Can we please get past at least one dumb argument about Libya?

[Vattel]

Again and again, I see the argument that there are bigger humanitarian disasters in the world than the one we are allegedly seeking to prevent in Libya and so our true motive for our actions there must be controlling the flow of oil, or to boost Obama's popularity, or whatever.

The argument is silly. Each situation is unique. If the costs of using military force in Syria or North Korea or the Ivory Coast or Myanmar or other places where the innocent are under attack or at risk would be far greater than the costs of what we are doing in Libya, then there is a principled basis for acting in Libya but not acting in those other places.

Obama's claim--and it is not a crazy one--is that in Libya we had an opportunity to prevent the slaughter of many innocent persons at a reasonably low cost. Prove him wrong about that, or argue that we could also save huge numbers of innocent people at a reasonably low cost by using military force elsewhere, but enough with the silly "If we really cared about innocent people in Libya, we would be using military force all over the world."

[LAGC]

1. $600 million is a reasonably low cost?

How many more people are going to be killed now that a full-scale civil war is under way, enabled by U.S. air-strikes, versus the few hundreds that may have died at Gadhafi's hands had he suppressed Benghazi?

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that Gadhafi be forced out, but I just don't think "minimizing innocent lives lost" is a valid rationale here, as there are certainly going to be many more lives lost as this conflict escalates.

[bemildred]

6. Indeed, you gotta wonder what "expensive" looks like, and then you remember Afghanistan. nt

[Vattel]

8. You are raising the crucial issues here.

This is where I'd like to see the debate focused. Actually I think 600 Million is not much to spend to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent people. But your second point I take very seriously. In the short term, the intervention may well save thousands of rebel lives. But in the long term, you suggest, it will only result in even greater numbers of innocent lives lost. Can you offer more evidence of this? I'd love to see discussion and debate about this.

[LAGC]

11. Well, I certainly hope I'm wrong and Gadhafi leaves rather quickly and peacefully...

But the propaganda is strong with this one, and he has many loyal fighters and mercenaries who will fight to the death for him in Tripoli and other eastern cities. It could be tough for the rebels to gain the upper-hand without a lot of bloodshed on both sides.

It could end up being tribe vs. tribe and warlord vs. warlord before this struggle ever comes to a conclusion.

[Vattel]

15. These are serious concerns.

It seems that in almost every case of military intervention, resources can be better spent on nonviolent ways to benefit the innocent. If we were to devote resources to eradicating malaria, or reducing infant mortality in the third world, or other nonviolent projects aimed at saving innocent lives, we would probably do much more good at a much lower cost.

[Poll_Blind]

2. You lead with an ad hominem attack instead of recognizing the validity of differing opinion?

?

PB

[Vattel]

9. Calling an argument silly is not an ad hominem attack.

[zorahopkins]

3. Not A Dumb Argument At All

"The World Community" -- meaning France, Germany, and Britain -- "requested" US military action.

France, Germany, and Britain happen to own large oil fields in Libya.

The Libyan War is not about saving lives.

It is all about protecting the oil assets of just a few greedy nations.

[tabatha]

5. Disagree strongly.

[denverbill]

7. If they already own the fields, how is supporting the rebels helping them?

Protecting existing oil investments would have meant protecting Gaddafi.

Unlike Iraq, where no western companies had access to oil contracts.

[LAGC]

10. My understanding was that those existing oil contracts weren't on very favorable terms to Europe.

I think its safe to say that many of the participating European powers expect to renegotiate much better deals with a new regime in place.

[denverbill]

31. That's a bit of a stretch, IMO.

When 'the people' control the contracts, they tend to want more for their oil. Chavez didn't exactly cut the oil companies a good deal. Iraq would not have either, had the Bush administration left that up to the new government of Iraq.

The multinationals had their deals in Libya. They would have been much happier dealing with a dictator than a bunch of destitute nationalists.

IMO, this argument about Libya being about the oil is a bunch of crapola. In no way does this compare to Iraq, where Saddam had huge oil reserves and no intention of dealing with Western companies. Gaddafi had cut a deal and the oil giants would have been happy to leave it in place.

[tabatha]

4. I don't think it is a matter of cost.

I think it is a) that it was feasible b) it would have been an unprecedented massacre.

