too much willingness over the past century-plus to dominate countries that we invade. ("With great power," to paraphrase Spiderman, "comes great responsibility not to invade other countries without true United Nations sanction.") Italy, as a former brutal colonial power within the past century, is also out. Even given that it was generations ago, once you colonize a country and treat it as Italy once did Libya, you don't get to be its savior.
Historical precedents
I can think of three wars/invasions over the past 30 or so years that struck me as being "just" even without reference to "just war doctrine." In each of them, a stable nation invaded to help a rebellious populace get rid of a powerful, bloodthirsty dictator engaged in a continuing massacre. (Sound familiar?)
The first of these was Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1978 to rid it of the dictator Idi Amin. (Interestingly, Qaddafi fought to preserve Amin's rule then, with Libyan soldiers ending up on the front lines against the revolutionaries. Hmmm.) Amin was a brutal dictator; Tanzania was at the time largely a model for Africa under the guidance of the party of Julius Nyerere. When Tanzania invaded to stop Amin's brutality, it was condemned by the Organization of African Unity for violating Uganda's sovereignty and had to pay both for the war effort and for subsequent peace-keeping -- because, admirably, Tanzania did not want to occupy Uganda -- on its own, damaging its economy for decades.
The second of these was Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1979 to rid it of Pol Pot. Vietnam was, at the time, our enemy. The war was over, the U.S. was humiliated, and we were not going to be nice about anything Vietnam did with force. In fact, at the time -- and this was after the auto-genocide was widely known -- the U.S. actually supported Pol Pot (though not to the extent that Vietnam's traditional enemy China did) and criticized Vietnam for acting to end Pol Pot's genocidal rule. (Does history smile upon the U.S.'s choice there?) The job done, Vietnam also admirable got out to let the freed Cambodians manage their own affairs.
The third of these was the Rwandan Civil War, in which -- while the rest of the world dithered -- the Rwandan Patriotic Front under Paul Kagame "invaded" (from the small portion of the country the RPF controlled) to stop the Rwandan Genocide after the ruling Hutus killed almost a million people in three months. (If you do nothing else upon reading this diary, please click that last link if you have never the article.) This is less clearly a state action than the others -- Uganda's support was helping the RPF (as was the U.S.'s training of Kagame) -- but unlike a previous 1990 invasion (resisted in part by France!), the attack in 1994 was not really fostered by these countries. Still, neighboring countries had kept the RPF going so that it was ready to stop a genocide when no one else would.
The above examples are not intended as a brief for the governments of Vietnam, Tanzania, and 1990s Uganda. Each new set of rulers did some bad things. (And, in the case of Kagame's Rwanda, quickly invaded another country, Congo/Zaire, the rightfulness of which action won't be explored here.) But, in exigent circumstances such as genocide, you can't wait around for the perfect solution to a problem. (We know that because the world did so during the Rwandan Genocide, to its discredit.)
Sometimes war is the answer.
Who might fairly invade Libya and why
The eastern parts of Egypt, right now, are largely in the hands of Qaddafi's revolutionary opponents. Benghazi is out of his control. The western part of Libya, west of the Gulf of Sidra, is Qaddafi's stronghold -- the capital, Tripoli. Tripoli is close to Tunisia, and one place where the U.S. and other countries can help right now is to help the new and fragile government of Tunisia withstand what is sure to be one hellish refugee crisis, however this turns out. The rules, again are: come in, help, get out.
The people who are backing Qaddafi are largely paid mercenaries (and, of course, many who have profited from being part of his ruling military and civil elite.) They will happily attack a largely unarmed civilian population in the northwest corner of Libya. But -- and I'm happy to hear from anyone who has strong evidence to the contrary -- they are not likely to stand up against an army.
Specifically, they are not likely to stand against the powerful Egyptian army.
Egypt, no doubt, has had contingency plans for defense against an attack by Libya for some time. (Qaddafi is not exactly a reliably good neighbor.) Tripoli is all the almost all the way across Libya, and the Egypt-Libya border is almost all the way across Egypt from Cairo and Alexandria. But, with a friendly eastern half of "free Libya" welcoming it -- so long as it promises to leave quickly once the deed is done -- the new Egypt with its strong old Army could probably roll into Tripoli and scare off Qaddafi and his crew. My guess is: mass desertions from the Libyan Armed Forces (even beyond what we've already seen) even if they started to move.
Egypt would have to prepare carefully the diplomatic ground for such an invasion. Talk to the tribes. Get their advance agreement. Make clear that once Qaddafi and his henchmen are out of power, Egypt is going back home and Libyan is for the Libyans to rule. And then go, quickly, before even more dead bodies pile up.
We can't invade. Italy had better not. The old Egypt would not have been a good choice to invade. Tunisia is too small and fragile to invade -- and has enough on its plate. Algeria is, of course, preoccupied with its own potential regime change. But the Egyptian military can do a good deed here, one that puts it on a good course with its neighbor.
Qaddafi should keep this possibility in mind. It should affect his calculations. Otherwise, he might well stay in power, and we may well see a successor to the mass slaughters noted above that have elicited other rightful wars.
Ideally, change comes from within. Sometimes, sadly, change must come from without.
Updated by Seneca Doane at Wed Feb 23, 2011, 02:50:35 PM
Meteor Blades adds his thoughts below, which are worth incorporating here:
One thing the U.S. can and should do immediately.. (2+ / 0-)
...is provide humanitarian/medical assistance and deliver it to the Egyptian and Tunisian border areas with Libya. Both Egypt and Tunisia are helping at the border, but neither has the resources to do this effectively at the moment. No guns, no troops, no fight jets to shoot down the Libyan air force. Just bandages and all the other medical needs.