Is It Better to Save No One?

[babylonsister]

Is It Better to Save No One?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: April 2, 2011



Critics from left and right are jumping all over President Obama for his Libyan intervention, arguing that we don’t have an exit plan, that he hasn’t articulated a grand strategy, that our objectives are fuzzy, that Islamists could gain strength. And those critics are all right.

But let’s back up a moment and recognize a larger point: Mr. Obama and other world leaders did something truly extraordinary, wonderful and rare: they ordered a humanitarian intervention that saved thousands of lives and that even Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s closest aides seem to think will lead to his ouster.

We were all moved by Eman al-Obeidy, the woman who burst into the reporters’ hotel in Tripoli with her story of gang-rape and torture, only to be dragged away by security goons. If we had not intervened in Libya, Qaddafi forces would have reached Benghazi and there might have been thousands of Eman al-Obeidys.

It has been exceptionally rare for major powers to intervene militarily for predominantly humanitarian reasons. One rare example was the United States-led Kosovo campaign in 1999, and another was Britain’s dispatch of troops to Sierra Leone in 2000 to end the brutal civil war there. Both were successes, but came only after years of killings that gradually built up the political will to do something.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03kristof.html?_r=1

[atreides1]

1. Now let's see them do it for the Ivory Coast

Where 1 million people have already left the country, and real massacres have taken place, committed by both sides.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Would you support that? Are you asking for military intervention in the Ivory Coast?

[ReggieVeggie]

4. By the reasoning that took us into Libya, we MUST attack Ivory Coast...

unless, of course, humanitarian concerns aren't applied equally

[Buzz Clik]

5. My question: Do you or others cynically applying your logic support military action?

Lots of people at DU were criticizing Obama's inactivity in Libya, and they now stand firmly against the actions he took.

Where do you stand?

[ReggieVeggie]

19. cynically applying the logic?

that would be the Obama administration

[Buzz Clik]

33. So, you are flatly refusing to answer the simplest question?

How convenient. It leaves the door open to initially suggest that we intervene and then condemn any action he takes.

[ReggieVeggie]

39. I would applaud him for consistency

but there is no consistency here

As for my stand, we're bombing and killing to prevent the murdering and keep the murdering down so we don't have to bomb and kill in order to prevent more murdering. I certainly hope it all works out ok.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. By the reasoning that took us to the Middle East, we must bomb our own schools

or so says Tom The Dancing Bug:

[ReggieVeggie]

20. great toon!

:thumbsup:

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. I am very proud of my son who sent it to me.

when the boys were small, I used to think " with my luck they will turn out to be rabid Republicans"
but, happily, they got most of my genes.:7

[vaberella]

77. Is the Ivory Coast government bombing their own civilians while they sleep?! n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

78. are you trying to sequester morality with a scale?

Their deaths are more important?

[vaberella]

82. I'd like to know an answer to the question.

Why is a simple question hard for people to answer?

[walerosco]

90. who cares about a bunch of black

Africans with no oil? the racist imperial hands of American is showing again. Humanitarian assistance that comes in the form of cruise missles and depleted uranium shells. Nice try but I am not going to be fooled again

[daa]

3. We are not saving anybody we are killing "the other side"

Bahrain?????????????? Ivory Coast?????????????? Syria???????????? Gaza????????????????

[Buzz Clik]

6. So you, with any qualification, support no military actions to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Is that correct?

[daa]

10. What I say is this is wrong:

Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal
In the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the United States-Saudi counter-revolution in a deal where the US gave the green light to Saudi Arabia's invasion of Bahrain in return for Arab League support for the the Libyan no-fly zone. Revealed is the Barack Obama administration's hypocrisy, selling a crass geopolitical coup as a humanitarian operation. - Pepe Escobar (Apr 1, '11)

[Buzz Clik]

38. It's funny how the most vocal critics of Obama...

flatly refuse to commit to anything.

Has DU turned into simply a sounding board for their boundless and unbridled criticism regardless of Obama's positions? One begins to suspect.

