The Civilized World’s Dilemma in Dealing with Rogue States
Diplomats, a British ambassador said a few centuries ago, are gentlemen sent abroad to lie for their country. I’d add that the problem is when they start to lie for other countries, while the disaster is when they start to lie for enemies of their country.
Stefan Zweig, in a 1930 book, spoke of “diplomatists, who form a little understood but extremely dangerous variety of our human kind.”
But diplomats and political leaders also have real dilemmas, in some ways unresolvable ones. Here’s an example of how the problem works and bedevils Middle East policy and foreign policy generally.
A year ago, Britain released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from prison and returned him to Libya. This was done nominally because a doctor said — the British government had to shop around until it found the right doctor — that he was dying. The real reason, apparently, was that this move helped British Petroleum get a big contract with Libya.
Today, though, Megrahi is doing well. He isn’t dying at all. In fact, Libya celebrated the anniversary of his release and he was visited by son-of-dictator (and apparent successor) Saif Qadhafi.
The British government warned Libya that any such celebration would be “tasteless, offensive and deeply insensitive” and would make it really, really angry. Libya didn’t care, ignored the threat, and Britain did nothing.
In short, a Western country looks weak, scared, and corrupt; and a repressive, hate-filled, terrorist-supporting dictatorship looks powerful and in control of the world. The signal thus sent leads to a world where democrats tremble and dictators romp.
Let’s take a step back and consider this as a case study. Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, was given a 27-year prison sentence in 2001 for involvement in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, mostly U.S. citizens.
But of course Megrahi was just a scapegoat. He was acting in his capacity as a Libyan government official and in the end he took the rap like a loyal Mafia soldier. No doubt his family has been well provided for.
Still, the conclusion is obvious: The Libyan government ordered the bombing. Muammar Qadhafi and his regime are responsible for this terrorist act, just as the Iranian and Syrian governments are responsible for directly ordering numerous terrorist attacks.
So what’s a victim country to do? The traditional response to such behavior is a military attack, perhaps the seizure of part of the aggressive company or even the occupation of its capital and the overthrow of the regime. The idea is that the threat is thus removed, the malefactors punished, and an example is given to deter future imitators.
One could say that this is what the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq after September 11, with the former a response to the attack on the World Trade Center and the latter to Saddam Hussein’s frequent flouting of his previous agreements and reported pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Does this mean that the proper response to the Lockerbie attack should have been a coalition attack on Libya and the overthrow of the Qadhafi regime? And what about the Western attitude toward the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip? Can a country act unilaterally to defend itself or must it await a UN resolution, without which nothing can be done at all?
These are difficult questions. William Gladstone, the nineteenth-century British prime minister who had to face such problems, remarked: “Interference in foreign countries, according to my mind, should be rare, deliberate, decisive in character, and effectual for its end.” When Sudanese Islamist forces were closing in on Khartoum, set to massacre not only the British force sent to protect the population there but also thousands of Sudanese Muslim civilians, he didn’t want to act.
British public opinion was outraged after Khartoum fell and the subsequent massacre. Later British governments overthrew the Islamist regime and joined Sudan to its Egyptian dominion. That kind of behavior is derided today as imperialism.
A military response is no simple solution. It is expensive, long in duration, and causes casualties. Western news media will trumpet any misdeed or mistake. Moreover, since deep-seated social and structural problems are at the root of what might be called the “dictator regions of the world,” one does not see miraculous transformations. Also, given the new kind of asymmetric warfare, radical regimes and movements welcome the death of their people and destruction of their infrastructure as a means of gaining sympathy and mobilizing forces.
Israel, at times attacked from all sides, with a supportive population (public opinion criticized the government response to the Lebanon war in 2006 as too soft), insufficient international support, and little margin for error, has understandably adopted a policy of retaliation to maintain credibility. Generally, this approach has worked.
