I am really of two minds on the Libyan strikes.

[tekisui]

First of all, I can readily distinguish these strikes from the invasion of Iraq. Narrow objective, UN support, no ground troops, support from the region and requests from the people. I also think that with so many past unnecessary military adventures and war-profiteering that we have grown to believe that there cannot be an appropriate use of force.

I said I would support a no-fly zone weeks ago, as I saw it as the only way to stop Gaddafi from carrying out attacks on unarmed civilians and the only way to prevent him from bringing in mercenaries to do his dirty work. I recognize that a no fly zone starts with essentially an act of war. Bombing out the Libyan Air Force and anti-aircraft weaponry to make the skies safe for monitoring. It is with great reserve and fear that I support these acts.

Operations (aside from direct self-defense) that act with an urgency to end current slaughter, to mitigate the immediate deaths of potentially thousands of people are the kinds of military intervention that should be considered. When we have the ability and the wide support to stop oppressive governments in the act of mass murders, we should carefully weigh our moral obligation. In my opinion, we have a duty to act when possible.

My reserved support comes from a deep mistrust of military in general, and ours in particular. I worry that, while there is a restriction on boots on the ground, it is far easier to escalate than it is to end. I fear getting bogged down with a lengthy management of a no-fly zone. I fear Gaddafi adapting to continue the killings and being left with a lot of not good options. My support could turn to regret quite easily.

As for not getting involved in every oppressive dictator's acts of mass murder, each case is different, but we should always strive to lessen the suffering. First and foremost we should proactively stop supporting despots, and when they start killing their own, we should work to bring neighbors and the world to act in concert. It would look different in each situation.

Time will tell in Libya. In a few months we may be regretting this. Or, we may be relieved that we aren't witnessing another genocide.

[tabatha]

1. That is a very nice, calm and measured post.

No quick, pat, usually falsely equivalent comments - but reasoned statements.

Thanks!

[Lucinda]

2. I have spent most of my adult life complaining that the world stands by while

atrocities occur. And now that I am older, I am suspicious of what I am told, and cynical when countries DO step up. I still firmly believe that the world should never stand idly by - but I am not sure we make the wisest choices when we do intervene.

I'm sleepy, so I am babbling....but I understand being of "two minds"

[fishwax]

3. so you're torn between your "gaddafi lover" mind and your "war monger" mind?

:evilgrin:

Kidding, of course.

k/r

:kick:

[tekisui]

4. lol. Exactly.

:hi:

[Posteritatis]

5. This kind of balance and nuance is grossly inappropriate for the current emotional climate

You need to edit your post to include more frothing. ;)

More seriously, I generally agree with you there - I think the intervention here is right, just, multinational, legal and right-this-minute necessary, but there's a heavy dose of "don't fuck this up, guys" in my feelings towards it. This is something that needs to happen, but I really wish it wasn't, and I really hope it's done right in line with the specifications for the mission as laid out in the resolution.

(I also admit I'm pleasantly surprised to see a Chapter VII resolution with that kind of teeth appear as quickly as this one did. Sorta wish those happened a bit more often as necessary, but at the same time I can see Romeo Dallaire's hand and mind all over Resolution 1973, and I like seeing his ideas gain acceptance.)

[Mira]

6. Very well said - I too feel ambivalent and hope that it will bring only intended results. K&R

[GSLevel9]

7. gadaffi is ALREADY in Benghazi.

the NFZ won't stop his death squads from rounding up rebels.

[DevonRex]

8. That is a very good post. I can rec this. Nt

[MedleyMisty]

9. Pretty much exactly what I'm feeling

And thank you for being a voice of reason.

[inna]

10. Imperialism does NOT care about genocide. Humanist intervention is nothing but a pretext.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. This shows that you actually have a mind

Of all the things that can be said about this, it's not simple.

The conflation of protesters (sweet, innocent hippies) with insurgents (armed combatants) is very disturbing to me, and is being used by proponents of intervention in an often completely deliberate way.

The numbers of protesters killed is not equal to the total death toll to date.

Once the protesters declared themselves a legitimate government and took arms against their government, it becomes an entirely different thing; it becomes a civil war.

I respectfully disagree with your stance on this, and here's why: a personal focus on the legal rights of individual nations and the legal recourse of the United Nations. There is not a clear basis for this in the charter, and that belies the problem: it's sort of relying on personal taste. I don't like such malleable laws, and I see this as the epitome of a slippery slope. If this is to be the norm, then as soon as any populace has some demonstrations and some people are killed in repression, the United Nations may see fit to invade them, too. I do not use that word lightly, either: Resolution 1973 is a blank check to any nation to do as it pleases here, and I don't "trust" the various players to "do the right thing". War is a mess, and orderly, semi-sorta-partial warishness like this is a ridiculous proposition, fraught with dangers, not the least of them being the de-sensitizing of us to the concept of war. Wars should be extremely rare, not quick and easy like this.

There was no General Assembly vote about this, and of the 15 members of the Security Council, there were FIVE abstentions. These are not piddly little insignificant countries, either, they're Russia, Germany, China, India and Brazil.

