Skip to main content

As is often noted, we all have a tendency to fight the previous war. Just as the 'quagmire' of Vietnam led to reluctance to intervene in Bosnia (at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives), so too the successes of Kosovo led to the peremptory and ill planned interventionism of Iraq.

But Libya is not Iraq. As jubilant crowds fill Green Square, the fall of Tripoli to the rebels is a victory on many counts

A Victory for the Libyan People



The revolutions in the Mashriq and Maghreb were not inspired by sleeper cells or CIA plotting. They were the spontaneous cry from the street. And on the night when the crowds are filling the streets of Tripoli, taking back their city, let us both celebrate their joy, and remember the many brave men and women who have lost their lives.

Back in March, one of the figures who inspired me to believe in the Libyan people's struggle, and to support the Nato led intervention, was a young brilliant man,  Mohammed Nabbous.

The Voices from the Street

One of those I've been listening to is the brave young journalist from Benghazi, Mohammed Nabbous, an important figure in the February 17th Revolution, who ran his own website Libya Alhurra. '

Here's one of his messages "Tell the World"


'Mo' as he was known, with his perfect slightly Oxbridge inflected English, was a champion of democracy. He stayed up night and day to inform the world about the repressions going on in his homeland. He became a victim of those same forces when he was shot dead by Gaddafi's snipers in Benghazi yesterday, leaving a widow and an unborn child.

Below is the devastating soundtrack of his last ever report by phone. Someone who risked and lost his life in the service of transparency and truth

Mo's memory has been vindicated tonight. Thanks to Lawrence below in the comments for this update:

Thank you so much for writing about Mo. (2+ / 0-)
He has been on my mind all weekend.

So has his wife Perditta, and his beautiful daughter Maya, whom he tragically never had the pleasure of getting to know.

I would like to add a video here that is dedicated to Mo by his wife:

Above all, tonight is a victory for the Libyan people, people like Mo, who risked so much, and lost so much, taking on a fearsome dictatorship, with a massive arsenal and all the apparatus of secret police, false imprisonement and torture accumulated over 40 years. They've carried the same chant in Arabic that has been heard in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Syria.

"The people want the fall of the regime"

A Victory for Responsibility to Protect and International Law



Encouraged by the Arab League, and against the wishes of many dictators in the area, the UK, France and the US (mainly led by Samantha Power and Hilary Clinton) pushed for multilateral intervention in March - as Benghazi was about to be overrun by Gaddafi's truth - on the carefully crafted and proportionate Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, ratified by the UN in 2009

1. Principle One stresses that States have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (mass atrocities).
2. Principle Two addresses the commitment of the international community to provide assistance to States in building capacity to protect their populations from mass atrocities and to assisting those, which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
3. Principle Three focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt mass atrocities when a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations

Though the apparent success of the Libyan intervention helps to remove the stain of the Iraq fiasco from our recent history, it does set down a precedent. You cannot murder the citizens of your own country en masse with impunity.

Security Council Resolution 1973 was the first time this principle underpinned a military intervention.

BREAKING: Saif Gaddafi is reported arrested, and hopefull will be handed over to the ICC to meet the same fate as Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic in the Hague.

I hope the same fate befalls his father. That would be another victory for international law and the UN.

A Victory for Post Intervention Planning



Over the long six month campaign, many things have been going on in the background, beyond the air campaign. There have been furious negotiations behind the scenes, with the transitional government, and figures from previous regimes, but another thing that makes this so different from Iraq is the level of post conflict planning that has gone on. The Australian was one of the few papers to cover the details of this

Iraq haunts plans for post-Gaddafi Libya

WESTERN governments have helped prepare a blueprint for a post-Gaddafi Libya that would retain much of the regime's security infrastructure to avoid an Iraq-style collapse into anarchy.

The 70-page plan, obtained by London's The Times, charts the first months after the fall of the Gaddafi regime. The document was drawn up by the National Transition Council in Benghazi with Western help.

Officials say the blueprint draws on lessons from the disastrous regime change in Iraq in 2003 and the rebel takeover in eastern Libya in March.

The plans are highly reliant on the defection of parts of the Gaddafi security apparatus to the rebels after his overthrow. This is likely to prove not only risky, but controversial, with many rebel fighters determined to sweep away all vestiges of the regime.

The document includes proposals for a 10,000-15,000 strong "Tripoli task force", resourced and supported by the United Arab Emirates, to take over the Libyan capital, secure key sites and arrest high-level Gaddafi supporters.

It claims 800 serving Gaddafi government security officials have been recruited covertly to the rebel cause and are ready to form the "backbone" of a new security apparatus.

The blueprint contains plans for about 5000 police officers now serving in units not ideologically committed to the Gaddafi regime to be transferred immediately to the interim government's forces to prevent a security vacuum.

The TMC has also drawn up an impeccably liberal constitution: freedom of the press, of religion, protection of minorities and civil rights. Rarely has a revolutionary movement come to power with such a thought through approach to the future.

If this is true, expect to see the tremendous scenes of celebration in Tripoli ending up very differently to scenes in Baghdad eight years ago.

Originally posted to Moose On The Loose on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:23 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Latest from AJE is that NATO is preparing to (15+ / 0-)

    implement this. or at least work with the transitional council.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:37:05 PM PDT

    •  This is a careful process needed. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brit, wader, evergreen2

      In Egypt, the military got to become the guide for the transition. While that presumably can't happen in Libya, it's not to say that NATO or some other vestige of old Libya besides the military couldn't become the middleman between citizenry and government.

      "Hahai nō ka ua i ka ululā'au" -- Hawaiian proverb.

