SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
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:
Conversation — August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm
Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln
Conversation — March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm
Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.
Estimated number of people who watched a live Webcast of a hair transplant last fall:
A rancher in Texas was developing a system that will permit hunters to kill animals by remote control via a website.
A man in Japan was arrested for stealing a prospective employer’s wallet during a job interview, and a court in Germany ruled that it is safe for a woman with breast implants to be a police officer.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
"It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis."