I'm surprised this issue hasn't come up more directly on SEN recently, given the fact that the US and other countries are effectively at war with Libya.

Hopefully people have been keeping on top of the news, so I won't go into the details of what's going on in Libya, but because (apparently) Americans tend not to take much notice of world events, here's the tl:dr version:

Egypt and Tunisia overthrow their long-serving rulers. Various Middle-Eastern countries erupt into protest, hoping to get rid of their own dictators. Protesters fired on in Bahrain, Iran and Libya. Protests turn into outright rebellion in Libya. Libyan government loses control over second largest city and several other major towns. Rebels advance on government-controlled towns and capture a few. Government falls back, regroups and uses foreign mercenaries, air power, artillery and armour to put down rebellion.

France, UK, USA and others warn Gaddafi to stop trying to crush the rebellion or there will be consequences. They push for a UN resolution establishing a No Fly Zone to protect civilians from government forces, and get it.

Last 3 days: Various airstrikes and cruise missile launches against Libyan government anti-air, command and control and armoured assets. Russia and China express their concern at the situation. Gaddafi accuses US, France and UK of warmongering.
----------------------

My question is - should "we" (the West) be intervening in Libya? Why/Why not? I'll post my thoughts later but I'm interested in what others have to say first.

Forewarning, this will be jumbled train of thought.

I have been paying attention to this, and I'm so torn on how I feel about it. As sad as it is to say it, if we started a rebellion in the U.S., deadly force would most likely be used to stop it, so who are we to step in and start bombing because Gaddafi is doing it. Going to war with Libya is now a third active war for the U.S., and our troops are spread so thin already that this is a really terrible position for us to be in. As far as I know, Obama's own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates advised against direct force (only sticking with the No Fly Zone concept), and it was Hilary Clinton who somehow managed to convince him otherwise. I will say I'm glad they aren't deploying ground troops for this one, as I don't think we could afford that at this rate.

I think Gaddafi is painted as the new Hussein for us (and effectively for the Obama administration), so my hope is that as this issue takes the forefront, we start to pull more troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. At this rate, it seems like helping the Libyan uprising and the surrounding nations is a greater cause, especially since (until perhaps recently) it didn't start as an America-driven conflict.

For as much shit as people give Obama, I am glad he held out on intervening for as long as he did, letting things play out.

It isn't on SEN because I texted Voy and its all over facebook

To be honest, I'm a bit upset and a bit surprised. I was okay with the no fly zone, but this seems to me to be a lot like Iraq. We had initial support for Iraq, so I think the defining factor is how far we take our support.

I was amazed that France struck, and, I'm not making a hurr durr joke about it, I am honestly surprised that they were the first to strike. But my understanding is that what htey did was in line with the UN resolution. The main problem still remains...the resolution was very ambiguous - that's why we bombed them and why its 'okay' that we did.

To be honest, maybe this is a conspiracy theory, but I have a nagging feeling that the reason we followed suit was because someone in the military realized that if they didn't use the troops they had available, they were liable to lose the necessary funding next quarter/year. It isn't an unheard of trick.

Ok, well I'll weigh in now on the original question. I might be able to respond to some of the other points raised about the particular position of the US later, but I'm going to try to deal with the question of intervention more generally.

I'm a bit torn and I've had discussions with friends about it, but I don't think we should have intervened. A well known historian, David Starkey, was on a tv programme the other week and he argued that if the people of Libya want their freedom then they should be allowed to fight for it and we shouldn't do it for them. He said that you can't give people their freedom - they have to take it from someone.

Then you have the humanitarian problem. One of my friends said that we had to intervene to avoid a humanitarian crisis and the kind of reprisals that the regime would take against the rebels once they defeated them. My argument is that these reprisals will happen whichever side wins - the only difference will be who's getting bastinadoed and shot in a prison somewhere; this is a civil war, and terrible things always happen when neighbour turns on neighbour. This brings me to another issue - the fact that we've now gone and started removing Gaddafi's capability of winning the war quickly by bombing his armour to scrap, it will be a long, drawn out affair with an uncertain outcome. The longer a civil war goes on for, the more people will die. I fear that things will soon start to get really bad in Libya and, because we've already intervened and therefore have to take responsibility for our actions, we'll end up having to put troops on the ground to stop people from killing each other, or "effect a regime change" or whatever it is the West is accustomed to doing these days.

The thing is, this is a situation where we're damned if we intervene and damned if we don't. Why are we damned if we don't? Because we've made out Gaddafi to be this "mad dog" for years now - the US tried to assassinate him in the 1980s; he has sponsored terrorism and made no secret of it; he helped blow up an American airliner over Scotland. The US and UK have strong reasons for disliking Gaddafi and the present situation has created the perfect opportunity to act and get rid of a guy seen by the entire West as a dictator with an appalling human rights record. The apparently democratic nature of the rebellion against him has also forced our hand. It would look really bad if we didn't do something to help a democratic rebellion against a dictator who will exact vengeance upon them if he wins.

tl:dr - what do?

Sorry I brought it back to the U.S., the show I'm working on now is all about the U.S. military so I'm being bombarded daily by shots of our soldiers dealing with their own private hells. Eh.

I agree that we shouldn't have intervened, either. From a more selfish standpoint (and I know I mentioned this earlier), the U.S. is still trying to get out of our two other wars and this is now a burden. Of course Gaddafi's retaliation against his people is horrible, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. At this rate it seems like our group of countries is taking matters into our own hands and policing the world from a more militaristic standpoint over the more political UN. That makes sense for something like the Holocaust, but this is not a world war, yet, and it doesn't seem like it will be one.

