How to Save the Euro

At The Economist, "It requires urgent action on a huge scale. Unless Germany rises to the challenge, disaster looms":

SO GRAVE, so menacing, so unstoppable has the euro crisis become that even rescue talk only fuels ever-rising panic. Investors have sniffed out that Europe’s leaders seem unwilling ever to do enough. Yet unless politicians act fast to persuade the world that their desire to preserve the euro is greater than the markets’ ability to bet against it, the single currency faces ruin. As credit lines gum up and outsiders plead for action, it is not just the euro that is at risk, but the future of the European Union and the health of the world economy.

Keep reading. The piece keeps mentioning the "restructuring of debt," which follows from the fact that some European states simply can't make good on their obligations, and sovereign default would hammer commercial banks and cause even deeper economic turmoil. But the larger issue is whether EU members deal with the crisis in multilateral fashion or retreat to narrower self-interest, casting off Greece to its own misfortunes, and so forth...

RELATED: At New York Times, "Suddenly, Over There Is Over Here" (via Memeorandum).

What We Got Right in the War on Terror

I was hoping to do some big analysis of Abe Greenwald's masterful essay, at Commentary, but never got around to it. This is simply the best piece I've read on the war on terror:

Over the course of the 10 years, American authorities foiled more than two dozen al-Qaeda plots. Those averted tragedies were not foremost on the minds of revelers who gathered to celebrate Bin Laden’s demise on May 1 at Ground Zero, Times Square, and in front of the White House. But if a mere few of the plots had materialized, those spaces might not even have been open to public assembly.

Not only have U.S. authorities managed to keep America safe from al-Qaeda for a decade; by the time he was killed, Osama bin Laden was barely a leader. Among the items recovered at his compound in Abbottabad were some recent writings, in which the former icon lamented al-Qaeda’s dramatically sinking stock and pondered organizational rebranding as a possible antidote.

His growing insignificance as a global player was not the product of chance. The marginalization of the world’s principal jihadist was the result of audacious American policy—indeed, the most controversial and hotly debated policy undertaken in the wake of 9/11. In the words of Reuel Marc Gerecht writing in the Wall Street Journal, “the war in Iraq was Bin Laden’s great moral undoing.” In his desperate attempt to drive American fighting forces out of Mesopotamia, Bin Laden sanctioned a bloody civil war in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. The carnage failed to repel the United States, but in the end, the countrywide slaughter of Muslims proved too much to bear for al-Qaeda’s own one-time and would-be supporters. The “Sunni awakening” that helped transform Iraq was an awakening out of al-Qaeda jihadism, and the blow it delivered to Bin Laden’s ambitions was stunning.

After the turnaround in Iraq, the landscape of the Muslim world suffered even greater changes—with ordinary Muslims rising to revolt against Persian and Arab tyranny, not against American hegemony. As Fouad Ajami has written: “The Arab Spring has simply overwhelmed the world of the jihadists. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Syria, younger people—hurled into politics by the economic and political failures all around them—are attempting to create a new political framework, to see if a way could be found out of the wreckage that the authoritarian states have bequeathed them.”

It was the Freedom Agenda of the George W. Bush administration—delineated and formulated as a conscious alternative to jihadism—that showed the way. Indeed, the costly American nation-building in Iraq has now led to the creation of the world’s first and only functioning democratic Arab state. One popular indictment of Bush maintains that he settled on the Freedom Agenda as justification for war after U.S. forces and inspectors found no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The record shows otherwise. “A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East,” he said before the invasion, in February 2003. “Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both.”

And something of the kind has come to pass. “One despot fell in 2003,” Ajami has said. “We decapitated him. Two despots, in Tunisia and Egypt, fell, and there is absolutely a direct connection between what happened in Iraq in 2003 and what’s happening today throughout the rest of the Arab world.”

Thus, there are three intertwined achievements that have proved to be the dispositive features of American success in the war on terror: formulating the Freedom Agenda in the Middle East, reversing the course of the war in Iraq, and establishing a national-security apparatus to foil multiple terrorist attacks. It is no coincidence that they are also the most controversial foreign policies America has implemented since the Vietnam War.