      John Boehner? The sleaze bucket who hands out bribes from big tobacco on the House floor?

      by Nulwee on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:42:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a risky process too. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brit, Nowhere Man, wader, zett, evergreen2

        There was a common cause between rebels but not rock-solid unity as this incident, just 2 weeks ago demonstrates.

        I hope the transition to the civilian Council Government will be swift and sure, and infighting avoided.

        And I hope that, if needed, the Council will ask the UN for help in the form of aid and UN peacekeeping forces.

        One thing that should NOT be allowed is a NATO occupation. If there are to be foreign boots on the ground, they should ride in white vehicles with a UN on the side.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:07:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As Juan Cole said a few months back... (12+ / 0-)

    http://www.juancole.com/...

    Naturally "true progressives" wouldn't listen, just because they were frothing at their collective mouths about impeaching Obama, and other bullshit.

    I would guess now they're all coming up with stories to tell about how right they were. Wonder if they'll collaborate with teabaggers on their stories.


    Kevin dropped his ice cream and blames Obama? He's gone hamsher!

    by punditician on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:38:04 PM PDT

      •  Beyond sarcasm... (14+ / 0-)

        ...this obviously isn't a night for grudges between a small segment of the US left. So what do you make of tonight's events.

        "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

        by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:51:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm happy for the Libyan People (15+ / 0-)

          I hope for the best for their country's future.

          In terms of American interests, it is good that the conflict is over. Other than that, we won't know until developments occur.

          I still disagree with the President's refusal to seek Congressional authorization to engage in hostilities with Libya, authorization he could have easily gotten. It was a perplexing decision.

          I'm not convinced that this policy was in the American interest. I am not convinced I was wrong to oppose this intervention. I hope I am proven to have been wrong in opposing the policy.

          I hope for the best.

          •  Fair points (10+ / 0-)

            As an internationalist I'm less concerned with 'US interests' alone, but our joint interests in international law and the UN.

            "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

            by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:01:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think (11+ / 0-)

              international law was served here. The UN Security Counccil resolution was exceeeded.

              And US law was certainly not served.

              These are not minor points imo.

              Beyond that, I think it is premature to say what Libya will look like.

              I do not think there was much doubt that if NATO used its force offensively that Ghaddafi would be defeated.

              What happens now remains the question.

              •  The only purpose of international law... (0+ / 0-)

                ...is to protect incumbents, except when a cabal of superior countries decide to get rid of one of the inferior countries' incumbents.  The idea that we recognize most major states in the world as utterly selfish international actors, and that they're run by selfish elites, but that we nevertheless believe they've come up with something humane and sacrosanct called "international law," has never made any sense to me.  

                Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

                by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:44:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It was exceeded, but also ... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wader, zett, evergreen2

                The "Abstains" used their bully pulpit to force NATO to trim their sails a bit. H/T to Germany, China, India & Russia (sort of).

                But now comes the hard part: keeping NATO boots off the ground to keep the peace.

                I'd prefer to see white jeeps, if any.

                What about my Daughter's future?

                by koNko on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:25:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hardly premature! (0+ / 0-)

                Western "internationalist" "planning" for the "future" of third-world "democracies" has always worked out so well in the past.  And we are doubly encouraged in this case since, as Brit so ably and conclusively points out, the US has no interests whatever in Libya beyond humanitarianism.

                ''''

                I wonder what's for dinner....

              •  The UN SC enforces its own resolutions. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Observerinvancouver

                They don't seem to agree with you that the mission violated their resolution.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:06:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  "international law" isn't as precise and exact as (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee, Brit

                national law.  I's practiced in a loose manner.  Intentionally so.  You know that.  

                In this case, the UN Security Council approved the NATO action.  They passed a resolution OK'ing the initial action, and they, not you, decide if the later actions exceeded the resolution.  They've not declared such.

                As for US law, please.   As much as Republicans hate President Obama's guts, if there were any REAL case that US law was violated, then impeachment proceedings would've started already.  They haven't.  Sure, one or two of wingnuts talked about WPA being violated, and Kucinich ran his mouth about it, but the Congress did nothing; took no action; acquiesced to what the President did.  That's implicit Congressional support.

                Your personal interpretation of "international law" and "US law" isn't particularly relevant, I'm afraid.

                P.S.
                BTW, the WPA talk from most of the "progressives" was just a facade anyway.  They would've been against this operation even with explicit Congressional support.  Some of them were against it beause they are absolutist pacifists (which is fine, as long as they actually argue for that position) others were against it because they think the US is the root of all evil in the world (which is extremely conceited on their part) so they have a knee-jerk reaction to oppose all US foreign policy.  Rather than argue their true positions, they talked of the War Powers Act and made up CT about oil (but they never actually explained how "it's about oil" at all, they simply asserted it).

            •  How is international law better off if clear (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q, divineorder, BradyB, zett

              violations of a democracy's Constitution was involved?

              Under what authority does the US president decide to attack a nation?  Which future president do you wish to endow with the unfettered ability to attack any nation at any time he/she so desires?

              There was no enhancement of international law in this case.

              A good end was served. The means are not justified by the end.  

              It is equally "good" that Saddam Hussein is not the ruler of Iraq (arguably), but is it "good" that the once functioning nation continues to teeter on the brink of sectarian warfare, the infrastructure shattered, the economy in ruins, the patronage of history scattered by tank treads?

              See how that argument goes: "This is good so it doesn't matter how we got there."

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:00:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This was the first time that.... (9+ / 0-)

                ....Responsibility to Protect UN policy was enacted. It kept a very specific focus on protectiing civilian life.

                That's a huge achievement - and one of the reasons Libya didn't develop into the fiasco of Iraq

                I only wish it had been operative in 1992. Then millions of Rwandans and hundreds of thousands of Bosnians would still be alive.

