As some of you may know, I am entirely opposed to military intervention in Libya primarily because I am not convinced that there is enough solid evidence of war crimes. I stumbled upon this article from Time Magazine and found it to be a very interesting analysis of the reasons for military intervention in Libya. The article confirms my suspicion that attacks on civilians and other war crimes remain unconfirmed. It suggests that Obama is not neccessarily intervening in Libya to protect Libyans, instead reports from the White House suggest that he is trying to establish a precedent for intervening in humanitarian crises in the future. The article also suggests that Libyan intervention is also motivated by universal hatred of Gadaffi in the Arab World, Europe's energy fears, and fears of further regional stability all wrapped up under the banner of "democratic movements" in the Middle East.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Why We Are Actually in Libya
As some of you may know, I am entirely opposed to military intervention in Libya primarily because I am not convinced that there is enough solid evidence of war crimes. I stumbled upon this article from Time Magazine and found it to be a very interesting analysis of the reasons for military intervention in Libya. The article confirms my suspicion that attacks on civilians and other war crimes remain unconfirmed. It suggests that Obama is not neccessarily intervening in Libya to protect Libyans, instead reports from the White House suggest that he is trying to establish a precedent for intervening in humanitarian crises in the future. The article also suggests that Libyan intervention is also motivated by universal hatred of Gadaffi in the Arab World, Europe's energy fears, and fears of further regional stability all wrapped up under the banner of "democratic movements" in the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ian, do you think the U.S. should intervene only when there are humanitarian concerns and not when American interests come into play? If this was the case, you would be living in a very different, considerably weaker nation today.
no one on this blog ever argued that war crimes were occuring, people just discussed the threat of a humanitarian crisis (i.e. crimes against humanity) due to Qaddafi's statements and past record. I don't even remember any news reports discussing war crimes actually occurring- everything I read just talked about people dying in the usual course of fighting.
Megan, I do not really understand why you think that I am under the impression that America should only intervene when there are humanitarian concerns. I am simply saying that we should not have gone into Libya because there is nothing that warrants intervention (interests or otherwise).
Patrick, I never suggested that people on this blog were wrong. I am fully aware of the supposed threat of a humanitarian crisis, but I firmly believe that it is just that, a supposed threat. It is possible that Gaddafi could commit war crimes but it seems the height of stupidity to me to send in military forces just because something MIGHT happen to foreign nationals. I am not entirely sure what you are trying to critique. My point is precisely what you seem to be arguing. There has not been any evidence of war crimes actually occurring, and so I do not understand why the U.N. took it upon itself to launch a military campaign against Gaddafi. Perhaps the misunderstanding comes with the fact that the reason Obama said we were intervening in Libya, as well as the reason for the U.N. resolution, is to protect Libya citizens. I do not believe the current situation warrants such a resolution.
Post a Comment