Tag Archives: Muammar al-Gaddafi

Libya: 20 more years

POSTED BY ORHAN

Norwegian peace studies founder Johan Galtung predicts the Libyan war will last 20 years. Then he points out that if Qadaffi is killed by NATO, it will make him a martyr, and the war will last more than 20 years. He draws some conclusions about the outcome:

“Who the rebels are is not clear; no doubt many, most, all, are strongly and rightly against Gadhafi’s dictatorship. But what are they for, their goals? Educated guess: they will accommodate direct foreign investment, in oil, and a base or two; out of gratitude and to solidify the victory. And the USA has what it has tried for a long time: a NATO base in Africa; and the more so the less peace.

Gingrich is just shamelss

He gets a lot of face time on TV pretending he’s running for President. Plus there’s the intellect. Also. He opines on Libya (h/t Dave Weigel at Slate):

Newt on FOX March 7 Newt on GMA March 23
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?Exercise a no-fly zone this evening! Communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi.
REASON TO GO? All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. REASON TO GO?The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention . . . This isn’t a serious standard. This is a public relations conversation.

Pop quiz

POSTED BY ORHAN

This is an open book test. Please answer the following essay questions as completely as possible.

The UN humanitarian intervention in Libya was initiated to prevent Muammar Qaddafi from committing acts of aggression and brutality against “his own people”.

  1. If attacking and killing “one’s own people” is the test for intervention, what will happen when armed rebels fire on supporters of Muammar Qaddafi? Should the UN intervene to prevent them from attacking “their own people”? Why or why not?
  2.  

  3. The leaders of Bahrain and Yemen have also ordered brutal attacks against “their own people”. Should the UN intervene to protect the civilians of these countries? Why or why not?
  4.  

  5. In Ivory Coast, the refusal by Laurent Gbagbo, the loser of the presidential elections, to step down has led to the deaths of hundreds, and soon possibly thousands, of “his own people”. Should the UN carry out a humanitarian intervention to protect the civilians of this country, which is of low strategic value to the West? Why or why not?
  6.  

  7. Democratic aspirations have manifested in Saudi Arabia, currently the most repressive regime in the Middle East. Containing the world’s largest oil reserves and of supreme strategic importance, Saudi Arabia is America’s oldest ally in the region. If, in the event of a democratic uprising, the Saudi government attacks “its own people” to suppress the democratic movement, should the UN intervene to protect the civilians of this country? Why or why not?
  8.  

Extra Credit:

  1. If the capability existed in 1861, should the international community have intervened to prevent Abraham Lincoln from using violence to prevent secession by “his own people”? Why or why not?

All pencils down.

Wanna bet?

POSTED BY ORHAN

So here we are, in yet another Middle East war, this time to avert a “bloody rout of rebels by forces loyal to Col. Qaddafi.”

Al Jazeera call the rebels “pro-democracy” forces, and maybe they are…

And maybe this time the US is really going to war for humanitarian reasons…

And maybe we won’t be “forced” to commit ground troops…

Figure the odds.