[daa]

74. I commit to jobs in this country and saving the social safety net

and if the Italians are afraid that Libyans will invade their shores they can hire some republicans to help build a fence. If YOU are unwilling to do the other countries, what is Libya? Why are you willing to draw a line there?

Are you even aware Clinton cut a deal with the House of Saud that they could invade Bahrain and kill the opposition in exchange for Saudis vote for Libya action at the UN. The action you support is Bull Shit, just like Viet Nam.

One begins to suspect people that support Obama in Libya and not Bush in Iraq. What's the difference? Well.

[sudopod]

63. Pic related

[_ed_]

7. It's a False Choice

Between bombing Libya and doing nothing. If you're suddenly such a humanitarian, you're going to need to join the military so we can intervene in the 50-75 countries around the world with despotic leaders.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in bombing Libya WHILE AT THE SAME INSTANT people are getting shot in the head in Saudi and Bahrain, then you're simply too beholden to your political hero Obama to see reality.

[xchrom]

8. +1

[ProSense]

13. No

it's not.

UN condemns mortar attack on Ivory Coast market

U.S. Commits $12.6 Million for Côte d’Ivoire Humanitarian Aid

President Obama’s Message to the People of Cote D’Ivoire

Obama's comments and more on Sudan referendum

West Wing Week: "Dispatches from Sudan"

Obama makes convincing case for action in Libya

"If you can't see the hypocrisy in bombing Libya WHILE AT THE SAME INSTANT people are getting shot in the head in Saudi and Bahrain, then you're simply too beholden to your political hero Obama to see reality."

Given the point of the OP, that's absurd because you're not arguing that the same action should be taken in those countries that was undertaken in Libya.

[_ed_]

16. You can say the same thing about Iraq

about how we averted a humanitarian crisis. Although, Bill Kristol would have written the op-ed instead of Nick Kristof. I guess I see wars from the persepective of a citizen instead of being beholden to a political party and their evolving "values."

[mkultra]

23. Iraq was based off false pretense

There were no WMD. It was a neo-con political move that was unilateral. A UN humanitarian mission to stop the slaughter of citizens by a dictator is fine by me.

[Exilednight]

34. Libya was based on a false pretense. n/t

[truth2power]

84. I think that's the case. eom

[GreenArrow]

86. Yep.

There will be a lot of crow eaten over this.

[_ed_]

58. Let me get this straight

What about the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. You can spin this shit anyway you want.

"A UN humanitarian mission to stop the slaughter of citizens by a dictator is fine by me."

Same shit they said about Saddam. Only difference is the political party in charge.

[mkultra]

75. I thought you were going to get it straight

We all know that the "coalition of the willing" was a farce as it was really just unilateral action. We also know that the shit they said was that Saddam had WMD and nukes. The "humanitarian" excuse is what they fell back to when the WMD didn't show up. There was no free uprising in Iraq. We just invaded.

[sudopod]

64. There's a vast gulf between condemning with words

and condemning with unspeakably violent death from the skies.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

40. is there a difference between a live Libyan and a dead Libyan???

or is that a false choice?

[_ed_]

59. How about a live Saudi Arabian or a dead one?

You sound just like the necons before Iraq. Did you support the Iraq war? If not, then you just don't care about live Iraqis or dead Iraqis.

Just because your Dear Leader started this war, it doesn't mean it's right or that you should support it.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

62. we're not occupying Libya. We are giving the Libyans a chance to defend themselves

without fear of death from above.

[truth2power]

88. Yes, it's a false choice. From the time Obama first made that statement

I wondered why he would purposely engage in such fallacious reasoning, being a lawyer and all. He knows better.

More reason, IMO, that he's not interested in telling us the truth.

[JoePhilly]

9. If you can't save everyone all at once, don't do anything.

Its the same argument that was used to argue that Dems should have been against the HCR bill. It didn't help everyone right away. So we were supposed to turn against it.