Nowadays, though, it is inhibited not so much by domestic factors but by an extremely low level of international backing, which would erode even further if Israel hit back too long or hard. In addition, Israel has no wish to retake the West Bank, Gaza Strip, or south Lebanon. And it knows that nothing it can do will end the conflict (through victory) or change the hearts of its enemies (through concessions).
That last point, by the way, is generally misunderstood by, respectively, the foreign right and left, both of which entertain fantasies on these points. Neither violence nor peace-making offers a full solution, yet deterrence and credibility really do work, at least for a while. True, Hezbollah and Hamas will want to fight again in the future but that future can be postponed; Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO were pushed by Israel’s military pressure out of the conflict (as much as that can happen), while Syria is too fearful to fight on its own account (thus using Lebanon as a human shield).
The Western situation is quite different. To put it bluntly, anything short of a September 11 attack can largely be ignored or dealt with through types of appeasement. Accepting some mid-level intelligence guy as payment for Libyan terrorism was a form of appeasement, as were the lessons drawn by Britain and Spain as a result of major terrorist attacks in their capitals.
If one brings in Third World democracies, India was powerless to deal with Pakistan which had obviously sponsored a huge terror attack in Mumbai. South Korea has its hands tied regarding North Korea; Thailand can’t do anything to counter support by at least provincial governments in Malaysia for terrorists in its southern region.
So where’s the line between going to war and letting aggressors walk all over you? One option is covert, deniable action. But even that seems out of favor in a West that prefers to turn the other cheek in the face of subversion, terrorism, and insult. It is bad enough when a contributing factor here is what might be called, in effect, an ideological fifth column. When that sector has a large measure of hegemony in academia, entertainment, media, and even government then traditional strategic behavior becomes close to impossible.
What then is the answer? A combination of things: having leaders who believe your country’s virtues outweigh its sins and think that its enemies are due more opposition than sympathy, clarity on the issues, a campaign to gain domestic support, verbal toughness, helping the enemies of one’s enemies, supporting one’s friends, sanctions, covert operations, and when necessary appropriate types of military action.
But first you need to know two simple things: you’ve got enemies and neither flattery nor apology nor concessions nor betraying your friends nor bashing yourself is going to change that fact.
I’m a big fan, Prof. Rubin, I very much admire your analyses on the Middle-East.
But, you can’t get over your Liberal aversion to war, to the use of military force.
The best strategy is preemptive military action or an immediate & disproportionate military response to any action, no matter how small.
For example, in the case of Hezbollah, no matter how you look at it, it was a major mistake to allow the arms build-up. Military action should have been taken immediately, both against Hezbollah itself & it’s supplier, Syria.
We are making the same mistake re: Iran.
Whether you like it or not- Terry is right!
Indisputable historical evidence suggests:
If your enemy does not hesitate to kill, you must kill more.
If you do anything less, you will always lose or perpetuate the conflict for ever. (Vietnam, North-Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria……., Iran?)
Proportional response is a moronic concept that, at the end, kills more people than one overpowering counter-strike.
This is how the USA won World War 2. There was no other way, and there still is no other way. Anything else is just political romanticism.
We all fret over killing civilians, even if some of them are civilians in name only.
We shudder at the thought of more Pallywood.
We cherish life and so must cherish the lives of our enemies….
(add emotional and ‘moral’ obstacle here, the list could go on for a while).
As Terry says, Westerners are provably and irreparably liberal, but for a distinct minority, ostracized.
Larry, I think the more accurate description is that Westerners are squeemish, they’re a bit removed from real life, a bit like vegetarians.
Terry, defeating one’s enemies interferes with the finer things in life – the self-indulgences made possible by past warriors. On its current path, the US is doomed. Obama has resumed the Carter-Clinton march to mediocrity, but with the true passion of the zealot.
Okay, when do I get to try some of that Moroccan food?
Quitely simply the US military needs a punch bag to keep getting funded. The peace dividend seems irrelevant. If the US media wrote about non-violent regime change, and we did have Iran become again what Jimmy Carter called “the island of stability” then where would the US go?
