The U.N. resolution was an amazing milestone. Basically it said the the international community will not tolerate any country leader that threatens mass murders of civilians in order to stay in power.
This establishes a very basic principle of that the world will not longer tolerate this and will authorize intervention, if possible, to stop it.
It is a warning shot to all dictators that killing people to stay in power is no longer acceptable.
Mmmm...I'm skeptical. If humanitarian concerns were really motivating this, shouldn't we be intervening in Ivory Coast, Congo, Burma, and numerous other places? I'd like to live in a world where dictators could not slaughter their populations without fear of international reprisal, but I'm afraid our intervention in Libya might have some more realpolitik motives: keeping the Middle Eastern reform movement alive, securing oil production, etc.
9:05 PM, March 18, 2011
I'm trying to figure out what is going on with Libya and American intervention there. Here's what I've figured out so far: Here's a nice zoomable map of Libya so you can figure out where these places are. The UN has authorized war on Qaddafi. The rebels are currently not doing well and forces loyal to Qaddafi are pushing towards the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. There was a lot of fighting in the past 24 hours or so around the town of Adjabiya, which is about 90 miles to the south. Loyalist forces have moved onto the road from Adjabiya to Benghazi.A lot of the bloggers I've read think that it is not in the US interest to get into a war in Libya, and that we aren't thinking about the intermediate and long term consequences of military intervention there. These include Abu Muqawama from Center for a New American Security, Information Dissemination, Marc Lynch, and Andrew Sullivan, who has been particularly vehement in his opposition.Thomas E. Ricks blogging at Foreign Policy is in favor of military intervention ("Take Qadafi Out"), and quotes a former Egyptian diplomat who paints a relatively painless scenario of military action. Sullivan has a round-up of Libya reactions.
posted by Zachary Drake at 7:13 AM on Mar 18, 2011
"Libya military intervention clearinghouse"
2 Comments -
The U.N. resolution was an amazing milestone. Basically it said the the international community will not tolerate any country leader that threatens mass murders of civilians in order to stay in power.
This establishes a very basic principle of that the world will not longer tolerate this and will authorize intervention, if possible, to stop it.
It is a warning shot to all dictators that killing people to stay in power is no longer acceptable.
7:53 PM, March 18, 2011
Mmmm...I'm skeptical. If humanitarian concerns were really motivating this, shouldn't we be intervening in Ivory Coast, Congo, Burma, and numerous other places? I'd like to live in a world where dictators could not slaughter their populations without fear of international reprisal, but I'm afraid our intervention in Libya might have some more realpolitik motives: keeping the Middle Eastern reform movement alive, securing oil production, etc.
9:05 PM, March 18, 2011