Gaddafi was firing on his people with tanks and heavy artillery. I have not seen that anywhere else. Also that equipment is easy to destroy in the uninhabited desert.

That is why there are still problems in Misarata - the coalition cannot destroy munitions in the town because they are there to protect civilians, not bomb them. So Gaddafi has been able to maintain a presence in populated areas.

Syria's demonstrations are occurring in populated areas.

In other places, citizens are not being harmed by heavy munition that can be bombed.

[walldude]

12. I have an idea...

How about we eliminate any "dumb argument" that disagrees with you. That's what you are looking for isn't it?

And if you think your government has a "principled basis" for the attacks on Libya that they do not have for some of the other places you listed then there is no reason whatsoever to even bother with your request.

[Vattel]

19. I have no position on Libya to disagree with.

And I don't pretend to know what Obama's motives really are. I would like to see more debate on the question of whether what we are doing in Libya really is worth the costs that can be expected. The kind of argument I attacked is a distraction (IMHO).

[Zanzoobar]

13. We could easily blow up a bunch of stuff in Sudan for a lot less money.

And save just as many people.

The ROI in Sudan would be waaaaay higher.

[Vattel]

17. I guess I don't know much about the situation in Sudan.

I will have to look into it.

[joeybee12]

14. The dumb argument is your's...nt

[Deep13]

16. agreed. nt

[Javaman]

18. You mean like this thread?

:rofl:

[xchrom]

20. i think the price tag is going to keep going up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4791955

gaddaffi's troops are aways away from calling it quits.

[Vattel]

23. I share that worry.

[Windy]

21. Had the president not gone and and genocide had resulted, he would have been pummeled

not only by the right, but by the left in this country. More importantly, he would also have been condemned worldwide by arab and non-arab states for not taking action.

Now he has taken action, and he is condemned.

he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He decided to err on the side of potentially preventing massive loss of life by a wacko known nut.

I would have done the same thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. These kinds of objections can be summarized quite easily

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Thanks to RWE for so perfectly capturing the "Why not in Syria?" nonsense.

[Distant Observer]

24. There is a PRESENT AND URGENT CRISIS with mass murder, oppression etc in IVORY COAST

where the people have been begging for even minimal action to support the leader
that won a UN supervised election.

No military action as unarmed people die.

In Libya, there is not evidence that the current Gov would loose free and fair elections.

The factional conflict has been ongoing for decades without any massacres.

The opposition forces are known to have strong support in one part of Libya but only
spotty support elsewhere in the country.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO COMPARISON IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION.

BUT THERE ARE NO SECRET MISSIONS BY THE BRITISH, FRENCH, AMERICANS to negotiate with the
recognized elected leaders in the Ivory Coast, even as the dictator continues to kill innocents.

[Vattel]

30. Thank you for the cogent reply.

I know little of the situation on the Ivory Coast, but I have read that effective intervention there would be extremely costly. Is that incorrect?

[City Lights]

25. Unrec for labeling a point of view you disagree with as "dumb." nt

[bobbolink]

26. The other issue is, the Libyans asked.. no, BEGGED the UN to help.,

Thanks for having the courage to address this.

You, also, will get thrashed.

[MrTriumph]

27. It is not our fight. We should never have gotten in and we must get out.

x

[Hugabear]

28. I see. So any argument that you disagree with is "dumb"

I might vehemently disagree with the DUers who support military action, but I don't call their arguments "dumb"

[ProgressIn2008]

29. "Unique situations" is being used to obscure good questions re: criteria for military intervention

in humanitarian crises (to the extent that this is about humanitarianism at all). Almost any situation could be spun as unique.

I remember the leadup to war in 2003 in Iraq. One of the stories I read repeatedly was about Saddam Hussein's rape rooms. All of a sudden, this particular human rights violation became a factor in determining the need for war. But state-sponsored rape is found elsewhere, and it's not "dumb" in the least to ask the question: when and how does this human rights violation necessitate military action? And what military action stops state-sponsored rape? Is it the so-called regime change that military action may achieve, or is it something else again?

When people ask these questions, I assume that they care about humanitarian crises, and addressing them effectively and consistently.

The "low cost" part is just confusing, to put it charitably. Sounds like: we will only intervene in humanitarian crises if it doesn't cost us much. Questioning *that* is far from dumb.