In the second part of our strategic dialogue on the Libya War, Robert Naiman and Ian Williams respond to their initial essays. You can read the original essays here: Naiman’s anti-intervention essay Surprise War for Regime Change in Libya is the Wrong Path and Ian Williams’ pro-intervention essay Armchair Anti-Imperialists and Libya.
The Obama administration set a bad precedent by launching a surprise war for regime change in Libya without congressional authorization or informed public debate, in violation of the letter and spirit of the War Powers Resolution enacted by Congress in 1973.
It is a particularly pernicious form of cultural imperialism for comfortable Western leftists to disregard what the actual Tunisians, Libyans, Kosovars, or Bosnians themselves have asked for – intervention to stop “their” rulers killing them. This setting aside of the wishes of people threatened with massacre in favor of Western armchair anti-imperialism is all the more remarkable coming from the left, which once swore by internationalism.
Two decades after Gulf War Syndrome reared its ugly head, depleted uranium is still being used by the U.S. military.
Even if Gaddafi is provided exile, U.S. and NATO airstrikes on Libya could still lead to our extended presence there.
If attacking Libya’s forces leads to the deposal of Gaddafi, who has previously backed down to Western pressure, other states will question the point of cooperating with the West.
The United States comprises the better part of NATO.
Does U.S. intervention in Libya set a precedent for better or worse for a new breed of use of force?
Energy concerns may underlie U.S. involvement in the intervention in Libya, to the exclusion of Bahrain and Yemen.
The Iraq War was approved by both congressional houses, but there’s been neither a vote nor even a debate on Libya.