"Libya: Humanitarian Intervention, Not Imperial Aggression"

[Clio the Leo]

The Strikes on Libya: Humanitarian Intervention, Not Imperial Aggression
Mar 19 2011, 7:00 PM ET By Daniel Serwer

This has much more in common with the international response to Bosnia than it does with the war in Iraq

A coalition of the willing attacks an Arab country. French warplanes strike armored vehicles. American cruise missiles take down air defenses. It all sounds to some too much like Iraq redux. But it is not. The proper analogy is Srebrenica. This is the international community acting under international law to prevent mass murder.

The current military action against Libya is clearly authorized by the UN Security Council. Qaddafi has claimed it is illegal, but even China and Russia (who abstained from the UN vote) cannot doubt that Resolution 1973 authorized the use of force to protect Libyan civilians. Neither will Germany, Brazil, nor India (all of whom abstained). Angela Merkel has already said “We share the aims of this resolution. Don’t confuse abstention with neutrality.” The others may not like it, but if they had serious legal or political objections they could have voted against. Or maybe their interests in becoming permanent Security Council members overwhelmed their reserves. Either way, the resolution had all the votes it needed.

These strikes are not based on doubtful evidence. Qaddafi has said plainly what he intends to do to civilians who resist, even peacefully, and he has demonstrated repeatedly that he is prepared to carry out his threats. Even on the morning of the attacks, his armor entered Benghazi, in clear contradiction of his own Foreign Minister’s declaration that Tripoli would respect the cease-fire. Later Qaddafi’s spokesman disowned the foreign minister’s statement.

The U.S., while it has claimed outsized credit for the diplomacy, is not visibly in the lead of the military action. UK and France have claimed that honor, with NATO as the operational forum. American contributions are likely to be substantial, in particular when it comes to cruise missiles, intelligence, command and control and other U.S. assets. But this is not an American operation with a coalition tacked on.

This leaves the question of purpose. Is this offensive, like the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, an effort at regime change, with Qaddafi the ultimate target? Or is the objective, as Hillary Clinton claimed after the Paris meeting, only to protect civilians? For the moment, this is a distinction without a difference. Unless Qaddafi changes not just his tune but his behavior, he represents an imminent threat to civilians throughout Libya. It is up to him to convince the coalition that he is prepared to change his behavior, as he successfully did in 2003 when he gave up his nuclear weapons program.

more....
http://www.peacefare.net/?p=2248

[gateley]

1. That's a good comparison - Bosnia. Thanks for posting, Clio! nt

[Clio the Leo]

3. My gut reaction to this was "no".....

... but then I see my Bosnian co-worker, whom I adore, and that certainly puts a different perspective on things.

[gateley]

5. My gut reaction to every military action is "no", but seeing these people ask for

help made me give it a lot of thought, so I'm supporting our involvement. I'm just hopeful we and the other countries involved can help these people get a fair chance. And that what "looks good on paper" actually is how we accomplish this.

We have no idea what it's like to live under such a regime, no matter how much we whine and bitch, but your friend from Bosnia does. I'm glad she's here and I hope she's happy, and I'm glad we had a hand in that, too. :hi:

[Clio the Leo]

7. and you know what?

.... my Bosnian friend is one of the sweetest people I know. Hard working, rarely complains just a delight to know. Her family is the same way (her mom gives the best bear hugs! lol) .... I have known a grand total of 5 Bosnian people and I dont like to speak in generalities but every one of them, salt of the Earth.

War puts things in perspective huh?

My friend was telling me a funny story about how they came to the US and could not speak English and the adventures they'd have shopping for groceries. Try it some time, pretend you cant read the words and just go by the package and see if you can tell what's in it "who'd guess a little girl with an umbrella means 'salt!?'" she said.

And then she said kind of randomly (and she's could give a flip about politics) .... Clinton, he's a good guy and was helpful, but he didn't get there soon enough. And the way she said it, I didn't ask, but you could tell his hesitation affected her personally.

[gateley]

8. Haha! That's funny about the Morton Salt packaging! And so true! It's something

I never thought of. I'm going to do it sometime!

That's sad -- about Clinton waiting too long. I'm glad she's okay now.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Another person...

..who's just flat-out wrong, and can't recognize a US-led imperialist war of aggression when it's right there in front of them.

What does a foreign service officer at the State Department, lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and a former vice president at the U.S. Institute of Peace know about peace?

More people need to read DU, and get the truth.

[Clio the Leo]

4. Well, more people need to read, I'll give you that. nt

[gateley]

6. More people need to think, too. nt

[Mimosa]

9. Propaganda smells like bombs.

Any time a smallish country (with abundant natural resources, especially OIL) bucks the system, 'we' claim 'they' are bad to their people. WE DON'T KNOW IT FOR A FACT.

In fact this wasn't even an issue at this time last year.

So, Clio, tell us, any time, anywhere in the world, when 'dictators' supposedly are oppressing 'their' populations the USA is supposed to become the world's top cops?