[Vattel]

11. Yay militarism!

Those silly lefties, using Vietnam and Iraq as a basis for opposing military interventions. Surely the best way to save innocent lives is to take sides in a civil war. (end sarcasm)

Seriously, though, in the short term, what we and our European allies did in Libya did save innocent lives, and that is good. In the long term, who knows. If Libya ends up with a better government, then great. Past experience has made me very skeptical about the use of military force for anything other than simple self-defense. In a more rational world, people would realize that the most cost effective way to save innocent lives is almost always invest one's resources in humanitarian projects that don't require killing and all of the unintended consequences killing so often has.

[_ed_]

12. This is the same argument used by NeoCons in Iraq

And the same arguments in support of it. What if Iraq turned out great? What if?

It sounds like some liberals around here should be apologizing to Bush: After all, Saddam was a despot. He killed his own people. There was a humanitarian crisis. He was crazy! He's got to go. And, if we can't save people everywhere, then we can at least help the poor Iraqis. Don't worry - the war will be short!

[ProSense]

15. No

it wasn't.

[_ed_]

17. Yes,

it was.

"It is fashionable to sneer at the moral case for liberating an Iraqi people long brutalized by Saddam's rule. Critics insist mere oppression was not sufficient reason for war, and in any case that it was not Bush's reason. In fact, of course, it was one of Bush's reasons, and the moral and humanitarian purpose provided a compelling reason for a war to remove Saddam... For the people of Iraq, the war put an end to three decades of terror and suffering. The mass graves uncovered since the end of the war are alone sufficient justification for it."

Bill Kristol, 2004

[ProSense]

18. Bill Kristol?

"It is fashionable to sneer at the moral case for liberating an Iraqi people long brutalized by Saddam's rule. Critics insist mere oppression was not sufficient reason for war, and in any case that it was not Bush's reason. In fact, of course, it was one of Bush's reasons, and the moral and humanitarian purpose provided a compelling reason for a war to remove Saddam... For the people of Iraq, the war put an end to three decades of terror and suffering. The mass graves uncovered since the end of the war are alone sufficient justification for it."

Really? Lying doesn't count.


Juan Cole: "3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention."


Besides wasn't the illegal invasion of Iraq based on the other lie: WMD?

[ReggieVeggie]

21. oh goody...Juan Cole's situational morality

"Hey! Gaddafi might kill more people tomorrow than he has over the years. Time to send in our own bombs!"

[ProSense]

24. You know

it's possible to question the action and still acknowledge the humanitarian crisis.

WOOLSEY JOINS STATEMENT ON LIBYA

Rep. Lynn Woolsey has joined Reps. Raul Grijalva, Mike Honda, and Barbara Lee to issue the following statement on Libya:

“The decision for the United States to engage militarily in Libya is one that should have been debated and approved by Congress.

“We have serious concerns about whether or not an effective and thorough case for military intervention in Libya was made. Too many questions remain. What is our responsibility now? Do we own the situation in Libya and for how long? Where does this dramatic acceleration of military intervention end?

“There is a serious humanitarian crisis in Libya, and Gaddafi’s reckless, indiscriminate use of force on his own people in response to grassroots calls for change is unacceptable. But there are serious consequences for rushing to war with a limited understanding of the situation on the ground and no exit strategy or plan – we learned this lesson through two ill-advised wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“With the potential for protracted civil war in Libya, and similar circumstances of unrest and violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Yemen, and elsewhere, we cannot afford to sidestep critical diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to rely solely upon the deployment of more guns, bombs, and troops. This represents a dangerous path toward perpetual U.S. military engagement around the world.

“The United States must immediately shift to end the bombing in Libya. Rest assured we will fight in Congress to ensure the United States does not become embroiled in yet another destabilizing military quagmire in Libya with no clear exit plan or diplomatic strategy for peace.”

Are these members of Congress using Bill Kristol's talking points?