                As for the US constitutional issues: it's not my area of expertise, and I've heard many diverging interpretations on this score.

                "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:03:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You honestly think the USA would have intervened (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q, divineorder, zett

                  in Rwanda?

                  That was a horrific situation. But I don't think for a minute that the USA would have become involved, UN principles or not. Note I don't say we should not have in my opinion. Someone certainly should have tried to do something.

                  I'm saying the US never would have - politically impossible then, and probably now.

                  Look at Syria, if you want some evidence.

                  Like it or not, the US simply does not see many countries as important to our national affairs. Libya, with the large supplies of oil sold to Europe, is a great concern and an exception.

                  What about Burma?  North Korea, where the regime is literally starving their people to death.  What about Somalia, today?  What about Nigeria?  Where should our bombs fall next?  We've got an awful lot of unused missiles.

                  Which president should launch military attacks without the consent of Congress in the future?

                  Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

                  by YucatanMan on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:16:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Clinton heavily regretted.... (6+ / 0-)

                    ...not giving the French UN mission there more support.

                    It was an option. It would, I think, have made a difference,

                    But let me just say, that I wish it wasn't the US getting involved. But given the fact that it current spends as much on its military as all the other countries of the world combined, most military operations are impossible without US approval, and impractical without US support.

                    Not the way I would have it, but that's how it is. Militarily, the US is the world's only credible policeman.

                    It could be worse.

                    "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                    by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:20:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Clinton apologized after the fact. Sure, he (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      divineorder

                      personally "regretted it", but he never would have ordered troops on the ground and that's the only way Rwanda would have been prevented.  Bombs falling from the sky would not have halted person-to-person horrific violence. Villagers against villagers.

                      Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

                      by YucatanMan on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:29:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Bombing radio milles collines (7+ / 0-)

                        ....would have helped. It wasn't village against village - as the trials have shown the Hutu massacres were centrally planned by the Interahamwe. Taking out their command and control would have made a big difference.

                        People used to talk about Bosnia being a 'tribal' conflict: but it wasn't. It was a state driven project by Milosevic and the JNA.

                        Villager violence - because of mutual assured destruction - rarely results in genocide.

                        Genocide - as happened to my forebears in Armenia - is usually a state policy. And removing a state's monopoly of violence is often quite effective.

                        "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                        by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:38:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Next up, how to refight WWII.... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          divineorder

                          Rwanda wouldn't have happened.

                          It would be nice if it could have, but it wouldn't have.

                          The USA bombing a nation in the midst of Africa? With the regional politics of the time?  Seriously?  

                          Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

                          by YucatanMan on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:46:02 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  Ditto. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zett, evergreen2

            Obama's behavior in this case perplexed me. I accept his difference of opinion to my own but his defiance of Congress and rule of law both unnecessary and politically foolish.

            However, power granted is seldom relinquished, whether it is the power of a Unitary Executive in Washington to ignore Congress or a bully in Tripoli plundering his own people.

            I hate to agree with Republicans, but Bruce Fein was right on the money with his reasoning when he called for the impeachment of George Bush and has been proven right about the Imperial Stretch from Administration to Administration.

            I raise one point about the UN attached to the tip jar, your opinion if any is appreciated.

            Wishing the best for the Libyan people, hope they can maintain unity and defy history, in their hands now.

            What about my Daughter's future?

            by koNko on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:21:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  :) It's not about grudges... (10+ / 0-)

          It's about acknowledging who was correct, and who was incorrect.

          Like with the auto industry bailout.

          Like with healthcare reform.

          and so on.

          If being right ever becomes more important to "true progressives" than being anti-Obama, I may start caring what they have to say again.


          Kevin dropped his ice cream and blames Obama? He's gone hamsher!

          by punditician on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:59:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are right. Especially about Libya. (10+ / 0-)

            This is an almost perfect outcome. No loss of US life. We are in support of the civilian population, who did most of the heavy lifting. And an awful tyrant has been removed. Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya. And anybody who is against what Obama did is simply the kind of person who is against anything and everything that Obama does.

            I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

            by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:02:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well said n/t (7+ / 0-)

              I've always suspect people who think the administration can do no wrong.

              But I also mistrust those who say the administration can do no right.

              It's just reverse idolatry.

              "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

              by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:04:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You think (6+ / 0-)

                this paart was "well said?"

                "Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya"

                You really do?

                What country do we liberate next then?

                •  I've replied below (6+ / 0-)

                  The US isn't liberating Tripoli. Libyans are.

                  "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                  by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:12:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The US was not involved? (6+ / 0-)

                    That's good to know. So what was the big deal about the US being involved then?

                    •  What? So 'involvement' is the same... (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      hardart, doc2, Argyrios, Escamillo, evergreen2

                      ....as actual liberation? You must have misread the comment.

                      We are in support of the civilian population, who did most of the heavy lifting. And an awful tyrant has been removed. Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya.

                      "Efforts" is not the same as playing the lead role; the fighters on the ground were not Americans.

                      "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                      by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:17:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The planes in the air were (6+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TofG, Blue Wind, pot, Johnny Q, divineorder, BradyB

                        The missiles were.

                        This is ridiculous.

                        If this had nothing to do with the US, what were we doing there?

                        •  This is an honest attempt to apply (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Brit, Mindmover, Wee Mama, evergreen2, Fogiv

                          substantively to your concern about "what country do we liberate next."

                          I submit and believe you are setting up a false dichotomy, that either we intervene globally or not. President Obama explained our intervention in Libya as a result of many stars aligning, among them an international consensus, a highly supportive population, an imminent and urgent humanitarian crisis, low risk to U.S. interests with high rewards, etc.

