Reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of the decision by the United States and its NATO allies to attack Libya in the wake of the Gadaffi regime's offensive against rebel-held cities under the doctrine of "the responsibility to protect." Though the intervention likely prevented a slaughter, there is no guarantee that it won't simply protract a bloody military stalemate that could result in at least as many civilian deaths. There are any number of other legitimate concerns raised by those distressed over the fact that there is now a third country in the greater Middle East in which the United States has found itself at war. At the same time, there are also legitimate arguments being made by prominent human rights advocates arguing that there is still a moral imperative for the use of force to avoid a large-scale massacre by a criminal regime.
In any case, let's be clear: Even if one can justify the war on Libya on humanitarian grounds, this is probably not why it's actually being fought.
The establishment of a no-fly zone was supported by the League of Arab States, an organization composed primarily of pro-Western autocracies which have shown little hesitance in brutally suppressing their own pro-democracy struggles. There was initially a fair amount of popular support within many Arab countries -- even among some pro-democracy activists normally critical of U.S. interventionism -- for some limited outside assistance to prevent the Libyan opposition from being wiped out. However, the air and missile strikes have gone well beyond simply protecting civilians from bombings by pro-government forces to active support for an armed opposition. This, combined with the failure of rebels to take greater advantage of the large-scale outside support to regain the offensive, has resulted in growing nervousness, even from top officials. As Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa told reporters, "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."
Despite its potential of being abused, the concept of an international "responsibility to protect" is both legally and morally valid in theory. National sovereignty should not provide a tyrant protection to unleash a genocidal campaign against his own people. However, as horrific as the military response by Gaddafi towards civilians in suppressing both armed and nonviolent forms of resistance against his autocratic rule, it would naïve to claim that foreign intervention is prompted by Western leaders' concern about protecting civilian lives. The United States, Great Britain and France have each allied with governments -- such as Guatemala, Indonesia, Colombia and Zaire -- which, in recent decades, have engaged in the slaughter of civilians as bad or worse as had been occurring in Libya.
The number of civilian casualties from Gaddafi's attacks is difficult to verify. Some estimates run as high as 8,000, some as low as 1,000, but most estimates put the number of civilians killed during the five weeks between the start of the uprising and the Western intervention country at approximately 1,700 people, roughly the same number of civilians killed during Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon and its 2008 war on the Gaza Strip combined. Rather than referring those responsible to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or engage in military intervention to stop the slaughter, as has been the case of Libya, both the U.S. Congress and the administration vigorously defended Israel's assaults of heavily-populated civilian areas and condemned UN agencies and leading international jurists for documenting Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and for recommending that officials of both Israel and its Arab adversaries suspected of war crimes be referred to the ICC.
The principal intellectual advocate of the Responsibility to Protect is Gareth Evans, former head of the International Crisis Group, who has also emerged as one of the most vocal proponents of what he referred to as "the overwhelming moral case" for military intervention against Gaddafi. Ironically, as Australian foreign minister, Evans was a major defender of Indonesia's genocidal war against East Timor, which took the lives of over 200,000 civilians, and repeatedly downplayed and even covered up for Indonesian war crimes.
Hypocrisy and double-standards regarding military intervention does not automatically mean that military intervention in this case is necessarily wrong. Though many of us familiar with Libya remain dubious, it cannot be ruled out that events could transpire in such a way that this intervention could prove to have saved lives, brought stability, and promoted a democratic transition. However, it would be naïve to believe that the attacks on Libya are motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. Certainly, there aren't many Libyans - even those who support foreign intervention on behalf of the uprising - who believe this. Ongoing U.S. support of the Yemeni and Bahraini regimes as they brutally suppress nonviolent pro-democracy protesters raises questions as to why the U.S. is so quick to intervene militarily against the Libyan regime suppressing an armed rebellion by those whose commitment to democracy in more suspect.
