posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:42 PM
I would caution that looking at any motivation in military intervention in Libya as an isolated situation is going to be misinterpreted as "just
With that being said, when you consider the fact that the Bush administration neocon foreign policy establishment had advocated going back into Iraq
for years before September 11th, a certain elephantine aspect of our involvement in Libya becomes readily apparent.
Qaddafi is a public boogeyman much like Saddam was, which makes an easier "sell" to the public. Fortunately, much of the current backlash proves
that a growing number of Americans have realized that this Cowboys vs. Indians approach to foreign policy is a lot harder to clean up after than they
previously thought. American patriotic nostalgia doesn't exist in the Middle East, and everyone over there has their own sectarian idea of how
freedom should be spent.
If you've been paying attention, however, you'll have noticed that the mysterious "Obama Doctrine" has been nebulizing.....and it is not entirely
Whereas the US foreign policy of old (for either party) was to Back the Strongman, Obama has taken an even older cue by trying to play Back the
Rebellion. Its a reboot of policy, backing the nascent revolutions that will grow into the next regional powers. I for one think it is shrewd as the
shelf life of current regimes are rapidly approaching expiration, and by cautiously turning favor towards the broader revolution in the region,
American foreign policy simultaneously regains its long lost "democratic" legitimacy both at home and abroad in the international community.
I thought the agent intelligently argued for a policy of isolationism or non-interventionism but still personally feel it is far too late for that
kind of thinking. My major point of contention is that I think it is a worthwhile gambit to send the message that the US is willing to abandon the
powers of the status quo in the Middle East when the people at large demand change. While it certainly is a gambit, it is important for the US to
give up on backing outright tyranny, both for reasons of future benefit and national conscience.
In any event, the promise of all this, the silver lining, is that Europe stopped trying to play it both ways and got their hands dirty, and the
Russians and Chinese stepped out of the way before staking their flags on the moral highground. Like it or not, this is a functional example of the
UN stepping in to prevent a genocide, and while the motives certainly are unclear at best and underhanded at worst, it is a far cry better than the
American expeditionism we have had for the better part of the last ten years. Britain and France led the charge on this campaign as well, so to
oversimplify this as Iraq 2 is unnecessarily myopic.