In an email to friends, retired Star-Bulletin editor Chuck Frankel put his question simply.
I am puzzled why the U.S. is going to war in Libya in order to save civilian lives while it persists in using drones that take the lives of Afghans and Pakistanis.
It’s the kind of simple question that is obviously going to dog the military intervention in Libya.
A New York Times story by Helene Cooper and Steven Lee Myers traced the shift in U.S. policy towards direct military action, as did a Washington Post piece by Scott Wilson and Joby Warrick.
Another fascinating account appears in the foreign policy blog, The Cable, which describes a White House meeting where the president approved a shift in policy.
Obama’s Tuesday night decision to push for armed intervention was not only a defining moment in his ever-evolving foreign policy, but also may have marked the end of the alliance between Clinton and Gates — an alliance that has successfully influenced administration foreign policy decisions dating back to the 2009 Afghanistan strategy review.
“Gates is clearly not on board with what’s going on and now the Defense Department may have an entirely another war on its hands that he’s not into,” said Clemons. “Clinton won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what’s essentially the State Department’s objective… and Obama let it happen.”
An article by Ed Lasky in the pro-Israel American Thinker tackles the Libya policy from one side, while this political analysis with a Marxist bent from Dissident Voice adds a whole other perspective.
And from the Friends Committee on National Legislation: “War is not the answer in North Africa and the Middle East.”
And, finally, this short insight from the Passport blog by the editors of Foreign Policy Magazine.
If the current lineup on Libya holds, it will also highlight the fissure in the UN between a Western-led interventionist group and a “sovereignty bloc” led by Moscow and Beijing, but with real appeal to key emerging powers like Brazil, South Africa and India. There are exceptions. Germany’s militarist past makes it deeply hesitant to endorse military force absent clear evidence of a humanitarian catastrophe. And in certain cases, the emerging powers themselves might become interventionist. But the divide is real, and it may be one of the most critical dynamics at the UN.
A follow-up in the same blog comments that an expanded UN Security Council that includes India, Brazil, Germany, Japan and African representation, are likely to be less enthusiastic about such military intervention in the future.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Obama’s hypcrisy is very clear! Imagine that the US boycotts any UN resolutions concerning Israeli human rights violations such as the death of 1400 Gazans two years ago. Yet with a straight face Obama can condemn and attack Lybia because of h “human rights” and continues US atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. For shame Americans for allowing these violations to continue.
I have a simple belief that when a person becomes President Of The United States, they are given a “briefing” by the military that basically lays it on the line as far as what they can and cannot do and what has to be done. As a civilian the President is impressed by the toys the military has created and how the funding is achieved. This makes them lean their decisions toward using the military as the point of the spear in foreign policy.
As an optimist, I always hope they have information I am not privy to in making the decisions that I don’t agree with, thereby making my uninformed opinion moot. I also hope the President is getting the straight scoop, not some frickin’ “psyops ” action that creates false impressions and influence.