Do you have a date for the non-violent regime change in Iran to occur, Ali, or is it the fault of the Pentagon, the Bankers and the New York Yankees that it does not? It has taken 30 years for the ‘Green’ revolution to begin to take shape; nobody knows what it will yield if it does. I would suggest that if Obama continues to coddle Iran, then Israel will act. At that point will you be appreciative of American non-violence, or be busy denouncing The Evil Zionists?
“The Western situation is quite different. To put it bluntly, anything short of a September 11 attack can largely be ignored or dealt with through types of appeasement. Accepting some mid-level intelligence guy as payment for Libyan terrorism was a form of appeasement, as were the lessons drawn by Britain and Spain as a result of major terrorist attacks in their capitals.”
This is why the West is doomed if we continue down this horrific path of appeasement. The British in the 19th century had a military operation called a “Punitive Expedition.” Nation building was NOT the goal here, nor was the idea of spreading democracy or even enlightenment. The goal was pain, and lots of it. If a country attacked you, you would strike back for the sole purpose of infliciting as much damage as possible in order to teach the offending nation a lesson they would never forget.
Some nations used punitive expeditions as a reason to expand their colonial interests. For example, when the Chinese rebelled against the western powers during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, several western nations sent troops to China not only to rescue the western diplomats under seige in Peking, but also to teach the Chinese a military lesson they would never forget. And it worked. Not only did the western powers rescue their diplomates, but they also forced China to pay enormous reparations and to fork over large hunks of land as greater “spheres of influence” to the western powers. China was never the same again.
But some nations used punitive expeditions simply to teach a lesson. Ironically, the British invaded Afghanistan over a hundred years ago simply to put down a rebellion that threatened British interests there. The famous Lord Roberts of Kandahar was the master of the punitive expedition and he decisively beat the Afghan tribesmen that attacked the British. But, after he beat the tribesmen in battle, he installed a king that was friendly to Great Britain and then he left. Yes, he left. He wasn’t interested in nation building and he certainly didn’t care if Afghanistan looked and acted like England. He made a military point and left. As a result, Afghanistan wasn’t a problem for the British empire for decades after that.
But today western nations are too concerned with world opinion, their image, and that horrible term, “nation building.” No longer is it good enough to simply avenge an attack on your nation to show that you have the capability to defend yourself. How different would the would be today if, after 9/11, we went into Afghanistan ON OUR OWN and killed (yes killed, NOT arrested) as many members of al Qaeda and the Taliban as possible, and then left? The standard argument is that the al Qaeda and the Taliban would have simply come back to power after we left. Maybe, but if we caused them such severe pain during our invasion, how motivated would the Taliban have been to allow al Qaeda to attack the United States again? If we proved a crushing military point far worse than “shock and awe,” and ment it, don’t you think al Qaeda would have concentrated their efforts on weaker targets, like Western Europe?
But the invasion of Afghanistan became nation building in its worse sense. We got involved in women’s rights and creating democracy in a country that was still set in a tribal culture right from the 15th century. You will build no democracy in Afghanistan. They will go right back to the way they were as soon as we leave (unless you want to keep troops there forever). The west is weak now because dictators and terrorists know that western countries are more concerned with their image at the UN rather than in making a crushing military point.
Will punitive expeditions always work? Maybe, maybe not. Rome had to attack Carthage three times and suffered horrible losses before finally crushing Carthage forever. But, with today’s technology and weapons, you could make a crushing military point in a matter of hours. The only thing missing today is the will to do it. And as long as dictators and terrorists know that the west no longer has the will to defend itself, violence will increase around the world, terrorist attacks will increase, and more people will die. That is what appeasement has bought us in the 21st century.
Dealing with most of them unfortunately is colored by the reality of our need for their resources. Removing that need will dramatically alter our ability to restrict our imports and aid to those that behave is at least semi-civilized fashion. As long as we continue to contribute to the ongoing well being of the leaders of rogue countries and keep our rose glasses in place when dealing with them in exchange for oil we will be holding a losing hand at every deal.