As a result, any honest debate on Libya should not be based just upon the question as to whether foreign military intervention is necessary to stop widespread repression. It should also be as to whether the United States should take sides in a civil war. It should also be as to whether democracy can be imposed through air strikes. It should also be as to whether the best way to overthrow dictators is through a foreign-backed armed uprising or -- as demonstrated in Egypt, Tunisia, Serbia, Chile, the Philippines, Indonesia, Poland and dozens of other countries -- whether the people of the affected countries themselves be allowed to do so through the power of mass strategic nonviolent action.
This is a oil war (European) cloaked as a humanitarian effort, which has went from a No fly zone, to a no fly, taking out tanks and personnel carriers, to a no fly, take out the tanks, take out the bunkers, take out the troops, shoot anything that even remotely looks like it could kill a rebel. I thought we were protecting the 'innocents' (sic). This war is so bogus on so many levels ...
There is no evidence provided that even purports to justify the claim that the intervention in Libya is not primarily motivated by humanitarian concern. As the author himself admits, American hypocrisy and use of double-standards do not suffice to call into question whether the US is doing just what it is morally and legally obligated to do in this case: to protect Libyan civilians from the massacre promised by their own ruler.
Likewise, the conclusion of the article jumps from the reasonable to the unreasonable without missing a beat. It is certainly important for honest debate about the events in Libya to question the means and ends of international military intervention in accordance with the responsibility to protect, as well as questioning the point at which carrying out this responsibility becomes a legally- and morally-dubious foreign intervention in a civil war.
However, it is wholly unreasonable to suppose that the situation in Libya constitutes a foreign imposition of democracy through air strikes instead of the Libyan people's rising up against their autocratic ruler, first non-violently and then in armed, insurrectionary self-defense. The implication here that this is a US-led regime-change operation is purely fictitious, based on a false analogy to Bush's illegal and immoral 'preemptive' war in Iraq. Anyone who has been following the news knows what a lie this is. It's a disrespect to the Libyan people.
1) The United States is here today only because another nation (France) chose sides in a civil war. We call it the revolutionary war, but had we lost it would have been a civil war. Why shouldn't we take side? Gaddafi is a tyrant and his people have clearly shown that they want freedom and democracy. Which brings me to my other point...
2) The people of Libya TRIED "mass strategic nonviolent action", and then they got violently shot.
The problem with our intervenion in Libya boils down to only two things: The risk to American soilders and spending more money. We don't really need to be doing either.
1) the colonies sought redress from the king? The rebels have not. Then they boycotted the goods the king had taxed, to which the king increase the punishment. Then having exhausted all peaceful means the colonies, wrote a Declaration of Independence and published it so that France (England's enemy) would commit troops to the colonial defense... and no it would not have become a civil war because the split was 30% loyalists, 30% revolutionaries, and 30% never mind... and there was 'not' a great purges, hangings, or shootings when the war was concluded in 1783. Those who didn't like the course went back to England (a very few), or tried this new thing called Independence.
2) Yeah, they rioted in the streets, trashed the government buildings, and wanted a over-throw of the government ... what do you expect the government to do. Just wait? Never mind the tribes to the East of Libya have for ever not enjoyed the rule of Quadfi... they have been enemies for not decades buts centuries.
Unconstitutional for a President, without the consent of Congress to engage in a war that does not reflect "National interests." Those being defense of the United States, citizens of the United States, or its territories, possessions or armed forces. King Obama has the right, as a quick reactionary force to commit the forces of the United States only to protect "national interests."
Also, you're making the wrong case. Of course the newly victorious United States didn't kill off the dissenters, fighting tyranny was the point of the revolution. Had the King won heads would have most certainly rolled.
2) The revolution started as peaceful demonstrations, not as riots. Even so, most governments use things like water cannons and mild tear gas to disperse unarmed crowds. When they start using automatic weapons it becomes a crime against humanity.
"King" Obama? Ridiculous.
on Gaza for the very good reason, as Israel was exercising her right of self defense against ongoing massive rocket attacks into its populated areas.
It's fallacy of high order to compare terrorism and self defense.