September 11 was a hinge moment in American history. The attacks plunged the nation into a full-scale war against non-state entities. Any adequate American response had to break with previous approaches in previous conflicts. War could not be waged on parties inside states in the same way it had been waged on states themselves. Prisoners captured on a battlefield in a country not their own and with no interest in following the rules of conventional war could not be handled as they had been. Getting the edge on Islamist terror would mean fundamentally rethinking our approach to both the blunting of deadly threats and the shuttering of the political hothouses of the Middle East in which such threats thrive.

The adoption of these unprecedented and uncompromising means of war inspired animated debate in the United States. In fighting the war on terror, we have been told, America has become—depending on the accuser—either too dismissive or too enamored of democracy. Some on the left think our national-security apparatus undermines our defining ideals. On the right, outraged voices condemn our naive enthusiasm for helping to secure liberty for Muslims abroad, calling it a form of multicultural self-sabotage. After civil war seized post-invasion Iraq, critics from across the ideological spectrum denounced our misguided effort. The fits and starts and frustrations of the war decade have this one thing in common: we have done battle in an age when spectacular setbacks appear to provide irrefutable evidence of our own baseness and incompetence—a few years before drab good news arrives to refute both expert opinion and common knowledge.

The arguments that we have prosecuted the war on terror immorally and ineffectually are important, and deserve the respectful hearing they have received, even if many of those arguing these points have resorted to launching the most abject slanders and accusations toward those who believe the war on terror is just and has been fought honorably. To be sure, not everything the United States has done in the war on terror has been correct. Far from it. As Winston Churchill said, “War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.” In the fight against Islamist terrorism, American blunders have come in all shapes and sizes, and in truth there are few small wartime miscalculations. This is especially so in an age of instant global headlines.

We continue to suffer for our biggest mistakes. Concerning the failure to catch Bin Laden and make serious efforts to nation-build early in the Afghanistan war, inaccurate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons, and the Pentagon’s ill-preparedness for the Iraqi insurgency, there can be no absolution. These errors have cost the country tragic sums in money, credibility, and life. They also set our efforts back precious years.

But these blunders, great as they are, have not undone America’s outstanding accomplishments. Ten years ago, the most delusional optimist among us would not have predicted the irrelevancy of Osama bin Laden or a decade without another al-Qaeda attack, let alone a democratic Iraq and a transformative explosion of antiauthoritarianism in the Middle East.

Nor do American achievements in this war mean we are in a position to quit the fight. The notion that America achieved closure with Bin Laden’s killing suggests to some, perhaps even the occupant of the White House, that the war on terror has had its decade and the United States can now move on. “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” said Barack Obama this summer as he announced a sizable drawdown of troops in Afghanistan for the fall of 2012. The suggestion that our work is done has traction only because resolute American action at home and abroad have provided a sense of security so pervasive it now goes unquestioned.

The United States has fallen prey to false comfort in the past. So before we submit to the siren song of closure, we would do well to recall that that is exactly where this war began—and our retaining some genuine measure of security has been the result of thinking and acting more boldly than we have in generations.

Now go read the whole thing.

Egyptian Protesters Tear Down Israeli Embassy Security Wall

This video c/o Ahram Online, "VIDEO: Protesters take down Israeli embassy flag."

And at Weasel Zippers, "Arab Spring: Hundreds of Rampaging Egyptians Tear Down Concrete Wall Protecting Israeli Embassy…"

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "EGYPT: Thousands in Tahrir Square angry at slow pace of reforms."

No doubt.

The Battle for Sirte

At Telegraph UK, "Libya: Over 800 killed in battle for Gaddafi's home town of Sirte."

Libya's transitional leaders believe hundreds of their supporters have been gunned down in Colonel Gaddafi's home town of Sirte by desperate regime loyalists, even as they try to negotiate its surrender.



