![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexI'm writing this for the people who ask, and for my own record.
People who know me seem to be surprised by my support of our military intervention in Libya, particularly given that I'm not in favor of our military actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am not a pacifist. I believe that the use of force is necessary at times and while I do not believe in the concept of a "just war" - in fact I think the term itself is loathsome - I believe that we live in a world of laws and those laws cover things like wars and military action. War is never just, but it can be legal. War is never right, but it can be necessary. We make the laws to cover things - including military action - that we know need governance. Nobody makes laws or international treaties about how to have a peace because we all agree on that. Laws and treaties are there for things we disagree about - human rights, trade and commerce, and conflict.
My biggest objection to our action in Iraq is that we went in under a lie (there were no WMD and BushCo knew it; there never was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and they knew it) and at the wrong time. Had we gone in when Saddam gassed the Kurds I would have supported it. Had we gone in to support the uprising after Gulf War I (with UN backing) I would have supported that. I believe that in Libya we are acting on good true information - Qaddafi is in fact using armed forces against a civilian population in ways that constitute war crimes, and he should be stopped from doing so.
I don't buy the argument that says "if we intervene here (Libya) why don't we intervene there (Bahrain)" or anywhere else? First, there's a large difference in my mind between a criminal action by police forces (shooting peaceful demonstrators) and the wholesale, indiscriminate shelling of civilian populations with heavy weaponry brought in by foreign mercenaries. That said, if we could get international (UN) and local (Arab League) support for action in Bahrain I'd be more likely to support it.
Knowing that we would want such legal cover, I'm disappointed we didn't press for it earlier. One of the stories that's been lost in the crisis is that the Libyans who asked for a no-fly zone at the outset wanted it to be there to block Qaddafi's import of foreign mercenaries and their heavy weapons. When you hear that towns are being shelled by "forces loyal to Qaddafi" it mostly means "mercenaries paid by Qaddafi" - this is largely not the Libyan army itself. One of my ongoing disappointments with Obama is that he seems to require Hilary Clinton to be his spine too often.
Also, I don't think we're required to operate by a standardized playbook. A good analogy I heard is that this situation is much more like a soccer match than a football game. In US football, the coaches will often script the first 20 or so plays and try to get things to go according to their plan. In a soccer game things are much more fluid and you win by being flexible and reacting quickly. I'm OK with there being "no exit plan" as long as I can believe that our military planners are in fact thinking on their feet.
Right now it appears that we are pretty unequivocally the good guys. Every day I listen to the BBC talking live to Libyan citizens and doctors who are treating the victims of Qaddafi's crimes - kids with hands and feet blown off by tank shelling, snipers shooting at anyone who tries to enter or leave a hospital. I want us to destroy those tanks, shut down that artillery, drive off those snipers. Yes, we do have to figure out what to do about Qaddafi himself, and yes if this bogs down into a stalemate it will be ugly. But those things are in the future, and the future is always uncertain. If that future comes and I feel like we're acting illegally or on false grounds I may flip over to opposing the military action. But not today.
People who know me seem to be surprised by my support of our military intervention in Libya, particularly given that I'm not in favor of our military actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am not a pacifist. I believe that the use of force is necessary at times and while I do not believe in the concept of a "just war" - in fact I think the term itself is loathsome - I believe that we live in a world of laws and those laws cover things like wars and military action. War is never just, but it can be legal. War is never right, but it can be necessary. We make the laws to cover things - including military action - that we know need governance. Nobody makes laws or international treaties about how to have a peace because we all agree on that. Laws and treaties are there for things we disagree about - human rights, trade and commerce, and conflict.
My biggest objection to our action in Iraq is that we went in under a lie (there were no WMD and BushCo knew it; there never was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and they knew it) and at the wrong time. Had we gone in when Saddam gassed the Kurds I would have supported it. Had we gone in to support the uprising after Gulf War I (with UN backing) I would have supported that. I believe that in Libya we are acting on good true information - Qaddafi is in fact using armed forces against a civilian population in ways that constitute war crimes, and he should be stopped from doing so.
I don't buy the argument that says "if we intervene here (Libya) why don't we intervene there (Bahrain)" or anywhere else? First, there's a large difference in my mind between a criminal action by police forces (shooting peaceful demonstrators) and the wholesale, indiscriminate shelling of civilian populations with heavy weaponry brought in by foreign mercenaries. That said, if we could get international (UN) and local (Arab League) support for action in Bahrain I'd be more likely to support it.
Knowing that we would want such legal cover, I'm disappointed we didn't press for it earlier. One of the stories that's been lost in the crisis is that the Libyans who asked for a no-fly zone at the outset wanted it to be there to block Qaddafi's import of foreign mercenaries and their heavy weapons. When you hear that towns are being shelled by "forces loyal to Qaddafi" it mostly means "mercenaries paid by Qaddafi" - this is largely not the Libyan army itself. One of my ongoing disappointments with Obama is that he seems to require Hilary Clinton to be his spine too often.
Also, I don't think we're required to operate by a standardized playbook. A good analogy I heard is that this situation is much more like a soccer match than a football game. In US football, the coaches will often script the first 20 or so plays and try to get things to go according to their plan. In a soccer game things are much more fluid and you win by being flexible and reacting quickly. I'm OK with there being "no exit plan" as long as I can believe that our military planners are in fact thinking on their feet.
Right now it appears that we are pretty unequivocally the good guys. Every day I listen to the BBC talking live to Libyan citizens and doctors who are treating the victims of Qaddafi's crimes - kids with hands and feet blown off by tank shelling, snipers shooting at anyone who tries to enter or leave a hospital. I want us to destroy those tanks, shut down that artillery, drive off those snipers. Yes, we do have to figure out what to do about Qaddafi himself, and yes if this bogs down into a stalemate it will be ugly. But those things are in the future, and the future is always uncertain. If that future comes and I feel like we're acting illegally or on false grounds I may flip over to opposing the military action. But not today.