The one beneficial thing about this is that at least we aren't forcing the civil war, the people themselves are actually propelling the movement. There could be no better "Democracy is the bestest!" PR than that.

I don't think any outside country should interfere. What gives them the right to interfere anyway? This is Libya's problem. If Gaddafi overthrows the rebellion, so be it. If he gets overthrown and another dictator takes over, so be it. There's a slim chance that the rebellion will win AND democracy will prevail. If that happens, so be it. But this country is not ours to interfere in. The States and the UN constantly interfere with other countries when they have no right to do so (korea, vietnam, iraq, numerous african countries, afghanistan, numerous eastern european countries)

To play devil's advocate for a sec, my guess is that they interfere because everyone is afraid of another Holocaust arising. Britain appeased Hitler when he started doing what he was doing, and no one stepped in for a while because of the sentiment that it is none of our business. So now, I gather that the superpowers want to step in before it ever gets to that point (regardless of whether or not it does).

If Hitler came to power now and effectively created Nazi Germany (with the same policies) in more recent times, I doubt anyone would say that we have no right to interfere. I realize a lot more was going on than the racial genocide, but it is still the same concept. Of course no one has managed to muster up that same amount of power in any of these nations that the U.S. is so set on invading, but I still consider them to be similar instances.

/devilsadvocate

There were other issues in WWII, unfortunately one of which was a case of the boy who cried wolf. See, after WWI someone blamed - actually I think it was Germany - of labor camps. The camps were never found. In WWII there was this crazy bad ass who went into a labor camp and miraculously got info out of the camp he was in and to the allies. Well, people called bullshit, because they cried it in the first world war. So...there's food for thought.

But I believe that people were crying genocide when we went into Iraq, what with persecution and such.

Its very tricky to get involved. But if you decide not to get involved,you look heartless. Like Will said...damned if you do damned if you don't.

My main point in bringing it up is that no one stepped in at first, and let it happen. Bad things were obviously going on, and we (as in the U.S.) didn't actively go to war until we were attacked.

I do also agree that this is more related to our actions in Vietnam, and will most likely have the same outcome (as will all our current wars in teh Middle East).

Actually Obama is being very careful to keep the US as far away from the spotlight as possible. I mean sure, US warships launched like 80 Tomahawks into Libya on the first night of bombardment, but the French took the lead in attacking and I think the USG plans on letting a joint Anglo-French command take control of operations under the UN banner.

Obama wants to stay out of things and I don't blame him. He's seen as an anti-war President after all. I don't see this being another Vietnam, but we'll see how things go. If, in three months time, the war has ground to a halt somewhere in the middle of Libya, I anticipate trouble.

I agree. The defining factor is how long we are there and what we are doing there - and I mean UK, US, and France...

People keep comparing this to Vietnam, to Iraq, to Afghanistan... I feel it's really a lot more like the NATO interventions in the Balkans - there's a specific goal, an international force and the operation is being conducted primarily through airstrikes. There aren't even US troops on the ground, this is nothing like those conflicts.

It's exactly like them; they are invading and attacking another country who hasn't attacked them or their allies.

Vietnam - 20 years, 536,100 American troops, draft instituted, little international support.
Afghanistan - 10+ years, 99,400 American troops, long-term occupation of the country. Primary goal: toppling the Taliban regime and rooting out Al-Qaeda.
Iraq - 7+ years, ~100,000 American troops, long-term occupation of the country. Little international support. Primary goal: Destroying Saddam Hussein's regime, "weapons of mass destruction"

Libya: 0 American troops on the ground. 110+ cruise missile strikes, several fighter jets and carriers. Large NATO support, as well as international sentiment. Goal: Institute a no-fly zone and prevent the Libyan rebels and civilians from being slaughtered. No indication of any long-term US involvement.


Yes I can see how you could get those confused, seeing as they are exactly alike.

I typically compare the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to the war in Vietnam, as it is basically the exact same war but in a different area. This war in Libya isn't like that, yet, but I think ultimately ground forces may be sent in (perhaps not by the U.S. specifically, sure) since Gaddafi doesn't seem like the type to back down and relinquish power. He's backed in a corner, and he'll probably fight back.

The methods used may be different but the style if war is the same, if that makes sense. In all the wars, the Western nations had no right to invade or attack, but they did anyway. The quantity of armed forces on the ground is not what I'm getting at, it's the idea of attacking at all.

This is not attacking Libya because we want to seize resources or because we didn't like their foreign policy - Gaddafi was slaughtering his own people. If there is any justification for military action that I can get behind, it is certainly saving civilian lives.

EDIT: I realize I also forgot a key criterion - the Libyan people asked for intervention.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 22 2011, 10:16 pm by Voyager7456.

do you approve of us intervening in Iraq then?

I don't approve of the US invasion of Iraq, because of the way it was handled. To take such an action unilaterally in violation of the UN's decision is dangerous and destabilizes the political order and the United Nations itself. (The lying and falsifying intelligence is a whole other issue as well.)

Had there been an international coalition put together to remove Saddam from power (for example, after his gassing of the post-Gulf War uprisings), yes I certainly would have supported it.

"On a day when two US airmen bailed out over Libya and were rescued after the crash of their fighter jet, Obama and the leaders of Britain and France stepped up efforts to work out an accord on who would be in charge of military operations once the initial onslaught on Libya’s air defense systems was complete.

Obama reiterated that the United States would step back from the leading role within days, but he also said the nation is confronting the complexities of running the military campaign with a multilateral force cobbled together quickly and without a clear understanding among its members about their roles."
From http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2011/03/23/us_allies_seek_accord_on_libya_campaign/

I'm really happy about this, and I'm glad Obama isn't trying to become the chiseled war president that he isn't.