[ReggieVeggie]

28. No one has ever said these people shouldn't be protected from Gaddafi

But we use our warring very selectively, and THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed and resolved. So, great, we're helping the people of Libya against their brutal dictator. When we will start helping other subjugated peoples against their brutal dictators in the same manner? When will we start helping those peoples whose dictators we consider friends or allies? Or those dictators who tend to serve "our interests" while they brutalize their own people? This action in Libya seems fairly selective and I don't honestly believe that we went to the "security council" and got these actions approved just because people might be killed. We're still killing innocent Afghanis and Pakistanis in the same manner.

[ProSense]

31. Hmmm?

"But we use our warring very selectively, and THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed and resolved. So, great, we're helping the people of Libya against their brutal dictator. When we will start helping other subjugated peoples against their brutal dictators in the same manner? When will we start helping those peoples whose dictators we consider friends or allies?"

You mean like Mubarak? President Obama was initially accused of siding with him and not the people.

Are you advocating that the people of Cote d'Ivoire should be helped in the same way?

Do you support U.S. intervention to help them?

[ReggieVeggie]

32. Do you? And if you do, why aren't you demanding that Obama do something?

You seem to be justifying the current action, so can you apply it to these other situations?

[ProSense]

36. You

didn't answer the questions.

The U.S. has taken action. As the President stated, each case is different. The OP article also addresses the point.

So yes, I support this action because I recognize that a madman threatening to massacre his people requires immediate action.

'Many killed' in Libya's Benghazi

Gaddafi blames bin Laden in speech

Embattled but defiant

The situation in Cote d'Ivoire, though equally grave, is a little different, requiring a different strategy.

Now, your turn.

"But we use our warring very selectively, and THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed and resolved. So, great, we're helping the people of Libya against their brutal dictator. When we will start helping other subjugated peoples against their brutal dictators in the same manner? When will we start helping those peoples whose dictators we consider friends or allies?"

You mean like Mubarak? President Obama was initially accused of siding with him and not the people.

Are you advocating that the people of Cote d'Ivoire should be helped in the same way?

Do you support U.S. intervention to help them?

[ReggieVeggie]

41. Are you arguing that the situation is different based on numbers of dead?

Or how quickly they become dead compared to other places where they die? What is Obama's strategy here? Is Gaddafi going to be overthrown? How many people will die in order to reach that goal, on all sides? What happens when our "no fly zone" fails to get Gaddafi out of power? Does Obama change his politics to fit the situation again?

[Exilednight]

44. Obama already went back on his "no boots on the ground". The CIA has a paramilitary types already

embedded with the rebels.

[ProSense]

47. So

the CIA wasn't in Libya before the no-fly zone? How do you know they're in Libya now? Does the CIA typically wait for military action before engaging in intelligence gathering?

The CIA is not the military.

[ProSense]

45. Here

is what I said:

The U.S. has taken action. As the President stated, each case is different. The OP article also addresses the point.

So yes, I support this action because I recognize that a madman threatening to massacre his people requires immediate action.

'Many killed' in Libya's Benghazi

Gaddafi blames bin Laden in speech

Embattled but defiant

The situation in Cote d'Ivoire, though equally grave, is a little different, requiring a different strategy.


Now, why can't you answer the questions?

"But we use our warring very selectively, and THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed and resolved. So, great, we're helping the people of Libya against their brutal dictator. When we will start helping other subjugated peoples against their brutal dictators in the same manner? When will we start helping those peoples whose dictators we consider friends or allies?"

You mean like Mubarak? President Obama was initially accused of siding with him and not the people.

Are you advocating that the people of Cote d'Ivoire should be helped in the same way?

Do you support U.S. intervention to help them?

