The Case Against Intervention in Libya: Stratfor Global Intelligence Report

[readmoreoften]

While I understand people's emotional responses to wanting to help the Libyan rebels (I want to help them too), it is important to understand what "humanitarian intervention" really means--which is boots on the ground, even with a no-fly zone. It's important to understand that commitments to "no occupation" can be changed in the blink of an eye. (Remember, we are not "occupying" Iraq either.) It's also important to remember that our reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan are under "humanitarian" cover. We're protecting women from the Taliban and we were liberating Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. One of the major reasons urbanites in Afghanistan can't fight back against the Taliban is because of our presence. There is a real possibility that a strike on Libya by western nations will pull Libyans together to fight the Western outsiders, in fact weakening resistance numbers.

>>"We would argue that war as a humanitarian action should be undertaken only with the clear understanding that in the end it might cause more suffering than the civil war. It should also be undertaken with the clear understanding that the inhabitants might prove less than grateful, and the rest of the world would not applaud nearly as much as might be liked — and would be faster to condemn the occupier when things went wrong. Indeed, the recently formed opposition council based out of Benghazi — the same group that is leading the calls from eastern Libya for foreign airstrikes against Gadhafi’s air force — has explicitly warned against any military intervention involving troops on the ground."<<

Read more: How a Libyan No-fly Zone Could Backfire | STRATFOR

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110308-how-libyan-no-fly-zone-could-backfire

I understand why some people are for this and I recognize that your hearts are in the right places. But you have to recognize that those of us who are against this also support the rebels and our hearts are in the right places too. It is a tragedy, and I stand by the rebels, but I don't want a UN military intervention.

(Edit to change punctuation in title)

[snagglepuss]

1. Countries who signed on to the Responsibilty to Protect doctrine have

an obligation to intervene when a govt is indiscriminately killing its own citizens

[readmoreoften]

2. Then we should intervene in Bahrain instead of supporting the King.

This is a case where Kantian ethics or social contract ethics may very well lead to making the situation worse. We don't intervene when Israel strikes at Gaza. We didn't intervene in Darfur. The obligation seems to be manipulatable according to political interest.

[joshcryer]

3. Bahrain has not yet esclated to the level that Libya has, and I would agree if it did.

[readmoreoften]

10. We are on the side of the police massacring civilians in Bahrain.

Why would you support an intervention to stop increased violence against Bahrainis backed by the very people killing Bahrainis now? That just doesn't make any sense.

[snagglepuss]

6. I don't think it is applied evenly or fairly but if the stars align and

enough countries are roused to live up to their obligations in just one instance then at least one country will have a chance to rid itself of a despotic and ruthless regime.

[Raksha]

4. Well, I just lost what little respect I had for Stratfor.

That's like saying the U.S. shouldn't have intervened in Hitler's genocide of the Jews--and as a matter of fact we never did. The reasons for getting involved in WWII had nothing to do with genocide. Hell, the Allies wouldn't even bomb the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps at the end of the war. They could have saved at least a few lives that way.

Re "It's also important to remember that our reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan are under "humanitarian" cover."

I think most of us are capable of understanding the difference between a war of aggression under "humanitarian cover" and getting involved for ACTUAL humanitarian reasons. One important difference: Neither the Iraqis nor the Afghans ever ASKED us to "liberate" them. The Libyan people OTOH have been begging for air strikes and a no-fly zone, and have repeatedly specified: NO boots on the ground!

[readmoreoften]

5. Godwin's law. This is not a holocaust. It's a civil war.

Just stop.

[Raksha]

12. I'm Jewish and I don't give a crap about Godwin's law.

I know what genocide is and I'll call it like I see it. So this was political and not "racial," BFD. The protests in the beginning were peaceful, just like in Tahrir Square. But Gaddafi didn't bother with such niceties as tear gas and rubber bullets. He started right in with the live ammunition. He also buried prisoners alive and killed soldiers for refusing to attack their own people. Have you been following the situation or not?

[readmoreoften]

14. Oooo! Well, I'm Jewish AND a lesbian. So fucking what?

You can call it whatever you want, but its not genocide. There is no racial, ethnic, or religious motivation to kill the rebels. It's a CIVIL WAR. Civil wars are brutal.

Gaddafi is a monster. NO SHIT. Yes, I've been following the situation quite closely. He's also gunning down civilians. I'm aware of all this. Mubarak was also a monster. Hundreds of rebels in Egypt were killed by Mubarak's paid thugs and also tortured in Mubarak's jails, but unfortunately there was more media on the ground so Mubarak's hands were tied. Moreover, there were more rebels with, unfortunately, better strategy.

The situation sucks all around. But emotional hyperbole and accusations against those who support the rebels who don't want airstrikes on those very rebels (do you really think US GIs can tell the difference between a Gaddafi supporter in a tank and a rebel who commandeered a tank?) is uncalled for.

[soryang]

7. This whole UN effort is a US UK France subtrefuge

US and UK have been trying to get rid of Kadafi for decades because he stands in the way of old colonial style exploitation of Libyan natural resources. The awakening of democratic aspirations in other Arab nations has given them the opportunity they have dreamed of for decades. They are going to get rid of Kadafi the same way they got rid of Saddam and Milosevich. No doubt the outcome for Libyans will be as costly as it was for those other states.

Humanitarians? Ask the Iraqis and the Afghans how they're doing under our military "humanitarianism." The Iraqis are much worse off under their new strongman, who is really not much different from Saddam or Kadafi. So just what did that war accomplish? The French are in on this declaration of war by the UN because they don't want their oil interests driven out by the Anglo American companies.

Why isn't ICC prosecution being called for in Bahrain? After all the autocratic government is killing its own people? Why isn't ICC prosecution called for Mubarrak and Suleiman, after all they are torturers and murderers, also.

[karynnj]

8. Those were NOT the reasons given for either Iraq or Afghanistan

They were not for humanitarian reasons. Even if a lie, the reason for Iraq was WMD. The reason for Afghanistan was the Taliban government was giving Al Q'ueda a refuge.

[readmoreoften]

9. The first Iraq war was "Humanitarian". Our rhetoric for staying in Afghanistan is "humanitarian"

to protect locals, especially women, against the Taliban, who are NOT Al Qaeda. There is no reason to be there other than humanitarian intervention at this point.

[karynnj]

11. The first war was really for oil - per Senator Lugar - and

the reason given was that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

The reason we are still given in Afghanistan is that if we left, AQ would again have a refuge.

[readmoreoften]

13. So there are other bullshit reasons mixed up in the "Humanitarian" cover.

I thought Saddam Hussein was throwing babies off incubators. In fact, I watched that on 60 minutes myself. Saddam Hussein was gassing his own people! The whole war happened under "humanitarian" intervention.