Coal generated power, natural gas and nuclear plants for all but highway transportation plus expanded drilling (and mining) for our more than ample resources will permit us to have a realistic foreign policy where we are not holding “low garbage” at the table. It also allows us to pick sides in transnational disputes based on civilized conduct and our own interests. Until then sending out the “suits” is a waste of time. Big hat but no cattle.
What happened to those old defense strategies – in a world of predators and prey : 1. identify your enemy and 2. Know your enemy.
Was it thrown out with the bath water of non-judgmentalism and the hand-wringing of mustn’t offend in case “they” get mad?
Lockerbie was a revenge attack for the killing of Gaddafi’s son in the Tripoli raid. The Tripoli raid was in response to the Lebanon bomb killing U.S. Marines.
Eventually you have to talk. Sure, the U.S could destroy Gaddafi if it was useful but it obviously isnt is it? Mehgrahi is no more guilty than those who sent him. And he is dying.
As you mentioned, the first step is to understand that the United States has enemies in the world and that those enemies cannot be appeased or ignored. Mr. Obama and his admiinistration have so far failed the first step.
A point I would mention is that the United States and the western world have largely abandoned the strategy of using punitive expeditions against the enemy. Sure we will still shoot a few missiles but nothing more. Old school punitive expeditions do not have to brutalize the population or even destroy non-military infrastructure. What it needs to do is demonstrate to the tyrant and the populace that the United States can and will strike anywhere at anytime and there is nothing the tyrant can do to stop it. We don’t have to keep the country or any territory. Nor do we have to try and make a western civilization out of the stone age. They just need to know not to mess with us.
Forget the United Nations. There problem is that they allow anybody to join. When Sudan can sit on a human rights commission, they have lost all credibility.
Each situation will differ depending on situations on the ground, government structure or lack thereof, etc. The goal though is to make the tyrant and his populace fear the United States. A healthy fear is not a bad thing. As for Gaddafi, take the oil wells. Keep 50% of the profit and give 50% directly to the Libyan people. See how long he stays in power then. Western imperialism, damn straight. I fail to see how British control of Libya would be any worse than Gaddafi.
If the West had any cojones, most of our current troubles would never have materialized. When Nasser siezed the Suez Canal (built and owned by France), the Brits, French, and Israelis sent troops in to recover it. Pres Eisenhower, in what I believe may have been one of the most stupid decisions of he 20th Century (he also made the contender — letting the Hungarians be ground down), cut the legs out from under the allies. Once this happened, the nationalization of foreign property was on the table, although under international law, it was a causus belli. All the oil wealth of the Middle East, having been discovered and exploited by Western oil companies, was safely under western control through concessions granted by the shieks in return for extracting the oil. The minute the A-rabs sensed weakness, their nationalizations of the oil concessions began. There was no need for this to ever happen. Western oil companies had legal rights to exploit the oil, and western governments had the power to enforce them. But not the will — and now we find ourselves at the mercy of a bunch of 8th Century primitives?
Excellent analysis! Eisenhower’s action during the Suez Crisis may very well have been the beginning of the current trend.
Dr. Rubin you write, “In short, a Western country looks weak, scared, and corrupt; and a repressive, hate-filled, terrorist-supporting dictatorship looks powerful and in control of the world.” The first part of your analysis is both telling and accurate, it is exactly this view that informs the narrative how Great Britain largely views itself. It is also the idea that informs the narrative of practically all of the states in Western Europe. Libya of course is a tin pot dictatorship barely able to stay afloat but the idea that informs it’s narrative is the last part of your statement, “powerful and in control of the world.”
Regarding the use of military force by a European state, that is, waging war to pursue national interests or even in justifiable self defence, the ideas that inform the European narrative since WWII have been pacifism and the fear of nationalism. As an example, just look at how the French and British elite and the chattering classes of those states have bitterly reacted to their countries participation in the Iraq and Afghan Wars. In particular, Sarkozy has been raked over the coals by groups opposed to his plans to expel illegal immigrants and ban the provocative modes of female Islamic dress as a way to prevent the further decline of French nationalism.