[ReggieVeggie]

50. repeating yourself several times doesn't mean you can't explain your contradictory stance

The action applied to Libya should be applied elsewhere as well. How do you justify the disconnect?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

73. So If Obama were to repeat what he is doing over by the Ivory coast you would support it yes? n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

79. Will he?

That's the only question here

[Bodhi BloodWave]

80. Irrelevant in regards to my question for you. n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

81. I see you didn't answer the question

[Bodhi BloodWave]

83. I don't answer questions that are irrelevant dodges to my own questions n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

96. I asked the original question

[Bodhi BloodWave]

98. You asked Prosense, not me. I don't answer for other people, n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

100. OK then, answer my question

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

25. I guess you forgot about the WMD and nuke threats huh

and the neo-con political desire to topple a mid east government.

[Township75]

85. So you would have supported the IWR if he didn't mention WMD and only

mentioned how awful Saddam was and how he has to go to procted his people?

[mkultra]

92. under very specific conditions

Specifically, the exact conditions that currently exist in Libya. Such as:
A popular uprising seeking freedom.
Truthful explanation from our government.
Actual UN approval
a REAL coalition of countries
No ground invasion.
Immediate need to prevent serious genocide(as reported by the NGOs)

In response, if you where sure that Gaddafi would slaughter his citizens to put down the uprising, and you knew that taking out his armor would prevent it, would you still let them die?

[Township75]

94. response

"In response, if you where sure that Gaddafi would slaughter his citizens to put down the uprising, and you knew that taking out his armor would prevent it, would you still let them die?"

If we couldn't put in ground troops, then no. You cant win a war nor take out armor just by using the air. We didnt' do that in Iraq as an example. They can easily put armorment in populated areas which would require taking out mass civilians in order to get to a tank.

Also, if Saddam were around when all the Middle East uprisings were going on, maybe there woudl have been an uprising. But he killed a lot more people and had a much larger police state then anyone in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya.

I'm also curious if you feel Clinton was out of line for what he did in Yugoslavia. No UN approval, no coalition, no popular uprising (except to kill Muslims). Nothing against you regardless of your response, just kind of curious.

FWIW - I wouldn't base my own decision on popular uprising, because unless all of the masses truely are uprising, you may be dealing with 20-30% of a population uprising and the rest not supporting it or indifferent.

[mkultra]

95. Well, it is hard to tell the level of support

And i would agree that in most cases of uprising, it probably is only around 20%-30% taking up arms. I think that a number of people are unable to fight in those cases do to circumstance. I personally feel that a current uprising needs to exist. I think that the citizens hold some responsibility regarding their own future.

While i agree that saddam had tight control in some places, many areas of his country where outside of his control. Essentially, i don't really feel we should be going around telling the world who to be. If they want freedom, are being oppressed, and are standing up to fight for it, the rational for intervention improves.

I think putting in ground troops increases the risk that we will become the oppressor. If we become and occupying power, we do more harm than good.

In relation to Kosovo, I don't really remember much about the conflict but it was my understanding that it was ethnic cleansing on the level of genocide. I think the UN should act to stop genocide which it failed to do in Darfur. I personally believe that peaceful nations should stand up and protect the weak if possible.

[Enrique]

27. yes, and it was probably their most powerful argument

to me, anyway. The problem was, the neocons had zero credibility when making that argument, just like they do now.

Nicholas Kristof has a lot of credibility making the humanitarian argument. Obama has less credibility than Kristof, but more than the neocons.

[Exilednight]

26. False choice. If we are going to claim humanitarian reasons

as a reason to use military intervention, then our foreign policy needs a set of criteria in which to prioritize each crisis. If we were to compare which was more in need, Ivory Coast or Libya, when we began our bombing campaign, Ivory Coast would of won, hands down.

[Enrique]

29. he answers that criticism in the column

and he does suggest the set of criteria you are asking for, the "responsibility to protect" doctrine:


Critics argue that we are inconsistent, even hypocritical, in our military interventions. After all, we intervened promptly this time in a country with oil, while we have largely ignored Ivory Coast and Darfur — not to mention Yemen, Syria and Bahrain.

We may as well plead guilty. We are inconsistent. There’s no doubt that we cherry-pick our humanitarian interventions.

