Critics Misguided about Libya Strikes

Critics of the coalition attacks against pro-Gaddafi forces and military installations have numerous reasons for disagreeing with the military action. Being concerned that western governments may get dragged further into Libya than just aerial strikes is one thing, but to actually oppose lending limited support to the rebels is simply bizarre.

I don’t mean to suggest a type of moral mercantilism where you can only be either for the attacks or for Gaddafi; where only one side can have the moral high-ground. The fact is, however, that Gaddafi is a murderous dictator and he has backed up his words with action, showing very little mercy towards the rebels in the east. Rolling tanks into cities is not the sign of amour paternel.

How can someone oppose protecting Libyans who oppose Gaddafi, and what should have been done instead? Anything? Nothing?

The strikes provide breathing room for the rebels to remove Gaddafi themselves. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have been learned. The U.S. and its allies do not have any interest in becoming too involved in Libya. The message that is being sent by President Obama and others is that they want Gaddafi gone, but the Libyan rebels will have to do that on their own.

At a fundamental level, I don’t understand arguments against intervening in Libya, since doing nothing means sitting by and allowing people to be killed. Gaddafi wasn’t paying attention to international sanctions and travel bans, and there was no evidence that he was going to start.

If the international community had continued to do nothing Gaddafi would have continued killing his own people. He may well ultimately succeed despite the coalition airstrikes, but it is unconscionable to stand by and let people be gunned down by the totalitarian leader they are trying to remove.

Kaplan: Obama Right to be Cautious

Why is President Obama taking so long to decide what, if any, action the U.S. will take to support the rebels in Libya? Is it a case of indecisiveness or an example of rhetoric not matching action?

According to Fred Kaplan at the New America Foundation, Obama has good reason to take his time and consider the options and their possible outcomes. As Kaplan points out, even the simple task of imposing a no-fly zone is not actually so simple:

How much of Libya do you want to restrict? (All of it? Just the Mediterranean coastal area? Just the eastern territories?) What are the rules of engagement? (Do we shoot down all aircraft that enter the zone, fixed-wing and helicopters? What if a Libyan pilot fires back? Do we destroy their air defenses ahead of time or just when they turn on their radar? If Qaddafi’s planes keep flying, do we bomb his runways? If the planes are down but Qaddafi sends in tanks, do we bomb their tanks?) Will other nations send their planes, too, or just their blessings, if that? How long do you want to keep this up? 

Obama’s calculations must also include the fact that Secretary of Defense Gates has been wary of imposing a no-fly zone. In testimony before a House subcommittee, Gates said, “a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses.”

According to Gates, the military actions that would go along with the no-fly zone would constitute a declaration of war against Libya. Kaplan points out correctly that Washington should simply assume that the region will support U.S. intervention.  

Like his approach to the Tahrir Square protests that ousted Mubarak, Obama is correct in taking a patient approach to the Libyan crisis. While it is gut wrenching to read accounts of mercenaries killing civilians, the United States should not charge headlong into Libya. Carefully considering our options before acting will hopefully allow for an approach that both decreases the chances that the country will be sucked into another conflict in the region and is more effective than a ragtag, thrown-together plan.

Of course, also like the Tahrir Square protests, Obama eventually does need to do something to support the rebels fighting to rid their country of Qaddafi’s toxic leadership.

Frontline: Iranian Students Organize over U.S. Visa Policy

Frontline’s Tehran Bureau recently ran an article about a group of Iranian students studying in the United States who want to the government to change its restrictions on their visas. According to the article, the current visa restrictions on Iranian students only allow them to gain a single entry visa.

Current US policy means that if students return to Iran to visit family, or even leave the country for an academic conference, they have to apply for a new visa. The students then run the risk of being denied a re-entry visa or missing classes due to processing delays.

In addition to a Facebook page, the students formed a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization called MEVISA  “to dedicated to raising awareness regarding single entry visa policy towards Iranian students” in the United States.” MEVISA published a report near the end of 2010 that provided the results of a survey conducted the organization conducted of Iranian students at US schools.