Most Europeans and many Americans have lost the will to survive as such.
Good article, and I’m not disagreeing (as a Briton) with your characterisation of Britain as weak, scared and corrupt, but please note that the release of Megrahi was not a British decision, but a Scottish one. Scotland has its own legal system and legislature, and London was not consulted.
I’m sure Brown would have done much the same though, and very likely Cameron too.
As for:
6. davidstanley
“Lockerbie was a revenge attack for the killing of Gaddafi’s son in the Tripoli raid. The Tripoli raid was in response to the Lebanon bomb killing U.S. Marines.
Eventually you have to talk. Sure, the U.S could destroy Gaddafi if it was useful but it obviously isnt is it? Mehgrahi is no more guilty than those who sent him. And he is dying.”
This completely misses the point of the article. Western governments consistently hand propaganda victories to their enemies. This is not a debate, and Gaddhafi doesn’t want to talk. It’s western liberals who think talking will resolve things. Releasing Megrahi, found guilty of the mass murder of the Lockerbie victims, leads us nowhere good or even useful. It just makes us look as though we don’t believe in our own law and institutions.
“It is bad enough when a contributing factor here is what might be called, in effect, an ideological fifth column. When that sector has a large measure of hegemony in academia, entertainment, media, and even government then traditional strategic behavior becomes close to impossible.”
Ta Da! And there you have it. We in the west especially in America have for too long allowed the left to control what we do, think, say and write. The end result is that we have the situation in which 7th century tribesmen can hold us literally hostage. Had we understood that the left hates the US as much as our enemies, many of these wars would have been less costly in lives and money.
Had we just blown up Hanoi, Vietnam would have ended sooner with less casualties. Had we blown up Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, this would all be over.
Ruthless people like the N. Vietnamese and barbaric people like Islamic jihadists only understand power and the projection of strength. From the 241 Marines killed in Lebanon forward had we pounded Islamicists into the ground, 911 would not have happened.
Steve,
I think what I was trying to say is that the raid on Tripoli was an example of the U.S. acting tough but failing in its objective and creating a reason that was used to justify Lockerbie. I am not saying it is justification but was used as such. Reagan thought he was sending a message but the message the world got was not that intended. The message received was that the U.S didn’t mind killing civilians and children.
As it happens I don’t think he should have been released. Also I am not sure Scotland is part of the west anymore. It is maybe moving towards Moscow a little each year!
“Had we just blown up Hanoi, Vietnam would have ended sooner with less casualties. Had we blown up Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, this would all be over.”
I have an easier option for you. Instead of blowing up so many places, blow up Israel (the reason behind all the mess in the world).
Yes, the problem in the Middle East is an elective government in which the rights of women and homosexuals are respected. Idiot!
Dear Floydian,
Are you really proposing the mass murder of 5 million Israeli Jews, 2 million Israeli Arabs, and even large numbers of Palestinian Arabs as a solution to the problems facing the international community?
Do you even realize how sick and twisted you must be to even contemplate the disgusting and vicious massacre of millions of innocent people?
Of course you probably see your despicable remarks as provocative and yourself as some sort of hero, but the reality is that most moral and decent people see you as the hatefilled clown, or the depraved hooligan you really are.
I think floydian may work somewhere in the West Wing. We’re trying to find out…pinging his IP….oh, no, it’s not, it couldn’t be…
The US of A could do one, many or all of the following (which it has always been doing)
1. Give that rogue state a preferred partner status
2. Sell such a country hundreds of f-16 at discount prices
3. Ignore such country’s role in breeding terrorism
4. Call upon such country’s victim nations to understand its geo-political compulsions
5. Praise such a country profusely as a partner in the war against drugs/terror/or any suitable word
6. Pour in billions of dollars in aid to such country to enable it to use that money in harassing its neighbors
This list is just a sample. You are welcome to write to me if you want more ideas.