The United States and its allies launched the war against Libya on the eighth anniversary of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. President Barack Obama says the U.S. will transfer command authority very soon, that military action should be over in “days, not weeks,” and that he wants no boots on the ground. But the parallels with other U.S. wars in the Middle East don’t bode well.
While it is deplorable that policymakers apply their moral outrage selectively, in accordance with perceived national interests, that does not mean we should abandon the moral impulse altogether for the sake of consistency.
Libyan rebels seem to be allowing their prejudices to dictate who they’re arresting as Gaddafi loyalists.
Arab leaders are concerned about criticism for green-lighting Western military action in Libya, should it backfire.
In its threat to use force against the Libyan government, the international community put Muammar Gaddafi into what chess aficionados calls zugzwang. This clever gambit traps the opponent so that any move worsens his or her position. Thus, if Gaddafi continued to battle the opposition in Benghazi, several air forces were at the ready to bombard his army. And if the Libyan leader pursued a ceasefire and political negotiations, he risked a further outbreak of protests in Tripoli from an emboldened population. Along either path lay probable checkmate.
As Japan’s nuclear crisis deepened, Gaddafi revealed that he would cancel oil contracts with Europe and sign up instead the BRIC countries.
However different the two, Libya could still end up like Iraq today: a nation deeply divided not by sect and language but by geography and tribe.
Unless the world is prepared to stand by and watch Libyans massacred, there is clearly a need for intervention.
Algeria’s leaders fear that if Gaddafi falls, their hold on power will be that much more fragile.
From carving up Switzerland to initiating a multilateral pirate peace process, Gaddafi doesn’t lack for opinions.