A couple of questions prompted by the Libya news.
A CNN article mentions Libya’s mustard gas and “weapons of mass destruction.” Now, as I recall, that was one of the biggest justifications for invading Iraq, and it turns out Libya had them, too; it doesn’t seem like anyone in the know was surprised. Why did we invade Iraq rather than Libya? (Hold off a minute before answering “the oil,” please.) Plus, Khgqaddaphffieey has been antagonistic to the US for far longer than Hussein was.
Syria’s dictator is sounding pretty horrifically brutal, and taking direct action against citizens who are not actually rebelling, merely protesting. The Libyans were actively revolting, and the government’s military response is thus more understandable. Why is the international community bombing Libya and not Syria?
It’s pretty clear that there is some behind-the-scenes decision making that affects who gets diplomatic or economic sanctions, and who gets military intervention. The justification released to the public, though, doesn’t seem to square with what the news reports about conditions on the ground. I don’t think short-term economic interests explain our intervention in Libya, and certainly we’ve turned a blind eye to humanitarian crises before.
What are the circumstances that prompt military intervention / invasion abroad, and what should they be? I’m thinking US military matters but I’d be interested in UN, Nato, and other individual countries, too.