- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It's not often that I agree with George Will rather than The Economist, but this week I think the conservative commentator got it exactly right by expressing extreme reluctance to get involved in Libya...even while the normally-reasonable Economist was beating the war drums.
Some of the questions that Will poses:
I think that those who want to impose a no-fly zone need to clearly articulate what problem it will solve. Most of the aircraft that have been killing rebels are helicopters, not bombers. A no-fly zone won't stop them.
Furthermore, it is simply not reasonable to expect any mission to go perfectly. Are we really prepared to be implicated in the deaths of Libyan civilians? Are we prepared to escalate the mission by putting troops on the ground if Gaddafi escalates it? The National Libyan Council (i.e. the semi-official umbrella group for the rebels) has specifically asked the West NOT to intervene with troops on the ground. It is highly unlikely that our presence would be welcomed, especially if we're killing civilians.
Some of the questions that Will poses:
- If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?
-If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?
-Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?
-Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
-Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention - 79 days of bombing - against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?
-Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?
-In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?
George F. Will - On Libya, too many questions
I think that those who want to impose a no-fly zone need to clearly articulate what problem it will solve. Most of the aircraft that have been killing rebels are helicopters, not bombers. A no-fly zone won't stop them.
Furthermore, it is simply not reasonable to expect any mission to go perfectly. Are we really prepared to be implicated in the deaths of Libyan civilians? Are we prepared to escalate the mission by putting troops on the ground if Gaddafi escalates it? The National Libyan Council (i.e. the semi-official umbrella group for the rebels) has specifically asked the West NOT to intervene with troops on the ground. It is highly unlikely that our presence would be welcomed, especially if we're killing civilians.