What’s the exit strategy?
Regards,
Shodan
Sam, can you clarify what you mean please? Are you saying that the US has been dragging it’s feet and not been proactive? Or you want the US to be public about it or what? Or you think that the US should have just started the no fly zone bombing unilaterally?
From your link: “In a *joint *statement to Gadhafi late Friday, the United States, Britain and France — backed by unspecified Arab countries — said a cease-fire must begin “immediately” in Libya, the French presidential palace said.”
Still waiting on your cites for Bill and Hillary being “hopping mad”, and that the Obama administration has been disengaging?
And here we go. The second we start to take action, the Republicans suddenly turn on a dime and oppose action.
No one is turning on a dime. Everyone operates under the same rubric: killing foreigners under my faction, good. Killing foreigners under the other faction, bad.
In 1999, the UN issued Resolution 1244 which authorized NATO to take action in Kosovo (http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm). Among other things, the resolution:
.
Frankly, I don’t really give a damn if Gadhafi wipes out rebels trying to overthrow him. Just as I would care if the rebels were on Gadhafi’s doorstep. Seems to me when you try to overthrow a government, there is an inherent risk that comes built in and if you are not successful, things will likely end badly for you. It’s the risk you take.
The first US Troop’s boot to hit Libyan sand, should match the one being firmly planted in this Administration’s ass.
The other countries do not have to match America’s power. They have to have more than Libya does.
Obama said he was not going to commit troops . So don’t create your criticisms. He made that very clear.
You do realize that if that sentiment had been the prevailing one at Louis XVI’s court, the USA you currently know would not have come to exist?
Just leery of the giant sucking sound I’m hearing
Not quite the same scenario, even 200+ years later
Had the colonist been invading England and trying to overthrow the King, then maybe you could connect the dots
Well when we bought the bugs, it allowed us to retire the nuclear genie missile and go with a conventional air to air missile for dealing with bomber intrusions in the cold war, the other duties were to join the common nato aircraft pool should the cold war have gone hot.
I am not actually sure why someone believes that we need US support, other than dragging the bugs across the ocean. The current generation of American bugs, does’nt have the same commonality of parts or the like.
Declan
I am stunned that the OP’s original questions have been almost ignored and the discussion has revolved around the practicalities of intervention. Does foreign intervention in an independent state’s civil war raise no legal or ethical issues whatsoever? Maybe I am missing something and it is barely worth thinking about, but then could someone please provide me with a clear guideline as to when intervention is legal? Justifiable?
As far as I can tell the UN Charter allows the Security Council to authorize force only in the event of a threat to international peace or security. States without Security Council authorization can only use force in self-defense. I know that in practice it has been argued that “humanitarian interventions” are justified in an ever-broadening range of circumstances, and that Chapter VII of the charter has been re-interpreted accordingly. But even accepting that, is there no line to be drawn (especially when the intervention is not at the request of a government)?
When is it acceptable for a foreign state or states to intervene in a civil war on the side of rebels?
(For the record, I would be very happy to see Gaddafi overthrown and a more democratic regime replace him. I also fear that Gaddafi would be very happy to position himself as a defender of Libya’s sovereignty against foreign aggression.)
(Also for the record, I would be very happy to see the world evolve towards a genuine world government, based on some sort of federal principles. I would just like to see it happen in a non-hypocritical way.)
I came into this thread to say exactly that. Nicely put!
exactly
I can accept either outcome, as it’s really none of our biz to interfere. If Gadhafi goes down, fine. If the rebels are unsuccessful and get squashed - that’s the risk you take. If things go badly, don’t come crying to the world for help. It’s your fight.
Here’s where I jump off - I in no way support any “one-world government” movement.
If the internal situation is bad enough, it can become a threat to international (ie, external) peace and warrant UN intrusion into the State’s sovereignty.
Foreign states can intervene when major harm to civilians is happening (or imminent) and the State is unwilling or unable to stop it (think famine, ect.), or is itself the perpetrator of the harm (genocide, ect.). State sovereignty does not include the unlimited power of the state to do what it wants to its own people. That’s the basis, the question is does Libya’s current situation warrant outside intrusion (or like you asked, is it justifiable here).
Also, I wouldn’t view this as intervening on the side of the rebels, but on the side of the civilians.
Does Libya’s sovereignty vest within the State or within the individual people.
Libya’s neighbors in the Arab League, as well as France and Britain, have recognized Libyan sovereignty as vested in the people as represented by the National Transitional Council.
Well, the bombing has started, and it looks like the US is taking a lead role. Obama says (paraphraising): “We can’t sit idly by while innocent people are being killed by the regime”. Bull and shit. We “sit idly by” all the fucking time. We did it when Iran was killing protesters, and we’re doing it now as that happens in Yemen and Bahrain. Kadhafy should have let us build a military base in Libya-- then he’d be home free!
I know, right? Obama blatantly ignoring U.N. resolutions authorizing military involvement in Iran and Yemen and Bahrain! Obama, THE WORLD IS WATCHING!
I don’t know if you’re being serious or not, but that is not what I said.