What Do We Do about Libya NOW?

This is a rather interesting article from Foreign Policy. It adresses a few key concerns.

So if the liberal interventionists who got us into this war want to make their decisions look good in retrospect, they had better have a plan to ensure that political transition in Libya goes a lot more smoothly than it did in Iraq. And you know what that means, don't you? We'll be there for longer than you think, and at a higher cost than one might hope. But no worries; it's not as though we have any other problems to think about (or spend money on) these days.

One thing the article implies is, what is NATO and the U.S actually trying to achieve in Libya?

As with the invasion of Iraq, in short, the issue wasn't whether the West could eventually accomplish "regime change" if it tried. Rather, the key questions revolved around whether it was in our overall interest to do so and whether the benefits would be worth the costs. In the Iraqi case, it is obvious to anyone who isn't a diehard neocon or committed Bush loyalist that the (dubious) benefits of that invasion weren't worth the enormous price tag. There were no WMD and no links between Saddam and al Qaeda, and the war has cost over a trillion dollars (possibly a lot more). Tens of thousands of people died (including some 4500 Americans), and millions of refugees had to flee their homes. And for what? Mostly, a significant improvement in Iran's influence and strategic position.

During the Cold War, one thing that seperated Americans from the Communists is that Americans were suppose to dissent from the idiotic politics of crazed leaders, however it seems as if this has faded. It seems as if Americans are no better then those who conformed to the failed practices of Soviet era communism. Why are the American people allowing their elected reppresentitives (reppresors if you'd like) to lead their country down a well with no ladder to climb out. More so, why are Americans allowing their reppresentitives to meddle in a country and cause an even bigger humanitarian problem than before?

More troubling is the cost to Libya itself: NATO and the US intervened to ward off an anticipated "humanitarian disaster" (which might or might not have occurred and whose magnitude is anyone's guess); what we got instead was a nasty little civil war in which thousands may already have died (and the fighting isn't over yet). So we can look forward to lively debate on the wisdom of this intervention, with advocates claiming that we prevented a larger bloodbath and skeptics arguing that there was never any risk of a genocide or even a deliberate mass killing and that our decision to intervene actually made things worse.

It truly seems that American politics are two sides of the same coin (not that you need me to tell you that). The Republican intervene in foreign countries in the guise of National security interests while the Democrats intervene in foreign countries in the guise of Humanitarian military operations. In the end- history has proven- that they onlly cause greater problems for that country, cause greater problems internationaly, cause greater problems for themselves and cause greater problems for national secutiry (since when does stretching your military in countries that do not threaten your safety improve secuirty). It is time the American people stop letting their politicians profit while they trash the interests of the people.

Article Link: walt.foreignpolicy.com...

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Im so angry about what we did down there that MY answer for what we should do about Libya now is to shove it up Obama's rear end. In one big piece.

Its a disgrace what we did there.

Do you have a link to the source of the article?

I reserve judgment until then.........

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Obama = 3rd Bush Term. (Plus an even crappier domestic policy... yay)

You get the WORST of the Bush foreign policy problems continuing into eternity. Expansion of War, coupled with the WORST of Domestic Legislation Policy possible.


Help us Obi Ron-Paul Kenobi... Your Our Only Hope!!!

All the osama hoopla has overshadowed the fact that Gaddafi has been winning the war against the rebels. Misrata seems to shift hands every week. The oil capabilities have been damaged by pro-Gaddafi forces, and arguably many people in Libya still support the regime.

I am not sure a regime change will happen without more boots on the ground. The EU already has plans to put troops on the ground. I read somewhere else that there are already advisers on the ground. That is not even counting the certain presence of special forces.

All this means that a considerable commitment must be made to ensure regime change in Libya. What possible gain is there in this? That is besides the setting up of a central bank, and seizing resources.

This war is merely a war for a few powerful nations to pillage another country. Dress it up as spreading democracy, or protecting human rights if you like. Ift is clear that the only difference between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya is the location. All three are about colonial resource acquisition.

Originally posted by stephinrazin
What possible gain is there in this? That is besides the setting up of a central bank, and seizing resources.

This war is merely a war for a few powerful nations to pillage another country. Dress it up as spreading democracy, or protecting human rights if you like. It is clear that the only difference between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya is the location. All three are about colonial resource acquisition.

Excellent analysis.

It's like the war-n-pillage-insanity that has crippled Washington for the last 60 years has finally infected every organization they have come in contact with -- NATO, UN, EU and member states, etc. I'm puzzled as to how they can claim their actions as humanitarian when they are clearly waging aggressive war.

It hurts to see a victim in this position without the sophisticated weapons they need. It's equally painful to see that his allies appear to be fair-weather friends.

"liberal interventionists" Digs into me..

what is Liberal about killing?

all this 'Obama Is Liberal' is really starting to get to me.. as much as 'You're Racist' if you disagree with Obama, Obama is not a 'Liberal'.. he is far far from 'Liberal'.. unless 'Liberalism' has changed..

*End Rant*


as far as Libya goes, Get Out

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Ooops sorry I forgot here it is walt.foreignpolicy.com...

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

Thanks for the link!

It's hard not to agree that the possibility of extensive urban combat in Libya is just a bad idea.

The lives and money it would cost is not worth the years of internal warfare that will ensue; no matter the role in which we play. We can never promote stability in an area in which we had no business being involved in the first place. It's also a possibility that we are now propping up a rebel movement that we sought to squash in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The hypocrisy stinks to high-heaven. If anything this shows that the "right-wing" ideology of interventionism has its appeal. Americans eat it up and rally into a patriotic frenzy...then we invade nations to kill boogymen we know nothing about! Obama is not a socialist, he is a Neocon in training.

In answer to the OP question?
GET OUT! LEAVE!

or

We could treat Syria the same way and just attack EVERYONE.

I think we should attack Wisconsin next. There isa micro-brewery that I like there.

reply to post by beezzer


Lol. Lets do it! Attack them all! We dont need to be concerned about the cost! Screw the budget and human lives! More War!

Lets stay out of it and watch as they kill each other!!!