                          You can't shout allegations of hypocrisy at those of us who say that, especially with the benefit of hindsight, this was the right call, when we do not see the stars aligning the same way in other countries.

                          The world is complicated, not black and white.

                        •  Stop; You're smarter than this. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Brit, Fogiv, Argyrios

                          It's like the American Revolution.  American's recognize that as Americans breaking away from Britain, even though the French used their fleet at the end to bottle up Cornwalis and finally cause the British to concede defeat.  The French assisted, but the Americans did heavy lifting.  Same thing here; NATO assisted, but it was the Libyans liberating themselves.  NATO didn't impose liberation on the people.

                  •  Really? Bombs fell from the sky? (5+ / 0-)

                    No drones, no aircraft, no AWACS, no naval vessels....

                    The point being made is that the USA was most certainly involved and it was obvious from the beginning that without US involvement NATO would have been unsuccessful.  Our huge salvo of cruise missiles was a contribution, I'd argue.

                    But on what authorization was this done?
                    The US Constitution clearly states that only the Congress may declare war.  We attacked, with missiles and bombs, another nation. This was a nation which was not a threat to the USA and there was not even an argument made by the President that this nation was a threat to the USA.

                    So, is the point now that the US President may bomb any nation as he pleases? The US Congress has no say?

                    Amazing statement that the US wasn't involved.  Those cruise missiles, those 500# bombs, those jets, those drones, those AWACS planes were paid for by someone: US citizens who have the right to demand compliance with our own Constitution.

                    Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

                    by YucatanMan on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:54:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course.... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      frankzappatista, KenBee, evergreen2

                      Two dozen nations were involved in the NATO operation.

                      They paid too.

                      But this was not a US led liberation. It was a rebel led liberation with military and diplomatic support from a wide coalition.

                      Personally, I think the US expenditure on this will be rapidly recouped by stability in the area, and the goodwill of the Libyan people.

                      But time will tell. And please do demand compliance from your politicians when it comes to your constitution.

                      Meanwhile, I'm enjoying watching the Libyan people create their new constitution.

                      "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                      by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:10:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You're right, we couldn't have done it (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        frandor55, divineorder, Nowhere Man

                        without the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Romanians, the Albanians....

                        You do realize that the "dozens in the coalition" argument is the same one used by Bush in Iraq, right? Even though the USA bore 95% of the costs, casualties, etc.

                        Without US AWACS and other command/control systems, the bombing would have gone nowhere fast.

                        I don't begrudge the Libyans a victory of Qaddafi. I'm glad he is gone, if that is true.  Libyans certainly fought and died and paid dearly for this victory and they have every right to celebrate.

                        But the fact is simply this: As you point out, the US seems to be "the world's policeman."  There are a good number of people who feel, on very strong personal conviction, that we should not be dragged into war willy-nilly by a president on his own decision.  Regardless of who the president is, he must have authorization from Congress before attacking another nation.

                        Therefore the statements made that imply anyone who doesn't support the president's right to do such things is against "liberty and democracy" are deeply offensive.

                        There are things Obama has done which I fully support. There are things he has done which I do not support. But smearing Americans and Democrats with the must not love liberty label is a little too much.  

                        And, yes, I recognize it is not you arguing that, but you are assisting in the defense of that awful statement.

                        Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

                        by YucatanMan on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:41:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Our Constitution said things (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Brit

                        like "your slaves are only worth 3/5 of a person for representation purposes" and things like that. And it also (still) says things like "the quartering of  the militia in private homes...". So it is both imperfect and archaic. It cannot answer the question "what is the right thing to do in 2011?". People revere it because people are supposed to revere their Constitution, due to the stability it affords to the country. But when people take it so literally as to it actually leading to a terrible decision, or when people selectively apply it (like not recognizing that presidents have been fighting real wars, way beyond this one, without having Congress declare War for over 60 years), I think it tarnishes the intent of the Constitution. The Founders barely agreed with each other. None of them liked the whole Constitution. And the Bill of Rights passed the senate only by John Adams casting the winning vote.

                        We did the right thing, and I am very sure that both Messrs. Madison and Hamilton, the primary authors of the document, would have had no problem with what we did.

                        I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

                        by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:43:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I'd say we should liberate, in this same way... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...any country with similar characteristics in terms of who's been ruling it and who's willing to launch a civil war against them.  There may be ten such countries, there may be zero.

                  Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

                  by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:48:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Really? (11+ / 0-)

              "Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya."

              You really believe that?

              That's the ONLY acceptable reaction for someone "who believes in liberty and justice?"

              Well, what country will we next liberate? I mean that's the only acceptable question now for someone "who believes in liberty and justice" right?

              •  He didn't say the US liberated Libya (5+ / 0-)

                That's clearly a straw man of quite large proportions.

                Though key to logistics and the initial cruise missile strike to take out air defences, the US has not played the major role here, and the only troops on the ground (beyond FACs) will be from the UAE.

                This is not D-Day: it's a mass uprising, with NATO degrading the regime's massive preponderance of heavy weapons.

                Sarajevo anyone?

                "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:10:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hopefully we will help others to (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Athenian, Brit, frankzappatista

                liberate themselves from despots. But even if we never liberate another person, this particular liberation was a huge success and should be celebrated by people who believe in liberty. What, you are not going to be happy for the Libyan people and thankful that we helped them just because we may or may not ever do this again?

                I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

                by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:11:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So Syria next right? (9+ / 0-)

                  I am happy for the Libyan People.

                  I am unhappy with your rhetoric that REAL liberty loving Americans must agree with you.

                  IT is the language of McCarthy.

                  I am mazed that you and the diarist can use that language without a second thouht.

                  I am literally irate about THAT.

