SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
I was skeptical this past spring when the Obama White House reversed course on Libya. One day it was resolved not to intervene, following advice from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his generals about the foolishness of opening up a third war in the Middle East. The next, Obama was announcing U.S. support for a military operation to protect Libya’s civilian populace from their crazed dictator.
I was even more critical of the process Obama followed: not going to Congress for authorization, skirting the War Powers Resolution, and seeking a Security Council resolution that didn’t match the operations the U.S. and its NATO allies were actually putting in place. My views were fueled by a lifetime of experience with Washington politicians who understate the cost and level of commitment required for military adventures. But with the operations now concluded, it is important to acknowledge that Obama was scrupulous in keeping America’s participation within the limits he described, and that his strategy achieved the desired result in a reasonable time period and at a modest cost. Libya was a significant foreign-policy success for Obama and his team.
On the other hand, Obama took a series of unfortunate shortcuts with U.S. and international law in order to achieve this success. However effective the tactics that toppled Qaddafi may have been, they stretched far beyond the mandate agreed upon by the Security Council. As I argue in this piece for Foreign Policy, this is bad news for the people in Damascus and Hama, as well as for advocates of the notion of responsibility to protect. Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech promised a new kind of leadership, anchored in respect for the rule of law in general and international law in particular. We’re still waiting for some proof that he meant it.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”