PermanentSleep
03-18-2011, 07:22 PM
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/18/why-are-we-going-to-war-with-libya/
With air strikes apparently imminent against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi, America faces a simple question: why is the U.S. going to war in Libya? There may be good reasons, even compelling ones. But so far the answers from the Obama administration are shockingly opaque, contradictory and incomplete.
Obama is unpersuasive and the messages from the administration are strikingly unclear. Why is the Secretary of State calling for Gaddafi's ouster but not the President, who just days ago was himself calling on Gaddafi to leave the country? More important, what interests of the American people are being served here? Why does the U.S. want the fighting to stop, Gaddafi's forces to retreat and Gaddafi to leave the country?
The most common justification for war is the allegation that Gaddafi has been killing innocent civilians. Intervention to stop war crimes like the widespread killing of civilians has precedent in Bosnia and Kosovo. The unrest in Libya did begin, as Obama and Clinton pointed out, with peaceful protests, which Gaddafi attempted violently to suppress. The protesters then armed themselves and were joined by defecting units of the military. Since then, most of the reports coming out of Libya appear to indicate that the violence is between armed rebels and forces loyal to Gaddafi. Obama appeared to concede this by emphasizing the possibility of a future humanitarian crisis rather than a current one.
Americans have not been provided with sufficient evidence of mass atrocities committed by the Gaddafi regime or indications that a Gaddafi victory would destabilize the region to justify a military intervention on humanitarian grounds alone. Nor has the administration made a case that the alternative to Gaddafi justifies the risk of removing him. Members of both political parties are prone to support humanitarian intervention to stop war crimes and given Gaddafi's past, it seems a strong case could be made that an alternative to him would be in the U.S. interest. It is somewhat shocking that the U.S. is preparing to take military action against Libya and neither of those arguments have been convincingly made.
With air strikes apparently imminent against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi, America faces a simple question: why is the U.S. going to war in Libya? There may be good reasons, even compelling ones. But so far the answers from the Obama administration are shockingly opaque, contradictory and incomplete.
Obama is unpersuasive and the messages from the administration are strikingly unclear. Why is the Secretary of State calling for Gaddafi's ouster but not the President, who just days ago was himself calling on Gaddafi to leave the country? More important, what interests of the American people are being served here? Why does the U.S. want the fighting to stop, Gaddafi's forces to retreat and Gaddafi to leave the country?
The most common justification for war is the allegation that Gaddafi has been killing innocent civilians. Intervention to stop war crimes like the widespread killing of civilians has precedent in Bosnia and Kosovo. The unrest in Libya did begin, as Obama and Clinton pointed out, with peaceful protests, which Gaddafi attempted violently to suppress. The protesters then armed themselves and were joined by defecting units of the military. Since then, most of the reports coming out of Libya appear to indicate that the violence is between armed rebels and forces loyal to Gaddafi. Obama appeared to concede this by emphasizing the possibility of a future humanitarian crisis rather than a current one.
Americans have not been provided with sufficient evidence of mass atrocities committed by the Gaddafi regime or indications that a Gaddafi victory would destabilize the region to justify a military intervention on humanitarian grounds alone. Nor has the administration made a case that the alternative to Gaddafi justifies the risk of removing him. Members of both political parties are prone to support humanitarian intervention to stop war crimes and given Gaddafi's past, it seems a strong case could be made that an alternative to him would be in the U.S. interest. It is somewhat shocking that the U.S. is preparing to take military action against Libya and neither of those arguments have been convincingly made.