                  •  You seem to be a person who is (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Brit

                    irate about a lot of things. I'm not. So perhaps we should just go our separate ways.

                    I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

                    by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:20:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am irate about ONE thing (10+ / 0-)

                      "Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya"

                      That is unacceptable rhetoric to me.

                      •  So stop talking to me then. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Brit

                        I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

                        by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:26:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  What in my diary has made you irate? (0+ / 0-)

                        You included me in that statement

                        "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                        by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:30:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Why are you bringing up Syria? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Brit

                        Seems to me that you are arguing against the efforts in Libya by bringing up Syria, and I don't see what one has to do with the other.

                        Libya was a practially a cost free case: Q had no friends, had a history, was attacking his own people, and was sitting practically at the end of a NATO runway.  Well, not cost free, because those munitions cost real money, but pretty much.

                        I don't get the implication that NATO has to ignore what's happening in adjacent countries because Syria is beyond its reach

                        Seems to me that the statement is, at least in retrospect, looking pretty true.

                        Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

                        by Inland on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:42:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I think (6+ / 0-)

                          any liberty loving American should support the US engaging in hostilities to support efforts of the Syrian people to free themselves from a despot.

                          Don't you?

                          •  Why are you talking about Syria, again, and still? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brit, Escamillo

                            It's not a rhetorical question.  I really expect you to give an answer about what Syria has to do with anything with anything, much less the topics at hand.

                            Will you do that?

                            Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

                            by Inland on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:01:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Is there a principle to learn? (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            pot, psychodrew, JesseCW, divineorder, Uberbah

                            I don't know what you are not understanding.

                            I take it you do not support intervention in Syria.

                          •   Why are you talking about Syria? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brit, Escamillo

                            If you've got a principle in mind that somehow connects Syria and Libya, go nuts and tell us.  If you don't, why are you bringing this stuff up?

                            It's not a hard question.  

                            Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

                            by Inland on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:14:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You may have read about (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BradyB, Uberbah

                            the Syrian people rising against the despot Assad.

                            If not, check the NYTimes.

                            It's possible you see no connection for "liberty loving peoples" but I doubt it.

                          •  So neither of us knows why you raised Syria. (0+ / 0-)

                            Anyone out there want to guess why Armando brought up Syria?  

                            Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

                            by Inland on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 05:08:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The reverse seems the case (0+ / 0-)

                            Everyone knows why I did, including you.

                            For some reason you think your are making an effective point. You're not.

                          •  Actually, no. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't think there's any point at all.  

                            I wasn't making a point: it wasn't a rhetorical question, it was an actual question wondering if you had an actual purpose in brining up Syria.

                            If you don't know, or won't say, then why don't you step aside and let all those other people who you say "get" it let me know?  Thanks, that'd be great.  

                            Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

                            by Inland on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 07:18:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll do as I please (0+ / 0-)

                            as you seem intent on doing.

                            I know you know that you can't intimidate me.

                            I suggest you stop trying.

                          •  Yep. (0+ / 0-)

                            it is a fact: you can do what you please, as I can I.  

                            I just think...and I'll say so since I can do as I please...that it's bizarre to make a statement and then refuse to elaborate on why you made it, period.   It's even more bizarre to pretend that asking is a form of intimidation. Most peopel think a question about their opinions is at least ok on this blog: you seem to think it's an act of lese majeste.

                            I'm going to watch cable news now: the tv also refuses to answer the simplest of good faith questions, but I didn't expect it to, and I don't have to waste time typing.

                            Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

                            by Inland on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 07:36:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think elaboration (0+ / 0-)

                            is necessary. I do not believe your query is in good faith.
                            I think you are trying to bait me.

                            I refused to take your bait.

                            You waste much time in your typing. You seem to enjoy it.

                            Let me make it plain - I do not believe you have any interest in a good faith exchange. I do not believe you have anything of interest to say.

                            I never seek out comment from you. I never have and I never will.

                            You are not a person I wish to have interactions with.

                            I hope now you feel the same way about me.

                  •  You're getting irate about what? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BlueStateRedhead, Escamillo, KenBee

                    ...in my diary? That I celebrate the liberation of Tripoli by Libyans? I'm frankly baffled what's wrong with that.

                    The only other conclusion I can come to is that your irritation comes from the fact the Libyan uprising has succeeded, and resolution 1973 has been successful.

                    Trying to turn other people's celebration of this into a McCarthyite witchunt is really bizarre in that context.

                    Don't celebrate. Disagree. I have no problem with that. No witch hunt from me.

                    But the idea that the sentiment in my diary is forcing you to do anything, censoring you, in an any way deplorable, is really a stretch.

                    "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                    by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:22:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Lighten up Armando. It is a night of celebration. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Brit, doc2, hardart, kefauver

                    The Libyan people have done something incredible and we should be honoring that.

                    Erlichte, Armando : )

                    Cheers

                    We spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about. Tim Jackson

                    by Athenian on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:25:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm prepared to celebrate that (5+ / 0-)

                      Instead  I am treated to accusations of not loving liberty.

                      Excuse me for not appreciating the accusation.

                      •  Incredible... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Athenian, hardart, kefauver

                        Really, no one's accused you of not loving liberty. How on earth have you constructed that? I have no doubt you love liberty. Indeed you're exercising your liberty to effectively spam this diary with all your imaginary feelings of persecution because of misunderstanding of one tiny phrase in one person's comment.

                        Enjoy your freedom to carry on this way. I'll exercise mine by ceasing to feed this diversion.

                        "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                        by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:38:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Nobody accused you of that. If you (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Brit, Athenian, hardart

                        took my comment that way, then I apologize. Okay? Now can you be happy like the rest of us that the people of Libya did something great, and that the United States for once was on the right side and did the right thing?

