There are no guarantees, but it would likely be better, and almost certainly no worse. Sometimes it is worth taking a chance for improvement.
Better for whom? Gaddafi hasn't screwed with us since 2003, and in fact he was cooperative keeping terrorists at bay since then. The opposition, on the other hand, is rank with Islamists, it's internally divided, and democracy seems to be a much lower priority for them than it was for the Egyptians. And I'd be much more inclined to take a chance for improvement if we didn't have such a horrendous historical track record in that department.
Will a rebel government be better than Gaddafi's? I'd say the odds are slightly in their favor, yes. I'm rooting for them. Is it such a slam-dunk certainty that it's worth injecting ourselves into the conflict? Absolutely not.
Redress said:
Sure? Of course not. Will it likely suppress actions against rebels? Very likely yes.
And why is that inherently desirable for anyone other than the rebels?
Redress said:
It's possible that the goals are being formulated and part of the reason for taking action when we did was to ensure we had time to make a decision.
Every minute that goes by without us having a clear-cut mission is one more minute where mission creep takes place. The no-fly zone has already evolved into air strikes, which I'm sure would have escalated into special forces if our plane had crashed near Tripoli instead of Benghazi today. Meanwhile, our goal has already changed from preventing a massacre, to serving as the rebel air force, to installing a democracy.
We don't need a Somalia-on-the-Mediterranean, which is what this is sounding more and more like with each passing hour.
Redress said:
You are assuming that this is all that will be done. With rebels on the ground already in the country, the likelihood of air strikes to support them is high.
There were rebels on the ground in Iraq when we authorized the no-fly zone after Desert Storm. Yet Saddam Hussein held out for 12 years.
Redress said:
Any increased stability in the middle east is likely very valuable as well.
Libya is far from the Middle East. And if "stability" is our concern, then why are we supporting the overthrow of Gaddafi's government? If we demand Gaddafi's ouster and he won't go peacefully, then by definition we are ENCOURAGING a civil war, rather than preventing one.
Redress said:
Questions are good, but simply asking questions and deciding that since there are questions we should not act is a quick way to reach paralysis.
It's not the questions I'm worried about, it's the fact that none of them have favorable answers.