The town is Gaddafi's biggest remaining Libya stronghold and rebel commanders know his forces are dug in for a bloody battle.



For now opposition forces have held their positions to the east and west as they wait for tribal elders to negotiate with Gaddafi fighters.



But Shamsiddin Ben-Ali, a spokesman in the rebel city of Benghazi, said 800 people had been killed in the past three days.



"Many of the people of Sirte are on our side now and want to be part of the revolution," he said. "The people with guns though are still resisting."



The death toll raises a bloody conundrum for the country's new leaders: rushing in could spell a military disaster but waiting is costing a very high price in civilian casualties.

Also at Telegraph, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

NATO is No Go Without American Power

At Wall Street Journal, "NATO Strikes Show Europe Defense Dilemma":

The military campaign over Libya has delivered a serious blow to a project long nurtured at the heart of the European Union: a European military capability independent of the U.S., defense analysts and officials say.



For years, the EU sought to build what came to be called its Common Security and Defense Policy as some nations, led by France, wanted the freedom to act militarily without Washington's interference.



For Paris, this meant creating a military command structure and forces separate from the U.S.-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This vision has never come close to fruition, not least because the U.S. and U.K. saw it as duplicating NATO's role.



Ironically, it was the first-ever NATO military operation to be led by Europeans, with the U.S. deciding to take a back seat, that suggests that ambition may never be fulfilled.



Central to this has been the move in 2009 by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to reverse the 1966 decision of President Charles de Gaulle and reintegrate France into NATO's military command.



On Wednesday evening, Mr. Sarkozy told assembled diplomats in Paris that NATO "has shown itself to be an indispensable tool in the service of our military operations." The success of military operations over Libya was possible because France had reassumed its position in NATO's military command, he said.

More at that top link.



Madeleine Albright once called the U.S. the "indispensable nation", and for all of our difficulties, world events keep proving it over and over.

Libertarians and Democrats

I saw this Will Wilkinson piece earlier and read it all: "A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed." I didn't bother commenting on it because Wilkinson's not worth it. He's a drug-addled leftist, IMHO, and a pretty much typical libertarian. So, what do you know, but American Glob has picked up the slack, "In Which I Respectfully Disagree With Will Wilkinson" (via Glenn Reynolds):

I don’t know Will Wilkinson personally but I know he’s a Libertarian writer who has worked for the highly regarded Cato Institute.



Wilkinson wrote an article for The New Republic today in which he calls Ron Paul an “embarrassment” to the creed of Libertarianism.



I like many of Ron Paul’s ideas and disagree with others, specifically his approach to foreign policy but my objection to Wilkinson’s article has nothing to do with Ron Paul.



It’s based on the first half of his second sentence…

In 2006, I tossed a few dollars at the Democrat running for Senate against the loathsome Rick Santorum. It could have been a three-headed goat, for all I cared, but Wikipedia says it was Bob Casey.

Before you jump to conclusions, let me state for the record that I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Rick Santorum. I don’t believe he is a “loathsome” person as Wilkinson characterized him, I think he is probably a decent man despite our political differences.



My problem with Wilkinson’s article is simply this:



I don’t believe it’s possible to be a Libertarian and support Democrats. Ever.

Keep reading.



Actually, I doubt it would take long, but you could probably find lots of libertarians who supported Democrats in California last year, when Proposition 19 was on the ballot. Both Democrats and Libertarians endorsed the measure, which placed them in a de facto political alliance. Indeed, there's also a "progressive-libertarian coalition" that joined forces on the initiative. So, while in theory it may be impossible to be a libertarian and support Democrats, in fact those two ideologies generally have just as much in common as do libertarians and conservatives on support for free markets. Indeed, if you look at criminal justice and civil liberties you're more likely to see Democrats (progressives) allied with libertarians. Frankly, when it comes to a robust foreign policy and a defense of social conservatism, I make little distinction between leftists and libertarians. Throw in gay marriage (libertarians back it), and really, what's left for libertarians to be associated with that is generally referred to as right wing? Ron Paul is loathsome to me on foreign policy, but even more we learn over and over again that's he's anti-Semitic, and even Will Wilkinson attacks him as racist. I just can't stand people like that. A foreign policy that excoriates U.S. support for Israel turns quickly into a crude copy of neo-communist Jew-bashing eliminationism. So with all due respect, I'd think American Glob might want to rethink his partiality to Ron Paul in a hypothetical match up between Paul and Obama. They're both disasters, and a pox on both of their houses.