But just because we allowed Rwandans or Darfuris to be massacred, does it really follow that to be consistent we should allow Libyans to be massacred as well? Isn’t it better to inconsistently save some lives than to consistently save none?

If the Libya operation is successful, moreover, it may help put teeth into the emerging doctrine of the “responsibility to protect” — a landmark notion in international law that countries must intervene to prevent mass atrocities. And that might help avert the next Rwanda or the next Darfur.

[Exilednight]

30. He's right on that part, but I disagree with his cheerleading by stating that what we

did was "wonderful" while we ignore other mass atrocities. We went into Libya on the mantra of "might", "could", and "possible" instead of going someplace where it's actually happening.

[GreenArrow]

87. "we cherry-pick our humanitarian interventions."

Of course they cherry pick their "humanitarian interventions", the reason for that being that they aren't real humanitarian interventions to begin with. Humanitarian intervention is a sales pitch, not a motivation.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

42. where do you go to get your talking point?? somebody already tried that one.

maybe you can use "Appeal to Authority" or some other hokum.

[Exilednight]

43. If you're resorting to personal attacks, then you obviously can't refute my argument. n/t

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

46. is there a difference between a live Libyan and a dead Libyan???

or is that a false choice?

[Exilednight]

48. It's a false choice when it's a possibility. Qadaffi threatened people, but he

was still a ways away from action. You also have to compare numbers. Do you save a few thousand people when you can save a few hundred thousand people?

Yes, it's a shitty choice, but it's one that has to be made and one that has to be followed when considering the use of military force and justification for such force.

It's easy to use words like "moral obligation" and "collective conscience" when they have fuzzy meanings at best.

[bhikkhu]

51. He was hours away from action

according to numerous reports, including his UN envoy who begged for an immediate resolution, saying that in a matter of hours it would be to late.

He had substantial armored forces shelling the city and beginning to enter as the resolution passed, and the French immediately engaged them by air at the very edge of the city, even before anything could be done about the anti-aircraft defenses. There's an abundance of accounts from the Libyans on the ground, (who are happy to still be alive), and photographs of the wrecked tanks and artillery on the outskirts.

Gadhafi called the people of Benghazi cockroaches and vermin, and promised to "no mercy, no pity".

[Exilednight]

52. It was a matter of hours until he the city might of fallen. And again, it's also a numbers issue.

Which is more important, saving a few thousand individuals, or saving a few hundred thousand individuals.

Who is also to say that Gadaffi would of succeeded in his attempts, His goons could of came across a house and been slaughtered. If he says he was going to go door to door, none of us know what was on the other side of that door.

Is it really worth interjecting ourselves in a place where they are going to trade one dictator for another?

[bvar22]

35. I've never seen a BOMB...

...that could be called "Humanitarian."

[Exilednight]

60. Isn't that the truth. More peace through superior fire power. n/t

[rug]

37. "truly extraordinary, wonderful and rare"

Bizarre.

[lindalou65]

49. Libya and humanitarian mission

I do not support war---but sometimes we have to look at the "big picture" and decide whether or not we should allow large numbers of innocent people to die at the hands of their government. The US did not intervene when the Nazis were exterminating millions---only when Pearl Harbor was attacked did we wake up. Why did we sit back and allow millions to die? This may not yet be on the same scale as what happened then but sitting back may not be justified now. The act of using a coalition was right and shows the world that it is not ok just to slaughter innocents. Yes, but you ask--why Libya and not the Ivory Coast or some other place? yes, we and the coalition have some interests in the Middle East, that is true. But, a fight in the Ivory Coast would require ground troops--it is not possible to use air defenses so readily. If we don't do anything and let thousands upon thousands be killed--then we are remiss.

