Writer Jon Lee Anderson described President Obama in the New Yorker this week as a man “torn between the imperatives of rescuing Libyan innocents from slaughter and not falling into yet another prolonged war.” Quite right, we think, and an illustration of the moral challenges of statecraft and military decision-making in a world that is clearly far from grace.
There is no good option for Obama, and for our nation. Any action taken – including, specifically, the actions taken in the past ten days – will cause ugly and unforgivable harm. Certainly some innocents will die when we bomb from the sky. Certainly even those uniformed and ready-to-strike government soldiers we target, whether they be about to gas and bayonet a group of protesters or press the button to launch a rocket, count among themselves frightened young men who wear the uniform as a better alternative to exile, death or other punishments.
We cannot avoid doing grievous harm here; the question is which harm is worse – fighting against Khadaffi’s forces as they attack their own population, or standing back and doing nothing (also known in the language of national capitals as “diplomatic action.”)
Some argue that we have no “interests” at stake in Libya; one wag has gone as far as to say that the requirement for “strategic national interests” to be at issue is “axiomatic.” We take that to be something like “because I said so.”
There are questions of human dignity, of the ability to succeed, and of connection to a genuine innocent party on the ground requesting help that all have definite answers in this case. Among the tragedies of our other wars is that having acted too quickly and with too little regard for the interests and perspectives of others, we are now conditioned to say no, to hold back, to question the moral foundations of ideas like “never again.”
We note that our nation – as of this day – is acting with moderation, but acting with due force. We are, for the moment, the good guys.
The.American.Word. 