Thank you for the thoughtful and measured explanation of your position, and I find it to be both intellectually and morally substantive. Hopefully amid the shrillness there will be more such nuanced attempts at plurality, and I'll try to do a bit of that too, along with some more direct appeals.

I disagree, though, and I hope you similarly understand the rationale behind that.

Meanwhile, there's Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and possibly soon Saudi Arabia to make judgments on, and I don't want to see more intervention. Once it starts, though, as any hooker'll tell ya: after the first few tricks, it pretty much loses its specialness.

[tekisui]

12. Thank you for the well thought out response.

I appreciate your discussion of the resolution itself, and you make valid points. It for sure would have been stronger had they held a General Assembly vote and I agree that the ambiguities of the resolution leave it open to some undesirable scenarios.

One of the issues I have been struggling with is how much the situation has changed in the past 3 weeks. When a no-fly zone was first mentioned, it seemed like an obvious and appropriate act. From that time until today, as you point out much has changed. It may very well have come too late and the resolution may be too broad.

In my opinion, the UN is the very place to make decisions like this. Taking into consideration your criticisms, I think the UN as a global body should have some force, some teeth behind their work. Otherwise, the Security Council is not overly effective. Hopefully, this will be a successful operation and from here we can learn to address the concerns of the openness of the language in resolutions of this type and bring the vote to a large body.

I do think, though, that the quickness was necessary. And, I don't think it would be appropriate for an individual nation or a couple of nations to act without going through the UN first.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. It's a horrible mess

Much as I think we have no right under the charter to intervene here, it wouldn't be a good precedent for a UN-sanctioned operation to be a failure.

This just reeks as "unclean", and, more than anything, sets a dangerous precedent to intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. That's not something I want to see become commonplace.

[Motown_Johnny]

13. you seem to have put into words what many of us were unable to express

A+ for Eloquence



I would, however, ask you to consider the political opportunity this situation presents to a very capable politician, Barack Obama.

He knows that he is paying a political price for our continued involvement in Afghanistan. He knows he is paying a political price for leaving troops in Iraq. He knows he is paying a political price for continued increases in military spending when other programs are being financially eviscerated.

If this conflict can be brought to a successful conclusion (depending on how he can define success) within a short time frame, with few (or no) American casualties and with a relatively low cost to the American taxpayer might this not offset some of those political losses?

I believe this military action may give him the opportunity to run for re-election with a "THIS is how you topple a dictator in the Middle East" feather in his political cap.

Please pardon my cynicism but I think that at this point he is approaching every major decision with 2012 on his mind.

[Desertrose]

14. Thank you. I feel very much the same as you.....

plus the speed with which this situation changes.....really hard to know.

Our track record hasn't been the best over the years....but I guess I am (still) naive enough to hope we can help the Libyan people more than hinder things.

[Lefta Dissenter]

15. thank you

You've voiced what I have been struggling with. The reality of life is that so much is uncertain, if you're a thinking person who has empathy and compassion.

Of course, the right wingers don't have that problem - they're so sure they're right, regardless of the complexities of reality.

[SlipperySlope]

16. I guarantee there will be boots on the ground, if they aren't there already.

While there will be no "occupation force" in Libya, I just about guarantee there will be embedded advisers among the rebels. One of the things those advisers will likely do is call down air-strikes on anything that gets in the way of the rebels as they advance on Qaddafi.

If the US, UK, and France are serious about bringing Qadaffi down, and the rebels are serious about bringing Qadaffi down, and the western powers give full air support to a rebel army, that army will be just about unstoppable. Libyan National Forces will be no match for a rebel army able to call down strikes from Apaches, Mirages, and Tornados at will.

[Denzil_DC]

17. Thanks for expressing the ambivalence and fears

I think a lot of us feel.

K & R

[AntiFascist]

18. If only you ran our country, tekisui, we would be in much better shape...

however, I am much more cynical and believe it is usually Big Money that is calling the shots. Haven't we seen this time and again with Wall Street? I fear that people see the price of gas going up and support military action in the Middle East/Northern Africa, as simple as that.

[Catherina]

20. Rec'd but my mind just sealed shut when I found out about the neocon's involvement

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x696362

Rec'd just for being a rare thoughtful post and very appreciated.

[OneGrassRoot]

21. Very well said. K&R n/t

[KharmaTrain]

22. We're Reluctant Participants...

This is a lot different than the "coalition" of the coerced that booosh attempted to put together to legitimize the Iraq invasion. This action is being pushed by the British and French along with the Arab League. Seems our role is in support rather than lead and that the causes here do have some justification.

Gadaffi has long been an instigator in Sub-Saharan Africa...supplying money and weapons in the many civil wars (including Darfur) and is now using mercenaries to attack his own people. For 40 years he's been a major pain in the ass on the doorstep of Western Europe and to his neighbors. Thus why the UN resolution faced little opposition.

Maybe by ridding the region of this murderer (Lockerbie anyone??) not only can there be a breath of freedom in Libya but throughout the region.