The Wrong Intervention

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"THERE ARE so many things wrong with the Libyan intervention that it is hard to know where to begin..."

http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=462

---

Meant to post this a while ago. A different point of view, basically. Large parts of which have, I think, been vindicated (unfortunately).

[© tweed]

do you read Dissent regularly?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A not unreasonable POV.  Frankly, if we were going to get as involved as we did, we should have gone whole hog and provided arms and training to the TNG.  I would have thought Europe would have learned the lesson about half-measures after what happened in Yugoslavia.  They only drag out conflicts, not solve them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

do you read Dissent regularly?

I check their website every now and again to see if there's anything worth reading. There's a lot of crap there and overall its nowhere near as good as it was in Howe's day, but you stumble across more good stuff than elsewhere (on average anyway).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's true. Comparing situation in Libya to Rwanda, which was indeed an extreme case, is just insulting to the victims of that conflict.

Article rightly points out that, despite passing Security Council resolution, the intervention simply lacks real international support.

Furthermore, an intervention in fact only prolonged and escalated the circle of death and violence.

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but I find this quite a weak argument. If Benghazi had fallen to Qaddafi, there's no way of telling what could have happened. A humanitarian intervention quite clearly was called for when it became clear that the fall of Benghazi was imminent, certainly when combined with some of the Qaddafi-rhetoric.

[Silent Hunter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but I find this quite a weak argument. If Benghazi had fallen to Qaddafi, there's no way of telling what could have happened. A humanitarian intervention quite clearly was called for when it became clear that the fall of Benghazi was imminent, certainly when combined with some of the Qaddafi-rhetoric.

I agree. A stalemate is better than a defeat for the rebels and the people of Libya.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but I find this quite a weak argument. If Benghazi had fallen to Qaddafi, there's no way of telling what could have happened. A humanitarian intervention quite clearly was called for when it became clear that the fall of Benghazi was imminent, certainly when combined with some of the Qaddafi-rhetoric.

Naturally, if rebels captures Tripoli, that would be peace and love all over Libya. When will the people start to think and stop looking at Libya like "good guys v. bad guys?"

Intervention has some sense only if was aimed as establishing a real stalemate, instead of aiding one side.

[Хahar 🤔]

Kalwejt, your insistence that the two sides are morally equivalent is quite amusing.

[patrick1]

A not unreasonable POV.  Frankly, if we were going to get as involved as we did, we should have gone whole hog and provided arms and training to the TNG.  I would have thought Europe would have learned the lesson about half-measures after what happened in Yugoslavia.  They only drag out conflicts, not solve them.

Yeah, this is my general opinion.  I think the US should have sent a couple carrier groups and NATO/allies also brought more force to bear.  IMO, Gaddafi's regime was at the tipping point several months ago and we should have applied overwhelming force to knock him over.  "We" allowed him to regroup and consolidate.  This has prolonged the conflict and in the long run led to more bloodshed as well as an erosion in public opinion.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Kalwejt, your insistence that the two sides are morally equivalent is quite amusing.

Xahar, I rather reject the view that it's some kind "good, pure rebels" vs. "bad regime".

[Insula Dei]

Kalwejt, your insistence that the two sides are morally equivalent is quite amusing.

Xahar, I rather reject the view that it's some kind "good, pure rebels" vs. "bad regime".

What it isn't either is 'bad' vs. 'bad', kalwejt. Qaddafi quite clearly is morally much more problematic than the rebels could ever turn out to be.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but I find this quite a weak argument. If Benghazi had fallen to Qaddafi, there's no way of telling what could have happened. A humanitarian intervention quite clearly was called for when it became clear that the fall of Benghazi was imminent, certainly when combined with some of the Qaddafi-rhetoric.

Again, I didn't oppose an idea of humanitarian intervention upon the UN mandate. Preferably to create a stealmate, that would separate the two sides from each other.

Sadly, instead of this, we have NATO supporting one side of the civil war against another, which I consider a mistake.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just fell on it, didn't read the article so far, only the thread, and thought maybe it could be bumped...

[Antonio the Sixth]

The "wrong intervention" has (well, is going to) led to freeing a country and overthrowing an insane, bloody dictator.

[Mr. Morden]

Would a 6 month "airpower only" military operation really have made any difference in either Darfur or Rwanda?

[republicanism]

The "wrong intervention" has (well, is going to) led to freeing a country and overthrowing an insane, bloody dictator.

Out of interest: Did you support the war on Iraq back then?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The "wrong intervention" has (well, is going to) led to freeing a country and overthrowing an insane, bloody dictator.

Out of interest: Did you support the war on Iraq back then?

Irrelevant. The two interventions are so different in so many ways that it's not even worth bringing it in.

And anyways, the opinion of a 10 year old kid isn't worth a lot.

[GMantis]

In retrospect, the article was mostly correct, except in thinking that the rebels couldn't win without NATO ground troops, but then again no one expected the intervention to last this long.

The "wrong intervention" has (well, is going to) led to freeing a country and overthrowing an insane, bloody dictator.

It has also probably inflicted (together with the actions of the rebells) in a comparable number of the civilian deaths inflicted by Gadhafi.

[Marston]

Recent figures say the United States has spent roughly $900 million on this air campaign, thus far. Chump change. Seems like a smart, cheap, and fiscally responsible intervention to me.

[GMantis]

Recent figures say the United States has spent roughly $900 million on this air campaign, thus far. Chump change. Seems like a smart, cheap, and fiscally responsible intervention to me.

And if the NTC delivers on its promises, it will probably turn out to be profitable in the long term.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The "wrong intervention" has (well, is going to) led to freeing a country and overthrowing an insane, bloody dictator.

It has also probably inflicted (together with the actions of the rebells) in a comparable number of the civilian deaths inflicted by Gadhafi.

Yeah, because Gaddafists taking Benghazi wouldn't have resulted in the death of any civilian at all.

[GMantis]

The "wrong intervention" has (well, is going to) led to freeing a country and overthrowing an insane, bloody dictator.

It has also probably inflicted (together with the actions of the rebells) in a comparable number of the civilian deaths inflicted by Gadhafi.

Yeah, because Gaddafists taking Benghazi wouldn't have resulted in the death of any civilian at all.

And no supporter of Gadhaffy will be killed in Tripoli or outside it
(See this article, by the way.)