There is such a widespread impulse on the right to use Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya as some kind of vindication of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. David Brooks joins the party by penning a long essay that looks at the shortcomings of multilateral military efforts. The idea, I guess, is that it wasn’t so terrible to go it alone in Iraq. But he doesn’t have the courage to argue his point frontally, so he opens and closes with the following caveats:
The Iraq war reminded everybody not to embark on an international effort without a broad coalition.
All of this is not to say the world should do nothing while Qaddafi unleashes his demonic fury. Nor is this a defense of unilateralism. But we should not pretend we have found a superior way to fight a war. Multilateralism works best as a garment clothing American leadership.
It’s hard to argue with the anything that Brooks writes in his column, but I have to wonder why he bothered to write it. If unilateralism is indefensible…if we shouldn’t act without a broad coalition…then why is he criticizing multilateralism? If multilateralism isn’t superior to unilateralism, then perhaps no action is ever justified.
As for his last point, I didn’t want to get involved in Libya, but now that we’ve gone ahead, I’d like to see if Brooks is right or wrong. Let’s see if the United Nations can see one of its resolutions effectively enforced by a coalition that isn’t actually led by U.S. forces. Yes, I know that we’re currently the most active partner, but over the long haul I’d like to see other countries tend to Libya’s needs. If that happens, and if it leads to some kind of happy outcome in Libya, then we’ll have reason to doubt that multilateralism works best as a garment clothing American leadership. I don’t mind being the strongest country in the world, nor do I mind being asked to take on some special burdens. But I don’t want us to be the sole enforcement arm of the United Nations. We simply can’t afford that, on any number of levels. Perhaps, in Libya, we will discover whether the UN can work on a more ad hoc basis, with member countries contributing what they can and leadership being more evenly shared. Yes, that will come with all the shortcomings that Brooks mentioned, but it will also come with a lot of upside for the United States, the United Nations, and the world.
But, before you think I am voicing optimism, I really am not optimistic that things will go well in Libya. I honestly don’t know enough about Libyan society to make strong predictions, but I see a high possibility that once Gaddafi is removed from power the real fighting will begin. If Gaddafi is not removed from power, by definition things will not have gone well in Libya.
Either way, nothing that has been decided or done about Libya vindicates George W. Bush one iota.