Posted By Blake Hounshell Share

With the passage tonight of a robust U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a no-fly zone in Libya -- and then some -- Barack Obama has committed the United States to intervening in a Muslim country for the third time in a decade.

Only this time, the resolution's passage was a victory for the kind of painstaking multilateral diplomacy that was so often scorned by his predecessor, who preferred to work with "coalitions of the willing" and dismissed the United Nations as ineffective, weak, and morally questionable.

Of course, there's no guarantee that a piece of paper will succeeding in protecting the thousands of Libyans cheering in Benghazi's main square from Qaddafi's forces, which are gathering some 100 miles away outside the besieged town of Ajdabiya and have completely surrounded Misrata. What needs to happen now is swift military action against Qaddafi's heavy weapons -- call it a "no-drive zone," and perhaps even the bombing of his compound in Tripoli. Are Britain and France, which have taken the lead in pushing for military action, up to the challenge? Or will the U.S. once again be called upon to clean up a nearby mess Europe couldn't solve on its own? We'll soon find out.

One thought: It is amazing, and altogether incredible, that an uprising that began as peaceful protests calling for the release of political prisoners has made it this far, just as it is unfortunate that Qaddafi's horrific use of violence has forced the international community to intervene. But if such is the price of saving the Arab revolutions, so be it.

The world now has to win this fight. As NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen put it earlier today, "If Gadaffi prevails it will send a clear signal that violence pays."

 

EJL

7:05 PM ET

March 17, 2011

Choices that aren't good versus bad

Adapted from http://highchairanalyst.blogspot.com

Let's see what happens. While NATO powers will likely be involved, GCC member states like Qatar and the UAE will also probably play a role, as would potentially Jordan. Egypt has stated that they will not be involved in any military intervention and this makes a lot of sense considering that they are Libya's neighbor, would like to avoid a conflict spreading over their borders, and have their own issues to deal with, including holding a national referendum on their constitution on Saturday.

While a UN resolution should be a mandatory consideration for any sort of action, we aren't only talking about a no-fly zone anymore. The language has increasingly moved away from protecting civilians towards the use of air strikes and regime change, and therein lies the problem.

Is the goal of intervention to prevent the loss of life or is it regime change? What's to ensure that the rebels don't do to Gaddafi loyalists exactly what Gaddafi would do if he won? Abdul Fatah Younis seems to be the man of the hour, but up until late February he was debatably the No. 2 in command behind the Colonel and was the Interior Minister. It seems hard to imagine that a guy like that had no blood on his hands in the 40 years of Gaddafi power. Why is he, or anyone else, going to be any better than Gaddafi? Maybe not worse, but any guarantee of them being better?

While an argument can be made that to do nothing is effectively taking a side, i.e. Gaddafi has the initiative and will likely prevail without intervention, military strikes will definitely put us squarely behind the anti-Gaddafi forces. We will be responsible for their actions on the ground, now and in the future. Is anyone prepared for that? Is anyone prepared to intervene again if anti-Gaddafi forces no longer seem to be in the "right side" anymore? One can create an endless number of scenarios with "what ifs," but just because we can agree that Gaddafi is "bad" that doesn't necessarily mean that the other side is "good." It's far too easy, and extremely appealing, to turn things into black and white, good guys and bad guys, but the world, and history, just doesn't work like that.

I'm also concerned about the precedent that this may set. While this is obviously not the first time we have intervened in a country under the auspices of the UN or out of humanitarian concerns, there is an armed conflict going on in Ivory Coast that is even more directly related to democratic principles (isn't that part of this debate about Libya?) and has not received nearly the amount of attention that Libya has. Today, shelling in Ivory Coast left at least 10 dead bringing the total number of killed to over 400 in fighting. This conflict has also seen hundreds of thousands flee their homes following elections this past Fall, only a few weeks before events began in MENA. While UN peacekeepers are on the ground in Ivory Coast, their mission has been extremely limited. They have not been given any mandate to remove Gbagbo from power. Nor should they necessarily have that authority.

The case of Libya is not the same as Ivory Coast, but it is another example of situation where a leader has lost his legitimacy, has refused to leave office, and has engaged in an armed conflict to protect his status. Sure, we are yet to see a full resumption of civil war in Ivory Coast and no planes or helicopters have been used during recent events, but I also don't see anyone clamoring for an expanded role for the US or even the UN either, at least not above and beyond the UNOCI's mission. And there have definitely not been calls for airstrikes.

Ultimately, the question that is being once again raised by events in Libya is when do you make the choice to intervene? I'm glad I don't have to make this decision.

 

SINCE1969

11:54 PM ET

March 17, 2011

"...clean up a nearby mess..."

Just curious, what would possess you to write the line...

"will the U.S. once again be called upon to clean up a nearby mess Europe couldn't solve on its own"

As if the U.S. has been capable of solving all the crises in ITS neighborhood.

Unnecessarily provocative, unworthy nonsense.

 

SPECTRE

6:11 AM ET

March 18, 2011

LOLWUT

Bosnia?

And to what crisis's might you be referring to our backyard? Surely you aren't comparing the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia to the Mexico drug cartel violence?

 

SINCE1969

10:45 PM ET

March 28, 2011

oh for god's sake

Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc. etc. etc. Do you have any historical perspective? What historical timeline are you on?

And don't tell me the U.S. was "capable" of cleaning up the "messes" in Central America, to the degree they have been cleaned up. Any peace our neighbors know is generally despite our efforts.

 

AYNAR

4:09 AM ET

March 18, 2011

Time and your people will

Time and your people will come will test for itself bitterness. You devils with have intruded in the Muslim countries pour blood of Moslems. slake one's thirst own blood soon

 

AYNAR

4:11 AM ET

March 18, 2011

America an empire of evil

America an empire of evil

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More