"After doing a bit of research in my sources and completing a modicum of introspective thought I have reached the conclusion that James Clapper was exactly correct in saying that if the situation in Libya is left to its own internal resolution, Qathafi's forces will re-conquer the country and re-establish his rule throughout.
It appears to me that four things are causing the Obama Admin’s foot-dragging on Libya:
1- American collective continuing trauma over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a “feeling” that this would be more of the same which it would not be.
2- Russian and Chinese unwillingness to see collective action on a principle that they think could someday be applied to them.
3- Saudi unwillingness to see another existing Arab go down. Obvious analogy.
4- Israeli government application of the 1% principle in opposing a situation they cannot predict in favor of one that they understand.
Impelled by these factors, the administration and those who wish to do nothing are taking refuge in an appeal to legalisms, validation in international law, the UNSC, NATO, the EU, Arab League and any number of other evasions of responsibility for the catastrophe that the "Freedom Agenda" of the Bush Administration and Obama's coat-trailing in Cairo have brought on through encouragement of revolt.
Today on Farid Zakariyah's GPS show, he assembled a panel of these creatures. They managed to say that the United States should encourage FREEDOM! everywhere, everywhere, but that significant military intervention to prevent the defeat of FREEDOM would be unacceptable. The leading exponent of these mutually exclusive positions was one Rami Khouri, a Lebanese editor. He is a great favorite as an opinion giver at the US Army War College. No wonder we are screwed up..."
3 comments:
The debate over interference is a very complicated one:
Arguing against interference, does Washington have the wisdom and morality to interfere correctly?
How could the West interfere without stripping the rebels of their patriotic credentials?
Arguing for interference, to the degree that Gaddafi possesses Western weapons, Washington has already interfered - on the side of dictatorship - and to permit him to use any such weapons against his own people already constitutes interference. Perhaps the most justifiable course would be either to attack and destroy any such weapons or to provide the equivalent to the rebels. The broader point about the wisdom of giving such toys to strongmen in the first place should not be swept under the rug.
But if Western interference is a can of worms, Egypt has all sorts of justification for preventing further harm to its citizens in Libya. I wonder what kind of discussions are occurring within the Egyptian military command...
the eyes of the world are now on japan think this is bad news for libya or mabe there could have been some help or more intrest
Of the 4 comments, number 3 is the one I'm not so sure about. In general one would think it makes sense, but look at al-Arabiya which on Libya has been incredibly vocal against Qadhafi and for the rebels, and all Libya all the time. I suspect that the combination of the way Qadhafi has poked them in the eye repeatedly over the years, and the fact that there are clear Islamist elements in the uprising that the Saudis probably figure they can manipulate in the future, combines to have them actually support Qadhafi's overthrow. The GCC after all came out before the Arab League very strongly against Qadhafi and in favor of a no fly zone, and were the key for pushing the Arab League into a similar position.
Post a Comment