Briefly, the report indicates that,

• 80% of respondents said they do not leave the United States over the course of their studies;
• 78% of respondents made this choice over uncertainty about gaining a new visa;
• 37% of respondents who did leave the United States waited 3 months for a new visa;
• 20% increase in waiting time for returning students;
• 62.3% of respondents stated that they did not return to Iran for an emergency as a result of the visa policy;
• 82.7% of respondents stated the policy negatively affected their studies.

The MEVISA report inspires two immediate reactions.

First, as someone who studied abroad in Canada for both undergraduate and graduate school, I cannot imagine having to weigh visiting my family versus ensuring that I complete my studies on time (I admit that the situation is somewhat different, since the U.S. and Canada are not exactly hostile to each other). That is a hard choice to put on young people who are studying and living in a different country; especially when, as the report points out, graduate programs can last up to eight years. 

Second, it would seem that the US would want to attract Iranian students. Not only does our own education system benefit from greater diversity, but the students can also help to enrich our understanding of Iranian society beyond Tehran’s rhetoric.

Jamal Abdi, public policy director for the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), pointed out that the fact that Washington admits so many more Iranian students than is reciprocated by Tehran indicates that policy makers recognize the benefits of having young Iranians study here. According to Abdi, “it’s clear that [President Obama] understands and realizes the importance to have young Iranians come to the U.S., but the policy hasn’t gone the entire way” by making it easier for them to study in the country.

In 2010, MEVISA joined with NIAC for an unfortunately unsuccessful bid to begin the process of changing the visa policy through Congress. Hopefully MEVISA’s future efforts will be more successful in modifying U.S. policy.

Hating on Peace

In a city like Washington, DC where the adage “perception is reality” usually rings with exceptional clarity, it is amazing that members of Congress still make a decision to cut all funding for the US Institute of Peace (USIP). How do supporters of this decision think it will be perceived around the world? What message does this send? Perhaps something along the lines of: “the US claims to dislike war but man does it hate peace.” Or, the more likely perception will be that the United States isn’t really serious about promoting and supporting civil society groups around the globe. We pay lip service to the idea but where the rubber meets the road we fail to engage. 

The appropriation bill in question, H.R. 1, states, “the level for each of the following accounts shall be as follows…United States Institute of Peace, $42,676,000 (reduced by $42,676,000).”

In these difficult financial times, every little savings can certainly help but sometimes the intrinsic penalty that comes with a small financial savings is simply not worth it. The damage that cutting federal funding for USIP, an institution dedicated to civil society and conflict resolution (two things everyone should be able to get behind), will do to our perception by the world community is absolutely not worth saving $42,676,000.

It is impossible that there aren’t other areas of the budget that have extraneous fat that can be cut so that USIP can continue to receive full government funding.

Now because I’m a bit of an arms control nerd, the first thing that comes to my mind that could be cut is the Airborne Laser (ABL). The Government Accountability Office reported that as of 2010 the projected completion budget for the ABL was $3.4 billion, up from the $725 million projected in 1997. Why not cut the ABL missile defense system. It’s not as though the ABL works, even after the decades of research and billions of dollars in development. In fact, the Pentagon would prefer Congress cut the ABL funding and would probably support diverting the money to USIP.

Yet members of Congress continue to insist that canceling the ABL would weaken our missile defense. However, I would argue that funding an organization that promotes peace and conflict resolution around the globe might actually strengthen US missile defense to a greater extent than any potential harm that might accrue from cutting the non-functional ABL system.

After all, isn’t working to prevent situations where foreign nations might want to launch a missile at the United States the best missile defense. Actually it’s just good security policy in general.

The Iranian Daily Show

The videos below are from a segment that was on the PBS News Hour. It covers Parazit, Voice of America Persian News Network’s sometimes satirical sometimes serious show.

The original news segment:

An extended interview with the creators of Parazit: