![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacI've seen remarkably little comment, even in the heavier political blogs I read, about the fact that a coalition of the - well, I'm not sure exactly what auspices they're acting under, but it includes the US, the UK, and France, so it might be NATO, it might be the UN, or something else - is now bombing Libya.
Hard to avoid thinking, "Look, Gadhafi has been an international rogue madman for forty years; why spank him now?" On the other hand, I know why now. Of all the Middle Eastern dictators who've faced uprisings from their people lately, Gadhafi is the only one to take my advice and try wholeheartedly to crush it. That takes cold-blooded guts, and one of the reasons it takes that is because it might invite the rest of the world to take you out.
That makes this situation unlike the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and more like that of Kosovo. I supported the intervention in Kosovo, with misgivings; I even supported the action in Afghanistan, with considerably more misgivings, mostly that I was afraid Bush would quickly forget why we were there and what our goal was, which he did, and now we're stuck in a morass; but even at the time I found the justifications offered for Iraq to be completely nonsensical.
The justification for Libya is the same as for Kosovo: a dictator has undertaken all-out war against his own people; we can't just sit by and waggle our fingers at him while he ignores us. So far, yes; but I claim no knowledge of what the most effective intervention might be. And most effective is not the same thing as strongest or most vehement. I fear the enactment of the following syllogism:
Hard to avoid thinking, "Look, Gadhafi has been an international rogue madman for forty years; why spank him now?" On the other hand, I know why now. Of all the Middle Eastern dictators who've faced uprisings from their people lately, Gadhafi is the only one to take my advice and try wholeheartedly to crush it. That takes cold-blooded guts, and one of the reasons it takes that is because it might invite the rest of the world to take you out.
That makes this situation unlike the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and more like that of Kosovo. I supported the intervention in Kosovo, with misgivings; I even supported the action in Afghanistan, with considerably more misgivings, mostly that I was afraid Bush would quickly forget why we were there and what our goal was, which he did, and now we're stuck in a morass; but even at the time I found the justifications offered for Iraq to be completely nonsensical.
The justification for Libya is the same as for Kosovo: a dictator has undertaken all-out war against his own people; we can't just sit by and waggle our fingers at him while he ignores us. So far, yes; but I claim no knowledge of what the most effective intervention might be. And most effective is not the same thing as strongest or most vehement. I fear the enactment of the following syllogism:
- Something must be done.
- This is something.
- Therefore, we must do it.
