Regions / Libya
In Libya, the U.S. lead role in the military intervention has proved that its advertised intentions and actions clash with reality on the ground.
Coming to terms with NATO's intervention in the Libyan civil war is a little like wresting a grizzly bear: big, hairy, and likely to make one pretty uncomfortable no matter where you grab a hold of it.
Robert Naiman and Ian Williams go head to head on the Libyan War.
The Obama administration is selling the U.S. public a pig in a poke with its military intervention in Libya.
The choice in Libya is clear: to support the popular uprising and not the unpopular tyrant.
Modern battlefields tend to be toxic nightmares, and depleted uranium is one of the main culprits.
There are rumblings that U.S. and NATO airstrikes on Libya might leave both mired in that country.
If giving up nuclear weapons doesn't immunize a leader from regime change, what does?
"In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show." -- AP
Should progressives drop their reflexive opposition to use of force overseas that's not in the service of national defense?