I really cant see how this could end well...
I really cant see how this could end well...
I think if theyd gone in 2-3 weeks back when the rebels were gaining ground, then (despite the rank hypocrisy) it might have been an effective and relatively clean intervention and the fantasy of regime change via airstrike alone may have been fulfilled.
As it stands now, I think it will end up doing more harm then good, and of course there are the many moral questions... France in particular have been playing both sides in this one.
I think it is clear that this has very little to do with democracy or human rights.
It was hard to sit by and watch the world doing nothing (except issue statements condemning Gadaffi) while the rebels were slowly defeated so I guess I kind of support intervention if only as the least worst of a whole group of bad options. I'm sure it will end badly; it started badly, it's been bad for years and I don't predict any real change to be honest. There never is.
I agree that inaction seems unconscionable, but the track record of humanitarian intervention by the west is quite simply appalling, in fact, some pundits are suggesting that this is partly about rehabilitating the idea of the Western perpetrated 'noble war' since the entire concept has been discredited over the last decade or so.
Maybe what I said was overly negative. I'll have a read through those options though anyway.
It's a particularly irritating aspect of Iraq (a war that a large and vocal portion of western civilians didn't want) that it discredited the idea of any kind of intervention altogether - even in this case where I suspect a lot of people would want to be on the opposite side of the argument. There's no room for subtlety in these debates - intervention is completely tainted now and I think that that was probably a cause of the hesitation on the part of the western leaders that you refer to here:
"I think if theyd gone in 2-3 weeks back when the rebels were gaining ground, then (despite the rank hypocrisy) it might have been an effective and relatively clean intervention and the fantasy of regime change via airstrike alone may have been fulfilled."
OK, read through those and they seem like potentially good ideas and things that should maybe have been done before but they are going to take some time to show results. They're more long-term or supplementary things as opposed to actions that are going to save the rebels now aren't they?
OK fair enough but some are worse than others.
funny how it's been portrayed in the press as a UN coalition, led by the french taking charge...yet the US were the ones to shot 120 of the 122 tomahawk missiles on the first day. hmm...
will be interesting to see how involved the arab league stays, and how much military effort is contributed by fellow arab nations.
edit: one other issue that makes things difficult is the citizens/rebels don't seem to have a recognized leader or collective point of view. tough to fight against an organized military force when you don't have someone in charge on your side.
Last edited by Leo; 22-03-2011 at 07:10 PM.
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters', a former head of state, hitherto always a welcome guest of the governmnents of the West, turning into a 'dictator' over night, a military intervention occurring under the guise of 'peacekeeping measures', the establishment of a 'No-Fly-Zone' that amounts to the bombardment of an entire country - welcome to the year 1984, eh, 2011.
By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide. This was not the case. In fact, Ghaddafi was fighting against armed rebels in an attempt to uphold state power; that is the natural response of every government to the challenging of its sovereignty by insurrectionary forces who themselves resort to violence to enforce their claim to power. Was Ghaddafi's authority legitimate in the first place? Debatable, sure. But did the West really care for the last, what, 40 years while the oil was flowing?
No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.
Last edited by lanugo; 22-03-2011 at 10:21 PM.
AFAIK Ianugo is right on this point. The evidence of war crimes/human rights abuses is relatively sketchy. If killing unarmed protestors justifies intervention, then Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, and maybe Syria all qualify.
"Gaddafi is implementing a strategy of scorched earth. It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterised as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."
(but then, no doubt the International Federation for Human Rights is a CIA-sponsored front promoting the Zionist New World Order, blah blah blah...)
You really are the epitome of the smug, soi-disant 'leftist' who'll suck up to any old bloodstained tyrant as long as he's suitably 'anti-Western', aren't you?
Last edited by Mr. Tea; 23-03-2011 at 11:21 PM.