The real reasons for waging war
businessday.co.za
businessday.co.za
In other words, we attacked Lybia because we are stronger than them and because we thought that the costs will be smaller than the benefits.
In the end this seems to have a lot to do with politics. Sarkozy needs to move the discussion away from his personal life, Obama needs to repudiate Bush's methods, and so on. Humanitarian concerns are at best secondary.
How is this a repudiation? It looks more like an extreme caricature.
Note that Bush got Congressional approval. He had several UN resolutions that went much further than Obama's only resolution. Bush had more partners.
You may disagree with Bush's reasons, but he was far more clear than Obama. Remember, Obama has said that Gaddafi must go, yet also states that they're not using force to oust him.
> Not to mention the fact we're ignoring an almost identical situation in Bahrain.
And other places. Iraq and Afghanistan were distinguishable in Bush's stated reasons. Obama's reasons apply far more generally, yet ....
President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the Bush administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one (and in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have the most respect for)
So I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on whether Obama's actions are in fact a repudiation of President Bush. I'm simply saying that was clearly his goal.
The problem with that analysis is that Bush had more approval from the "International Community" than Obama did.
As I wrote, Bush had multiple UN resolutions in support of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has one, and it had more absentions than Bush's.
In addition, Bush's initial Iraq and Afghanistan coalitions had more members than Obama had at the start of Libya. And, Obama has already lost one.
The Arab League represents the leaders of 22 middle eastern countries including Bahrain. The reason the Arab League isn't constantly asking for UN intervention is because it's composed of very people who are responsible for these repressive regimes. A perfect example of this was Egypt where the Arab League backed Mubarak.
Gaddafi is unstable so they've thrown him under the bus but don't kid yourself. That strategy only works for them because it distracts from their own atrocities.
Are you equating those actions to Gaddafi's proclamation that he would weed out rebels 'House by house, room by room' in Benghazi? Or would you accept that in the real world there are shades of grey?
That's the thing, because I really do want to believe in Kant's credo that humanity/human life should always be treated as an end in itself, and not as a mean to whatever other ends, so that you could say that I do "equate" Gaddafi's actions to any other Government-inflicted injustices done to other people around the world. Although I would object against the use of the term "equate", because this sort of implicitly suggests that human life is just an operator in a mathematical operation. This is I think the reason why Kant was very strongly behind the idea of "Perpetual peace" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_peace#The_Kantian_vie...)
Of course, like you rightly suggest the world is not black and white :), and I agree with you (hence my reference to Hobbes, for example), but what bugs me in all these articles is that the people writing them seem to have no idea of what has been discussed on this matter for at least the last 350 years, or, even worse, they treat us like we have no idea, and just regard us as children being told what's good and right.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
by Major General Smedley Butler...
> War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.
We don't view this as a US-led incursion on par with Afghanistan or Iraq. It's a humanitarian action undertaken by France, the UK and allies, and the US is lending its support.
Of course, this assumes the only "humanitarian" portion of this current situation is the label of the fabricated excuse. Which must be true, see: Ivory Coast.
That makes sense only if Europe has changed its view on how much civilian slaughter is unacceptable, it values Libyans more than it did Iraqis, or it didn't know about Saddam Hussein and knew about Gaddafi.
After all, Gaddafi is far less of a monster than Saddam was. Yes, on both relative and absolute scales.
However, we will get to see how Europe handles the aftermath. Right?
There is a world of difference between 'nudging' the direction of a civil war, and nation-building from scratch. Especially in the case of a far larger country than Libya.
That's a pretty weak argument.
Shouldn't one give more help to the opposition that doesn't have a chance without help? Otherwise, you're rewarding tyrants who are more effective at crushing their opponents.
As to "democratic", want to take a bet as to whether libya or iraq will have more elections in the 10 years after "liberation"?
Face it - the real difference is that you folks didn't like Bush and you really want to like Obama.
Also do note that I'm a firm supporter of humanist interventionism, you just need to have a pretty solid plan (or aspiring-democratic opposition) in place to fill the vacuum. A sizable portion of the population should support said invasion. Those are two criteria that make a world of difference in this situation.
But it's all moot since this thing is still ongoing. I'm curious to see how it works out.
Yes, but the question is still, why Libya and not Iraq?
One answer is that Iraq has shown that it's plausible.
Another answer is that the Euros think that they thought this one up. (No, I don't think that Obama thought this up - he's getting dragged along.)