![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasHonestly, what we're doing is actually surprisingly close to my absolutely ideal response.
See, I believe that Qadaffi is a scum, and ought to be overthrown. There's a possibility that people in the rebel cause are less scummy that Qadaffi -- I don't know that for sure, but the possibility is there. And it seems unlikely that they're significantly MORE scummy. From the point of view of "possibly less scummy is better," I'm rooting for the rebels.
That said, the United States CANNOT invade another Arab country. I mean, first, we just are overstretched as we are. But more importantly, it would give more credence to the Al Qaeda claim that we're an imperial power who are invading Arab countries.
Also -- I don't think you can GIVE democracy to a people. I think that democracy must be TAKEN. The point of democracy is that the power comes directly from the people (which doesn't mean that "the people" get to make every decision willy-nilly; you also need basic rights that can't be taken away by the actions of a majority. What, exactly, those basic rights are is, of course, a major part of people's political opinions.) Because the power comes from the people, it has to be TAKEN by the people.
I'm not convinced that it's POSSIBLE for a third party to actually set up a democracy. Certainly, third parties can help, but the impetus must come from the people themselves.
Therefore, the rebellion must be won by the rebels, not by outside forces.
However, again, outside forces could help, up to the point of leveling the playing field. One of Qadaffi's big advantages is air power. Therefore, instituting a "no-fly zone" removes one asset that Qadaffi has that the rebels don't.
But I think that's the limit. MAYBE supplying arms to the rebels, although that's come back to bite us in the past. Um. A lot. After leveling the playing field, we have to sit back and wait to see who wins and who loses. It may well be that, even with the kinds of international support that it is appropriate to give, Qadaffi might win. And that would suck. But doing MORE than is appropriate would be even worse.
What would my dream situation be? It'd be that the Arab League would be in nominal control of the entire operation, and would, in fact, be setting direction for the United States. And that Israel would also be involved, under the same direction of the Arab League. I'd like to see what the political ramifications would be of seeing Israel and the United States being willing to take direction from them. Seems to me that it could change how Israel is perceived by the member states of the Arab League, if Israel showed that it was actually willing to work not only in CONCERT with them, but, in fact, to follow their lead.
That said, I do also think Speaker Boehner's letter to Obama asking him to explain exactly WHAT we're doing right now is a totally appropriate thing to send. I think all Boehner's questions are totally reasonable, and I want answers to them, too. I support the "Powell Doctrine", and Boehner's questions are pretty much exactly the questions that the "Powell Doctrine" says you need to be able to answer before committing military forces.
See, I believe that Qadaffi is a scum, and ought to be overthrown. There's a possibility that people in the rebel cause are less scummy that Qadaffi -- I don't know that for sure, but the possibility is there. And it seems unlikely that they're significantly MORE scummy. From the point of view of "possibly less scummy is better," I'm rooting for the rebels.
That said, the United States CANNOT invade another Arab country. I mean, first, we just are overstretched as we are. But more importantly, it would give more credence to the Al Qaeda claim that we're an imperial power who are invading Arab countries.
Also -- I don't think you can GIVE democracy to a people. I think that democracy must be TAKEN. The point of democracy is that the power comes directly from the people (which doesn't mean that "the people" get to make every decision willy-nilly; you also need basic rights that can't be taken away by the actions of a majority. What, exactly, those basic rights are is, of course, a major part of people's political opinions.) Because the power comes from the people, it has to be TAKEN by the people.
I'm not convinced that it's POSSIBLE for a third party to actually set up a democracy. Certainly, third parties can help, but the impetus must come from the people themselves.
Therefore, the rebellion must be won by the rebels, not by outside forces.
However, again, outside forces could help, up to the point of leveling the playing field. One of Qadaffi's big advantages is air power. Therefore, instituting a "no-fly zone" removes one asset that Qadaffi has that the rebels don't.
But I think that's the limit. MAYBE supplying arms to the rebels, although that's come back to bite us in the past. Um. A lot. After leveling the playing field, we have to sit back and wait to see who wins and who loses. It may well be that, even with the kinds of international support that it is appropriate to give, Qadaffi might win. And that would suck. But doing MORE than is appropriate would be even worse.
What would my dream situation be? It'd be that the Arab League would be in nominal control of the entire operation, and would, in fact, be setting direction for the United States. And that Israel would also be involved, under the same direction of the Arab League. I'd like to see what the political ramifications would be of seeing Israel and the United States being willing to take direction from them. Seems to me that it could change how Israel is perceived by the member states of the Arab League, if Israel showed that it was actually willing to work not only in CONCERT with them, but, in fact, to follow their lead.
That said, I do also think Speaker Boehner's letter to Obama asking him to explain exactly WHAT we're doing right now is a totally appropriate thing to send. I think all Boehner's questions are totally reasonable, and I want answers to them, too. I support the "Powell Doctrine", and Boehner's questions are pretty much exactly the questions that the "Powell Doctrine" says you need to be able to answer before committing military forces.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 07:57 pm (UTC)Stopped clocks and all that. (By which I mean, I agree with you, but it's kind of interesting to see the Republicans saying "but not this war!" after a decade of hawkishness. I haven't forgotten being told that only traitors oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so I can't help but roll my eyes at the caution being touted now.)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 09:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 10:17 pm (UTC)Although I have to admit, I still don't understand why the US took the lead on this UN mission. And I am an Obama Democrat.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 02:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 10:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 11:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 12:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 07:02 pm (UTC)Let's talk alternate history for a moment. What if, in the days of the American civil war, the Union had an air force and was dropping bombs on cities (rather than exclusively military bases) in the Confederacy? The Confederate forces likely would've had only the air power that it could capture from Union bases, and so be hopelessly outmatched. Under those circumstances, with civilians in the target sights, it would've been completely okay with me for still-Imperial Britain to impose a no-fly zone within the warring no-longer-United States. Cannons loaded with grapeshot were bad enough, then. Grenade launchers are bad enough, now.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 07:20 pm (UTC)Now consider the London Blitz, during WWII. Bombing civilian areas with massive damage and loss of life. After the war, Germany wasn't permitted to have any air force at all from 1946 - 1956 (shortly after they joined NATO). That arguably creates the precedent that "if you bomb civilians, other countries can take your air force away". What is Qadaafi doing? Bombing civilians. What do other countries do? Destroy his air force, without involving ground troops.