[former9thward]

53. Kristof is being willfully ignorant.

As Representative Markey said we are in Libya for the oil. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/21/958776/-Rep-Ed-Markey:-Were-in-Libya-because-of-oil. Syria and the Ivory Coast do not have those resources so we are not there. Countries like Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are friendly to the U.S. so we ignore what happens there. Any "humanitarian" benefits in Libya are merely a side benefit to the real purpose. If Kristof's logic were to be followed we should have supported the Iraq war because we saved the lives of tens of thousands of Kurds who Saddam was routinely killing in northern Iraq. If Kristof wasn't just pretending he would have to advocate total war forever because somewhere in the world there are people being oppressed. I guess the MIC would like that.

[ProSense]

54. "As Representative Markey said we are in Libya for the oil. " Markey

was making a point about dependence on foreign oil. From the link you provided:

And I think both Japan and nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence we have on this imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward.

I think the president did notify Congress that he was going to take action. I think it is going to be limited in scope. I think it is consistent with siding with the aspirations of young, more educated people who are seeking a new direction for Libya in the 21st century.

<...>

Markey Statement on Libya

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) issued the following statement on the situation in Libya.

“President Obama is right to work as part of a broad coalition in an effort to stop the violence against the Libyan people and enforce U.N. Resolution 1973.

“The current government of Libya has lost all legitimacy. Left unchecked, Gaddafi will commit unspeakable brutalities against his own people. We will need to continuously monitor Gaddafi’s responses to the pressure brought by the international coalition and adjust the strategy accordingly. The more nations involved in this multilateral effort, the more the people of Libya will know that the movement for democracy that is spreading throughout the Middle East has global support.

“We are watching a watershed moment not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East. History is on the side of these 21st century young, educated people who are calling for the end to this 20th century oil-fueled dictatorship. Seventy percent of Libya is young people, but they represent 100 percent of the future of the country. The message to Colonel Gaddafi is clear: the entire world community is united in protecting the Libyan people. Libyans must be able to chart their own future, free from violence and intimidation.”

[former9thward]

56. Markey told the truth.

Of course it is about dependence on oil. And that is why we are there and not in many, many other countries where the governments "have lost legitimacy". Are the governments of Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Ivory Cost legitimate in your eyes?

[lindalou65]

76. Libyan oil

It would seem a waste of our resources (military, etc) to be in Libya if only 1% of our oil comes from there. However, if the stability of Libya is necessary to maintain larger percentages of oil from other middle eastern nations, then maybe we are there for the oil. Otherwise, I don't see why 1% of the oil is worth our effort. Saving lives is worth it but not 1% of our total imported oil.

[frazzled]

55. Obama did not cite humanitarian reasons alone as a reason to ...

become militarily involved.

For all those trying to make the false argument that the U.S. participation in a coalition to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya is hypocritical, because we're not doing the same in Côte d'Ivoire or Bahrain--you missed the speech, and the "doctrine" contained therein.

He opened his speech saying that both security interests and humanitarian reasons had to be considered. He stated that although we couldn't use force in every case where there is a problem, when there is a confluence of both "interests and values" then action should be considered:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

What were the "global security" and "vital interests" at stake here? Here's how he described it next:

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -– two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. ...
America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America

Did he ignore the questions about intervention from both sides? Hardly. And he explained why we acted in this particular case. Note in particular that included in these reasons is the fact that we could achieve the goal, and we could do it without much risk to American troops. Sometimes, that is not the case:

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

If you are looking for a "consistent" U.S. policy--one where the U.S. always intervenes under certain conditions or one in which we never intervene--you are looking for very stupid policy. Each case needs to be reviewed individually for pros and cons. I think Obama's "doctrine," insofar as he stated one, was in keeping with his pragmatic outlook: it has to involve both strategic and humanitarian interests, it has to be achievable and without too great a cost; and unless we are responding to a direct attack, we should never do so without a broad international coalition. Makes sense to me.

[Exilednight]

61. First sentence of your last paragraph:

"If you are looking for a "consistent" U.S. policy--one where the U.S. always intervenes under certain conditions or one in which we never intervene--you are looking for very stupid policy."

We're not looking for stupid policy, we're looking for just policy. Our current policy, and the one Obama is following, is the same as our old policy - oil.

