Getting involved in Libya

[jp1]

I guess for me the concerns about getting involved in Libya are two-fold.

First, I tend to believe the libertarian viewpoint that our military should only be used for defense of our homeland. There's simply nothing in the US constitution about helping other country's citizens become free of tyrant rulers or, even moreso, aggressively attacking countries because they "might" harm us at some point in the future as we did with Iraq. And other than defending the steady supply of oil I don't think one could, even stretching in the most desperate way, make a credible argument that US safety is any way dependent on what happens in Libya.

Secondly, I'm VERY concerned that our involvement in Libya will become yet another open ended, long running conflict. Our stated goal at this point seems to be to depose Gaddafi. But then what? Will we leave as soon as that's accomplished? I doubt it. Are we going to stay and "keep the peace" while the differing groups within that country set up a democracy? We've already been doing that in Iraq and I question whether we've really made too much progress after all these years. Are we really prepared to stay as long as it takes to do it in yet another country? And if we are then are we going to do so in every middle eastern country where the population has decided to overthrow their government in a yearning to be free? Or will we pick and choose? And if so, how will we choose? What if Saudi Arabia is the next country to undergo revolution? The House of Saud has been a staunch ally for many years. Would we really stand with the people on that one? Or would we decide that somehow Saudi Arabia is "different"?

[Lainey]

Count me as another one who's concerned we're becoming entangled in War No. 3. I heard an author on TV discuss this very question, and his answer made a lot of practical sense: Don't become engaged in these unless a) you can be succesful and out in 3 yrs or less; and b) there is a stable effective leadership ready to replace the old bad regime.

Of course we failed both those tests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there as in Libya, while there's no question of our being successful "militarily," the question of being out quickly and seeing the right leaders step into position is very much open.

[Dharma Bum]

Well it seems we insist on being consulted about almost every other nation's economic policies, political systems, human rights records, military forces, international objectives, and more.

In fairness, the Europeans are so inept they can't handle a country in their own backyard with a population smaller than Honduras (or metropolitan Dallas for that matter) without US forces. We get pulled into these things as well.

[Zigzagman]

Europeans are so inept they can't handle a country in their own backyard

I guess my question would be inept at what? Handle a country?

I would much prefer that we help poor people regardless of their national affiliation. I will never believe that armed conflict is ever a good thing in regard to "helping anyone". We are simply taking sides and the loss is never those that run a nation or those in power.

As much as we like to think we have all of the answers, I think we only need to look inward to see that is not the case. If we really care about "human rights" we have a lot of work to do locally.

"I'm already against the next war"

Peace.

[Dharma Bum]

I will never believe that armed conflict is ever a good thing in regard to "helping anyone".
.

Best, you know better. Avoiding Godwin's law I will use Rwanda as an example. Would you use force to protect an innocent child from criminal harm? Should cops use force to stop criminals? Can the world use force to stop genocide?

Seeking nonviolent solutions does not mean sacrificing the innocent for principle.

I can agree with avoiding conflict. I can see the argument to stay out of Libya. But what I can't condone is an inability to stand up for what's right. So if you do decide that intervention in Libya is "right" as many countries have, it's a poor excuse for pursuing good if you can't do anything about it.

Take bae. Not a guy that goes looking for a fight but one that seems ready if one comes to him. Nations should be subject to the same moral requirements as individuals. So fair argument if you want to say we should stay out, but I don't agree that once it is the right thing to do it's acceptable to be impotent.

[Zigzagman]

Best, you know better. Avoiding Godwin's law I will use Rwanda as an example. Would you use force to protect an innocent child from criminal harm? Should cops use force to stop criminals? Can the world use force to stop genocide?

Seeking nonviolent solutions does not mean sacrificing the innocent for principle.

I can agree with avoiding conflict. I can see the argument to stay out of Libya. But what I can't condone is an inability to stand up for what's right. So if you do decide that intervention in Libya is "right" as many countries have, it's a poor excuse for pursuing good if you can't do anything about it.

Take bae. Not a guy that goes looking for a fight but one that seems ready if one comes to him. Nations should be subject to the same moral requirements as individuals. So fair argument if you want to say we should stay out, but I don't agree that once it is the right thing to do it's acceptable to be impotent.

I choose to not live vicariously through the eyes of Bae and his island world

Nationalistic conflict is what I was referring to - not local conflict. It seems we are quite quick to decide where and which fights are important. The criteria is ever changing but mostly based upon politics not moral resolve.

I guess to make it simple or on my terms - I think war should only be a last resort understanding that those killed and displaced are never those in-charge for the most part - just simple humans much like ourselves. We can easily claim the moral highground but that is just rhetoric.

Peace

[freein05]

So my old buddy Beststash is Zigzagman. It only took me months to figure that out. Glad he is back.

[bae]

There is also a constitutional matter here.

Bombing the heck out of Libyan air defenses and military installations would traditionally be considered an act of war. The US Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war on his own initiative. In fact, Obama said in 2007, when asked when the President could use military force without Congressional approval: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Pesky rules.

[IshbelRobertson]

In fairness, the Europeans are so inept they can't handle a country in their own backyard with a population smaller than Honduras (or metropolitan Dallas for that matter) without US forces. We get pulled into these things as well.

Excuse me?

As someone who comes from one of those 'inept' countries, I really resent your comments.

[Dharma Bum]

I guess to make it simple or on my terms - I think war should only be a last resort understanding that those killed and displaced are never those in-charge for the most part - just simple humans much like ourselves. We can easily claim the moral highground but that is just rhetoric.

I might agree with you in many cases, but I think your statements are still overbroad. The Bosnians were getting killed before we got there. My guess is fewer were killed because we (and others) helped. Saying we shouldn't take actions that will harm people is righteous, bro. But saying there is no way we will help people who are suffering if it means we may have to get a little rough with the bad guys is just a recipe for greater suffering among those you claim you care about.