Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya

[Catherina]

Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya
Massimo Calabresi Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 9:53 pm

President Barack Obama says he's intervening to prevent atrocities in Libya. But details of behind-the-scenes debates at the White House show he's going to war in part to rehabilitate an idea.

Three weeks ago, I posted an article headlined, “Will Obama Order U.S. Intervention in Libya?” It began: “It seems preposterous to suggest in the wake of Iraq that the U.S. might intervene militarily to help bring down another Arab regime. But the growing danger of a humanitarian catastrophe created by Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, combined with a surprisingly broad confluence of interests, has crisis watchers inside and outside the administration seeing the telltale signs of a conflict that could compel Obama into action.”

My main argument was that if Gaddafi committed large-scale human rights violations against his own people he would provide an opening to those in the administration who wanted to rehabilitate the doctrine of humanitarian intervention eight years after the Iraq war discredited U.S.-led military actions abroad. As it turns out, Gaddafi hasn't done enough to justify humanitarian intervention—despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the administration and human rights organizations admit that reports of potential war crimes remain unconfirmed. Instead, interviews with senior administration officials show that the rehabilitators convinced Obama to go to war not just to prevent atrocities Gaddafi might (or might not) commit but also to bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future.

... the president and some of his advisers are so eager to rehabilitate the idea of preventive intervention that they're exaggerating the violence they say they are intervening to prevent in Libya. “The effort to shoe-horn this into an imminent genocide model is strained,” says one senior administration official. That's dangerous. Americans deserve an honest explanation when their leaders take them to war. Moreover, the rhetorical focus on the crazy things Gaddafi might do obscures the debate America should have before intervening: does the value of preventing possible war crimes against Libyans outweigh the risks to America's national security that come with intervening?

...

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/20/why-the-u-s-went-to-war-inside-the-white-house-debate-on-libya/

[tabatha]

1. BS

I just heard Richard Engel on Rachel Maddow's show today saying that the UN bombing happened just in time - in fact it was a bit late. Twelve hours later Benghazi would have been flattened.

And if you do not believe Richard Engel, one of the most honest reporters around, check out this video of the hardware that was heading toward


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwWwOeZqz6M

[Auntie Bush]

2. I agree...that was my first thought too.

I believe Richard Engel. This is BS!

[Catherina]

3. The only BS is that the same nations that killed 1.3 million Iraqis

The only BS is that the same nations that killed 1.3 million Iraqis to "protect" civilians are taking action to "protect" civilians in Libya.

Richard Engels report has nothing to do with the the White House's desire to conquer Libya "to bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future." The two are apples and oranges no matter how hard people try to confuse the issue.

Wanna save civilians from atrocities? Start in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. All else is hypocrisy.

[tabatha]

4. I was against Iraq.

The war in Iraq affected me physically, when I would wake up in the morning feeling despair at what we were doing . I was depressed for months. I hated it.

Libya affected me, too. I was on tenterhooks waiting for the no-fly zone, and saw the celebrations in Libya when it was declared.

Both for the same reason - horror at the slaughter of people.

Desmond Tutu, one of my all-time peacenik heroes, supports the action in Libya, and did not support Iraq.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and ornages.

[Catherina]

5. We'll revisit this in a year ok? If you think the war hawks have suddenly sprouted a heart

I just don't know what to say anymore.