[frazzled]

66. Sorry, if we wanted the oil we'd suck up to Qadaffi, like Bush did

And sorry, Juan Cole and Nicolas Kristof, who opposed the Iraq invasion in part on those grounds, can't suddenly have turned tail. The smart analysts support this operation.

[Exilednight]

70. Let's take a look at the facts and analyze them

Due to secetarian tensions, countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and Kuwait were not find of Libya. Several countries that supported the NFZ have had buyers remorse since the start of military attacks.

To pretend that this is not about oil is intellectually dishonest. France and GB receive vast amounts of their oil from Libya. If that oil supply is shut off, then GB and France have no other option but to seek their oil from other sources, namely the same people we get our oil from. Gas is currently edging $4.00/gallon; if GB and France were to have to push other countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to push up their oil output, and if that were to happen then we will be wishing for the days of $4.00/gallon gas.

Kristof is pretty smart guy, and he's right about the fact that our foreign policy is inconsistent and has no true compass in which to guide it. Obama has failed to lay out a doctrine on which our foreign policy is guided and how we make the decision of which countries we do and do not help. If someone looks close enough, someone can figure it out, but he's failed to put it in simple English to the American people. Of course, he probably doesn't want anyone to know that oil is still our guiding principle.

With oil supporting our foreign policy decisions, you're right: the smart analysts does support this operation, but the humanitarian part is complete bullshit.

[Exilednight]

69. self delete: wrong placement

[TheKentuckian]

65. "Pragmatism" is nothing other than a rudderless and amoral justification to do and defend

literally anything that is done while framing one's self as clever and "adult".

[Exilednight]

72. Pragmatism is just another word for triangulation. n/t

[GreenArrow]

89. Pragmatism is just another word for expediency. n/t

.

[Exilednight]

97. Expediency is just a word meaning "I'm taking the easy way out". n/t

[GreenArrow]

99. That's what it is,

and that's what they do.

[LWolf]

67. At this point, it's better to save our own citizens at home. nt

[Ramulux]

68. He sure puts a nice-sounding spin on imperialism

When will these assholes understand that America is not in charge of the world? Whats happening in Libya is not more important or more deserving of our resources than any other country with a psycho dictator.

This idea that we care equally about all the oppressed people on this planet is such a sick joke, its not even funny. Over the past few weeks, there have been huge amounts of suffering in places like Bahrain and the Ivory Coast and we could not give less of a shit. Obama's press secretary actually said that "all sides should exhibit restraint" when asked about protesters being murdered by Saudis in Bahrain. Really? All sides? Even the peaceful pro-democracy protesters? But, I thought America stood up for democracy everywhere and if people are being repressed we will save them from their tyrannical government.

Its so fucked up of us to pretend like Libya is important and deserves an invasion, while other countries dont matter and dont deserve our help. But, I guess I just want the rebels to die because I dont support a war in Libya. The same way every single person in this country is responsible for every death in N. Korea because we dont support an invasion of N. Korea.

The reasons you hear for this this war, sound like they come from emotional teenagers who have never taken a political science class in their life.

[Arkana]

71. Apparently yes.

You know, out of respect for suffering all over the world we should just keep to ourselves.

[Cali_Democrat]

91. Kristof is way off here, as usual

The point is that we DON"T EVEN TRY to intervene in other areas where there are humanitarian disasters. I never saw the US putting forward UN resolutions for humanitarian intervention in places like the Ivory Coast.

Kristof is a proud member of the 101st Chairborne. I wish he would grab a rifle and man a post with the rebels in Libya. Of course he would never do it. He wouldn't dare put his life on the line in a war zone. Fuck that chickenhawk.

[grahamhgreen]

93. Since it was at the cost of the 45,000 Americans who will die this year due to lack of health care,

yes.

But of course, that was not our only options.

[Mimosa]

101. Health care vs war? War wins every time, even here on D.U.

Plenty of D.U. members of the 101st Chairborne Division too. *LOL*