To the Shores of Tripoli

From Robert Kagan, at Weekly Standard:

... the end of Qaddafi’s rule is a great accomplishment for the Obama administration and for the president personally. It is a shame that some administration officials are trying to downplay the role of the United States in this whole affair, absurdly trying to turn the “leading from behind” gaffe into a kind of Obama doctrine. In fact, the United States was not “leading from behind.” By far the most important decision taken by any world leader in this entire episode—the decision that made all the difference—was President Obama’s decision that the United States and the world could not stand by and see the people of Ben ghazi massacred.



That American choice was the turning point. All praise to France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron for being ahead of the president in seeing the need for armed action—just as Margaret Thatcher was ahead of George H.W. Bush in seeing the need for action against Saddam Hussein in 1990. But here is the plain and critical truth of the matter: None of this could have been done without the United States leading the way.



Only the United States has the military capacity, the weaponry, the surveillance technology, and the skill to open a safe path for the air and ground war against Qaddafi’s forces. France and Britain alone would not and probably could not have done the job without unacceptable risk to their forces, which were very thin to begin with. In the early days, especially, American A-10 and AC-130 ground attack aircraft were critical in pummeling Qaddafi’s armored vehicles and forcing them to halt offensives against rebel positions. In the last days of the conflict, American high-tech surveillance allowed the rebels to pinpoint the positions of Qaddafi forces in and around Tripoli. Throughout months of fighting, prowling American Predator drones forced Qaddafi and his men to keep their heads down.



The president and his secretary of state also carried out an adept diplomacy that eventually garnered not only European but, remarkably, Arab support as well. This in turn forced both Russia and China—fearful of Arab wrath—to acquiesce. There were costs, of course: a U.N. resolution inadequate to the task at hand and the usual problem of trying to keep many players on board during a mission. On balance, however, it was worth it. The administration was surely right that the intervention would be more effective if it did not appear to be exclusively an American operation and that the combination of European and Arab support for removing Qaddafi was enough of a prize to warrant some compromises.



But the larger point is that, again, only the United States could have pulled all these disparate political and regional forces together. No other nation, not France, not Great Britain, not even a united EU (which German opposition prevented) could have managed this global diplomatic task. In this allegedly “post-American” world, the United States remains both indispensable and irreplaceable.

That's a dramatically different take than Max Boot's, "Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?" Boot doesn't love America's reserve role in these interventions, especially since success requires American military power to begin with. Why shrug off our leadership role and argue "we've got your back"? Kagan just calls it an American victory no matter how you slice it. But all along I've found Victor Davis Hanson's arguments to be the most compelling, which hold, for example, that the Obama administration hadn't the slightest clue about toppling Gaddafi, as evidenced by the administration's pathetic flip-flopping on the goal of regime change or not.



In any case, Kagan and Boot agree on one thing: The war's not over yet.

Libya War Not Yet Over

Well, I need to start watching MSNBC more often. I just love Reva Bhalla, Director of Analysis at STRATFOR:

And at Telegraph UK, "Gaddafi releases new audio message," and "Gaddafi vows to 'let Libya burn' as he defies calls for surrender."



Plus, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

Israel Largely Vindicated by U.N. Marmara Report: Turkey Expels Israeli Ambassador, Threatens Legal Reprisals

At New York Times, "Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid." The report was issued last month but its release delayed while Ankara and Jerusalem sought to patch up differences. Good luck with that, it turns out. See Israel Matzav, "Turkey expels Israeli envoy," and Jerusalem Post, "Turkey vows legal action against Israelis involved in raid":

Turkey said on Friday it will seek to prosecute all Israelis responsible for crimes committed during an Israeli raid on a ship bound for the Gaza Strip that killed nine Turks in May 2010.