                        I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

                        by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:39:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Cool response doc2 (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Athenian, doc2, hardart

                          I always took it as a turn of phrase. I can only thank you for  explaining.

                          "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                          by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:40:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Thank you for the clarification (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          psychodrew, divineorder, Uberbah

                          The plain meaning of your words has a different meaning than what you are saying here.

                          I'm not in agreement that the United States did the right thing.

                          •  Okay. So I can see why you (0+ / 0-)

                            don't like what Obama did, because it's clear he doesn't see it the way you do. All I can say is that perhaps someday you (or someone who thinks like you) will be president, and some subjugated people will ask for our support in ridding them of their tyrant, and you'll be able to proudly tell them to fuck off, knowing that helping them would not be "the right thing". For now, we're all stuck with Obama, who doesn't see it the way you do and actually tries (the bastard) to help them.

                            I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

                            by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:34:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Armando (8+ / 0-)

                    I get why you are bothered by some of the rhetoric of this.  I also agree that Obama failed to get approval from congress, and that pisses me off.  I partially agree that the mission over-stepped its mandate, but I also think the mandate was written in a way to allow it (enough wiggle room to allow France to do what it wanted, while allowing Arab governments to denounce it).

                    All of that said, I also agree with Brit.  This is a good day.  It might be followed by some really awful days.  I doubt the transfer of power will be that smooth, and there is bound to be some nasty shit before its over (e.g., like the anti-christian violence that occurred in Egypt).

                    All of that said, in the end, I have to say this is a success.  The US helped, in a fairly minor role, the Libyans, French and a few others to help end a dictatorship.  The US has, for years, tolerated and supported these dictatorships in the Middle East and Beyond.  If we are to signal to the Arab world that we will stop supporting these regimes, we have to put our force where our mouths are...and we need to accept that the democracies that result will often oppose us on numerous issues.

                    This has been a success, though problematic in terms of the means within the US.  The US involvement really was limited, and yet critical.  The young in the Arab world will see that help, and it will begin to help shape the new ways that the US is viewed.  It is only one small step, but it is a step.  Here's to hoping we don't fuck it up with another Iraq sometime in the future.

                    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                    by Empty Vessel on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:43:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think your view of the policy (4+ / 0-)

                      and Brit's view of the policy is perfectly reasonable. I don;t share it.

                      Thank you for recognizing that the rhetoric I objected to was, at the least, problematic.

                      Apparently, that was a difficult concession for some.

                      •  This was actually the very first (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Brit, Nowhere Man

                        time I have addressed my thoughts on Libya on DKos.  I kept out of it because I felt I didn't have enough knowledge of the subject to add anything substantive.  I thought what I just wrote from the start, but I can't claim that I was right because I never had any insight on the issue.  I still don't.

                        For all those reasons, I do not feel vindicated, and have no problem with people who opposed the role that the US played in Libya.  

                        Overall, I support the US siding (in small ways) with the Arab Spring.  We must never try to lead it, or even take a major role in it--but we must support it in a lesser role.  I think this for two reasons, in the long term this support will help transform our relationships and help reduce the animosity that we have created (solving the I/P thing would be far more better, but that's another topic).  We can't push too hard for the simple reason that we would look like hypocrites and would delegitimize the very groups we hope to advance.

                        In the end, I guess our hope is more countries like Turkey, or now Egypt.  Neither are what anyone would call stand-up countries (serious problems with ethnic minorities and other issues), but then again, neither are we.

                        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                        by Empty Vessel on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:02:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  My only objection to doing the same in Syria... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    frankzappatista

                    ...is that it's not a civil war with territorially-defined sides, such that NATO could do what it did in Libya.  That's why Assad, who's very smart, is making sure that no focal point of unrest becomes a "liberated area" of the sort that NATO or Turkey could step in to defend.

                    Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

                    by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:49:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  okay (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    evergreen2

                    now I understand your outrage, have to admit it didn't make sense to me before.  But then I didn't read the comment the way you did.

                    folks appear to be drawing their word pictures with extremely broad strokes and brushes at the moment.  

                    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                    by a gilas girl on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:58:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am sure (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW, divineorder

                      it was intended the way I read it to be honest.

                      •  I can't say anything about that (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Nowhere Man, Uberbah

                        one way or the other, and frankly don't want to.  I was just baffled as to why you were so outraged, but once you explained it, that part did make sense to me.

                        That people are intending the same kind of rhetorical  gamesmanship that seems to often go on around here more often than not is probably true.  But the fact that it would take place around an event such as this one is disturbing.

                        As I noted in my comment down thread, I understand the dynamics around these issues and how easily they get both personalized and "partisanized" into various ideological positions, which is why I find the vindication of the internationalist principle having been enacted and engaged correctly so powerful.

                        I wish it didn't happen that folks like to use these really important principles as weapons in silly little battles, but they do, and they probably will continue to do so, no matter how much I (or anybody else) wishes they wouldn't.  But I can try to look around it, and find the conversations and information that I need.

                        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                        by a gilas girl on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:19:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Armando has nailed it. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Uberbah
              •  might be a nice idea (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Brit, divineorder, Uberbah, zett, evergreen2

                if we worked on liberating our own country, recognizing that the work of "liberation" can and almost always does take place in broader arenas than simply the military ones.  

                Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                by a gilas girl on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:53:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  If one completely ignores the displacement (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, divineorder, Nowhere Man, Uberbah

                of civilians, of civilians caught in the cross fire and the destruction to the landscape, one still can't call this an "almost perfect outcome." Because we do not know the outcome, we do not know whether extremism will take hold in Libya under a new rule.