"Turkey will take legal actions against the Israeli soldiers and all other officials responsible for the crimes committed and pursue the matter resolutely," Turkey's embassy in Washington said in a statement.



The threat follows a UN report that confirmed the legality of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza but said Israel had used unreasonable force in the raid. Both Turkey and Israel disputed some of the conclusions of the so-called Palmer Report.



The names of the Israeli marines involved in the raid have not been released, so only ranking commanders overseeing the operation could be identified if Turkey follows through with the legal action.



The full text of the UN report, which was leaked on Thursday, was delivered to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's office on Friday and will soon be officially published, UN spokesman Eduardo del Buey told reporters.

Of course, Turkey would have acted precisely as Israel did if faced with the same situation. And click on that New York Times piece. Turkey's mad that Israel has the right under international law to impose a blockade.



ADDED: At Astute Bloggers, "IS ISLAMIST TURKEY ATTEMPTING TO INSTIGATE A NATO WAR AGAINST ISRAEL?‏"

'Join the Rejects'

This story about UCLA student Chris Jeon joining the rebel insurgency in Libya reminded me of the Cockney Rejects: "Join the Rejects rebels and get yourself killed":

Also at Washington Post, "American student Chris Jeon joins Libyan rebels."

Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?

Max Boot gives Obama the boot on Libya, at WSJ and RCP. Boot's normally pretty gung ho on foreign military intervention, so I'm sensing a little disappointment overall. That is, more forward deployed U.S. power earlier in Libya would have not only shortened the war, but made for a stronger precedent in future crises. See Boot's earlier piece, "It's Not Too Late to Save Libya."

Libyan National Transitional Council

That's the first I've seen of that term, at the description from this video at Telegraph UK:

Also, "Libya: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi vows to continue the war and retake Tripoli."



See also New York Times, "Son Denies Rebels’ Claim That Qaddafi Is Cornered":

TRIPOLI, Libya — A top official of Libya’s transitional government said Wednesday that its fighters had cornered Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in a desert redoubt 150 miles from the capital and were exhorting him to give up, in what would bring a sense of finality to the prolonged uprising that routed him and his family from Tripoli a week ago.



But one of Colonel Qaddafi’s fugitive sons, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, threw a new if improbable taunt at the rebels even as they said they had closed in on his father, vowing in an audio statement that loyalists would never surrender and insisting that “victory will be near.”



“Our leadership is fine,” he said in the statement broadcast on the Al Rai television channel of Syria and other Arab broadcasting outlets. “We are drinking tea and coffee.”



Seif al-Islam gave no indication in the statement of his precise whereabouts except that he was in a Tripoli suburb, and it was not clear if his remarks had been prerecorded. But the statement itself raised the possibility of more fighting and underscored the ability of the Qaddafis to frustrate the alliance of rebel forces that has become the effective government of Libya.

Maybe folks should hold off on this talk of a "transitional council." You gotta get that old council out before you can transition a new one.

Gaddafi Family Members in Algeria

At Los Angeles Times, "Members of Kadafi family flee to Algeria":

Members of Moammar Kadafi's family, including his wife, daughter and two of his sons, have fled to Algeria, the government of the neighboring country said Monday.



Algerian state television reported that Kadafi relatives who arrived Monday through a border crossing included the deposed Libyan leader's wife, Safiya, his daughter, Aisha, and two of his sons, Hannibal and Mohammed. The group also included an undisclosed number of Kadafi's grandchildren, Algeria said.



The Algerian government said it had informed both the United Nations and the Libyan rebels' Transitional National Council that the group had arrived.



But there was no answer to a much bigger question: Where was Moammar Kadafi himself?

Also at NYT, "Qaddafi’s Wife and 3 of His Children Flee to Algeria."

Libya Vindicates Obama? And Humanitarian Intervention?

I don't think the administration had a clue, but President Obama will get a lot of credit for toppling Gaddafi.



And this will generate a big debate among specialists in international relations. See Anne Marie Slaughter's piece, at Financial Times, "Why Libya sceptics were proved badly wrong":

Let us do a thought experiment. Imagine the UN did not vote to authorise the use of force in Libya in March. Nato did nothing; Colonel Muammer Gaddafi over-ran Benghazi; the US stood by; the Libyan opposition was reduced to sporadic uprisings, quickly crushed. The regimes in Yemen and Syria took note, and put down their own uprisings with greater vigour. The west let brutality and oppression triumph again in the Middle East.



This is the scenario many wise heads were effectively arguing for with their strong stands against intervention to stop Col Gaddafi. Over the months those analysts have reminded us of their views, calling Libya a quagmire. This week one of the leading proponents of that position, my friend and colleague Richard Haass, shifted gears – but only to remind us just how hard the road ahead in Libya is likely to be.



I do not know anyone, regardless of the side they took in the initial debate, who thinks this task will be easy; indeed, the battle against Col Gaddafi is not yet won. But not so fast. Before we focus on what must happen next, let us pause for a minute and reflect on that initial debate and the lessons to be learnt.

Keep reading.



Dr. Slaugther omits mention that Islamists could come to power in Libya, which in the end might not be much better than having Gaddafi. True, Muammar is about as bad as they come, and as I said all along in the case of Mubarak's Egypt, there's little satisfaction in standing up for a dictator. But the euphoria of the Arab Spring has long evaporated and a real security dilemma is emerging in the region that's forcing folks to reckon with change. Israel, of course, comes to mind, but a larger systemic transformation toward more widespread Islamism won't be good. It's already bad enough as it is.



More on this at Foreign Affairs, from Stewart Patrick, "Libya and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention: How Qaddafi's Fall Vindicated Obama and RtoP."

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle Steps in it With Comments on NATO Bombing in Libya

What's most interesting is that this is Germany, where the use of military force has been contentious throughout the post-WWII era. See WSJ, "German Foreign Minister Takes Hit for Libya Stance."



Westerwelle is a leader for the Free Democratic Party, a center-right party most famous for having Hans-Dietrich Genscher serve as foreign minister during the crucial years at the end of the Cold War. But the FDP is internationalist and has a reputation of angering Israel back in the day (the Munich Olympics in 1972). But again, I'm just fascinated by the debate on the deployment of German military force. It's an amazing thing that after 65 years German military power is far from normalized. It's true of Europe generally, that the continent tends to rely on the U.S. for major military operations, but these things don't last forever. And Germany's the one strong economy in a sea of Euro-gloom. Maybe folks ought to step up a bit over there and provide some leadership in foreign policy. This is pretty ridiculous.

Rebels Bust Gaddafi's Bunker

A huge report at London's Daily Mail, "Missed him by minutes: How rebels and special forces came close to snaring Gaddafi." Also at Telegraph UK, "Libya: rebels surround apartment block 'hiding' Col Gaddafi."



Plus, at LAT, "Eww! Moammar Kadafi (hearts) Condoleezza Rice." And Memeorandum.

Libya Could Be Unstable For a Long Time

Lively discussion from Jeremy Scahill, on Morning Joe.

China Backs Libya Rebels

Just now they're backing the rebels?



At Reuters, "China turns to Libya rebels, urges "stable transition'."

China urged a "stable transition of power" in Libya and said on Wednesday it is in contact with the rebel National Transitional Council, the clearest sign yet that Beijing has effectively shifted recognition to forces poised to defeat Muammar Gaddafi.

Allen West on Libya, Egypt, etc.

Via Legal Insurrection:

Journalists 'Captive' at Rixos Hotel in Tripoli

A live blog at Telegraph UK, "Libya live: British journalists 'captive' in Tripoli hotel."