                This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                by Agathena on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:39:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  If you oppose this war, you hate freedom. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BradyB, UntimelyRippd, Uberbah

                Because this time is totally different.

                That's the definition of love, you know.  The firm belief that this time is different.

                It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it. Eugene V. Debs

                by JesseCW on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:45:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  This is simply a lie: (8+ / 0-)
              Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya. And anybody who is against what Obama did is simply the kind of person who is against anything and everything that Obama does.

              Anybody?

              Salute efforts in Libya because the result was good. OK, I agree the results were good.

              Stating that "our efforts can only be saluted" when they were undertaken in clear violation of the principle, no, not the "principle", but the actual words of the US Constitution, that only the US Congress has the authority to declare war.

              Stating that the principle that the US President -- any president now or in the future -- may attack any nation he pleases with massive numbers of cruise missiles, bombing raids, drones, naval operations and air operations including AWACS direction of international coordinated airstrikes is not what THIS person who believes in liberty and justice believes is correct.

              Stating "any person" who was "against what Obama did" (the reason for opposition doesn't matter) is against "anything and everything" Obama does is wrong.

              It is a lie. It is a mass condemnation.

              If you don't want to stir up emotions, you don't make attacks on others who have different beliefs and opinions. In fact, your group condemnation is much more offensive than anything Armando could say to you.

              But, thank you for attempting to smooth over the differences of opinion on bombing and missile attacks on other nations.  And thank you for uniting the Democrats.

              The end does not justify the means. That principle would work for torture, too, you know.

              Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

              by YucatanMan on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:10:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I supported the intervention -- reluctantly (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Brit

                -- and I think it doesn't violate the Constitution. Nonetheless, I can see the arguments on both sides, and I agree with your comments here. I generally abhor mind-reading ("anyone who thinks_X _must be Y"), and in this case it was especially egregious. Thanks for keeping your response to a relatively restrained tone.

                Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                by Nowhere Man on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:45:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  in that case, there's only one thing to do: (0+ / 0-)

                put the matter of a violation of the constitution behind us!

                To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                by UntimelyRippd on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:30:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  That would be an excellent diary. (0+ / 0-)

            I suggest you do it, and we'll discuss it in the comments.

            Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

            by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:47:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I would disagree that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Athenian, zett, evergreen2

            it is about acknowledging who was correct and incorrect.

            For me, the most important thing in this diary (and the second most important thing about the events in Libya) is that the responsibility to protect and international law is vindicated .  That's not a question of who's correct to my mind, but an important instance in which vital principles that I believe in have been adhered to properly -- since they ARE so easy to cynically manipulate -- and the value of them demonstrated.

            I don't think "true progressive", genuine humanitarian or even international values are about "being right".

            After the Bush-Cheney Administration and after multiple years of the MIC in the US engaging in "great power" politics it is very easy for people to loose faith in the principles of international law and in the importance of this very important principle (that too many people of many political stripes are willing to abandon for purposes of "national interest").  To have those principles strengthened is an enormous relief to me, precisely because they are so precarious and have been so easily dismissed and abused.  

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:47:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  International law (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q, divineorder, BradyB

              was not adhered to in this case.

              Nor was US law.

              The policy can still be right despite that, but I think we need to discuss those points accurately. imo, you did not do that in your comment.

              •  the principle of (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Escamillo, Brit, Wee Mama

                internationalism then, if I am being imprecise in my language.

                Because that IS what I mean and what is important to me in this instance.  As I am not a lawyer I will have to defer to you about US law, though even I, dumb though I may be about US law, recognize that in the arenas under discussion the question of what US law is, has been made "fuzzy" through precedent and the changing notions of what constitutes "war" vs. military operations and interventions.  Do I like the fact that this is the case?  Not particularly.  But I do recognize that there is a difference between declaring a war, committing troops into a full-fledged invasion and occupation, and using portions of the MIC apparatus for limited engagements. Now, the question of how US law recognizes these distinctions (if it does at all) as well as the questions of should it recognize them or not, and if so, how, given the very diverse set of options for military and US government intervention into other nations affairs is one that I readily acknowledge needs more attention.  

                And, like the author of this diary, my only framework for addressing these questions would not "US best interests".  

                Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                by a gilas girl on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:30:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? I'm not sure what you are saying here. (0+ / 0-)

            The only thing I saw debated about Libya here was whether or not Congressional approval should have or should not have been gotten. Not sure what is incorrect or correct about that.

            "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus - The Matrix

            by pot on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:22:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, that was actually a pretty minor issue here (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee, Brit, evergreen2

              that came up every once in a while.  "It's about oil" was a much bigger debate here.  Also concerns about getting bogged down in a quagmire, concerns about how much blood and/or treasure should be expended (if any), etc.

              As for the Congressional approval issue, many who demanded explicit congressional approval were of the position that it would've been easy to get if sought, so they were only arguing about formalities, really.  And there were other more technical arguments about whether what the US was doing after the 60-days granted by the War Powers Act actually required congressional approval (that is, since after the 60 days the US was just doing logistical support, while other NATO countries did the actual bombing, is logistical support something that requires explicit Congressional approval?).  These issues were a side-show compared to the "it's about oil" stuff and the "absolutist pacifism" stuff and the "US should mind its own business and go isolationist" stuff and the "US is the root of all evil" stuff.

              •  I didn't see diaries (0+ / 0-)

                about "its about oil" on the rec list. I did see diaries about Congressional approval though.

                "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus - The Matrix

                by pot on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:26:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Making absolute statements (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zett, evergreen2

                of facts about what happened here and what were the minor issues and what were the major issues is not gonna work without any empirical evidence.

                But convenient to sidestep the actual criticisms people had to bring up strawmen. You sidestepped the actual issue of Congressional approval and "concerns about getting bogged down in a quagmire, concerns about how much blood and/or treasure should be expended (if any), etc." to push strawman about "US is the root of all evil".

                And the US has continued to fly strike sorties since March.

                But the Pentagon has added Predator drones, refueling planes and attack aircraft designed to suppress fire from antiaircraft batteries and other air defenses. The U.S. also has helped replenish other countries' inventories of "smart" bombs and other munitions, say NATO officials.

                Benitez, from the Atlantic Council, said the Pentagon's growing use of drones and strikes against air defense units means that the Pentagon is now the second-largest player in the air war, racking up 16% of strike sorties.


                http://articles.latimes.com/...

                "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus - The Matrix

                by pot on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:35:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  What the fuck are you talking about? n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stcroix cheesehead, pot

      Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

      by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:40:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Same thing he always talks about. (5+ / 0-)

        Has an obsession with "true progressives". Not sure what "true progressives" are. Too bad some people had to turn this into diary into their own personal pie fighting.

        "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus - The Matrix

        by pot on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:08:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  an extremely serious question (0+ / 0-)

      now that tripoli has fallen will someone explain
      the bloodlust exhibited by the so called " left "

      if i in december 2009 posted here america should
      facilitate the removal of the presidents of egypt
      and libya i would have been denounced as a troll

      my comment or diary stating that sentiment would
      have hide rated or banned . yet two months later
      the left were yelling and screaming for that scenario

      a scenario not brought about by an attack on
      america or its business interest by either country

      if a perusal of conservative blogs is made you will
      at best find " good riddance " while the overwhelming
      veiw point is " its none of our fucking business ! "

      i could go on with this and that extrapolation
      but instead i merely and genuinely want to know

      why the blatant and explicit blood lust ?l  

       

      •  In December 2009... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brit, Lawrence

        ...the people of Egypt and Libya had not yet risen up to demand the removal of the tyrants who ruled over them. (Don't call them "presidents," as it soils the title of those who were put in that position by the consent of the governed.)

        Is it "blood lust" to support those who rise up to liberate their country from a brutal dictatorship, as the people of Egypt and Libya did?

      •  the "left"? (0+ / 0-)

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:32:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Always there to start another pie fight. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stcroix cheesehead

      You are a broken fucking record.

      "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus - The Matrix

      by pot on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:58:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Know who Hamsher is, but is there a Kevin? nt (0+ / 0-)

      "Are you bluish? You don't look bluish," attributed to poet Roger Joseph McGough, for the Beatles' Yellow Submarine (1968).

      by BlueStateRedhead on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:48:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The US did what we ought to be doing. (10+ / 0-)

    Lending aid and support to those trying to free themselves from dictators. Not like past behavior where we either invade and depose or support the dictator for good contracts on thier natural resources. I am ashamed of when we have supported dictators and not aided those even just to arming them to overthrow despots.

    The Libyan peopl have done it for themselves and have full skin in the game. This is such good news When a people fight for themselves and succeed.

    Fear is the Mind Killer

    by boophus on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:43:18 PM PDT

  •  Yep. This is a victory for the people of Libya (9+ / 0-)

    and I think this will be right

    xpect to see the tremendous scenes of celebration in Tripoli ending up very differently to scenes in Baghdad eight years ago.

    And it will turn out different than Iraq. It took courage for President Obama to go in there after Iraq..he has shown lot of courage for Osama, Libya, and other things.

    Thank you Brit for being part of this community

    Some people are working every day on concrete issues of jobs, wealth, power and justice. And some people are discussing Osama bin Laden's civil rights or who is "deracinated" - Citizen K

    by joedemocrat on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:44:48 PM PDT

  •  Libya = massive victory for mankind! (12+ / 0-)

    The operation against Gaddhafi was one of the LARGEST ALLIANCES ever assembled on planet Earth, WWII included! I guess if you're enough of a cruel dictator for long enough, the world will unite against you. Thanks for the important diary, Brit! :)

    p.s. As much as I congratulate the Libyan people, I hope POTUS and Sec. Clinton are able to score some deserved credit for this, too!

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:50:03 PM PDT

    •  On the latter... me too (7+ / 0-)

      Above all Samantha Power - I know she risked a lot of personal capital pushing for the R2P policy.

      "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

      by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:52:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Victory for mankind, but the GOP? Note to them: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brit, majcmb1, congenitalefty

      Time to begin explaining 1) how did Obama mismanage Libya so that it took half a year to oust Ghadafi 2) why it would have been done sooner if Obama didn't take so dang many vacations 3) didn't do the manly thing by sending more American forces into Libya, and let the French (the French!) participate 4) this will not help balance the badget, so Mitch M. will filibuster any aid to the new government 5) this was really due to tea party insistence on no new taxes (really, just read their lips).

  •  Gadhafi's forces just surrendered, I think (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mnemosyne, Brit, fou, TofG, zenox, Escamillo, KenBee

    A diary that went up right around the same time as this one:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    w00t!!

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:57:11 PM PDT

    •  Still waiting confirmation.... (7+ / 0-)

      ....but it's finally over. Thank God. 43 years of oppression. And a civilian rebellion against the armed might of a modern army. That's incredible.

      "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

      by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:59:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A civilian army with air supremacy though (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zett, evergreen2

        This end differently without Norwegian pilots and French sailors (just to name two.)

        Cf: Syria.  

        Still incredibly great news.  But let's not take away the wrong message.  Like Bill Clinton's "air power alone won the Balkan conflict" chest-thumping.  I remain convinced that his selling of easy warfighting made it easier to sell America on starting the Iraq disaster five years later.  

        Let's not start thinking civilian armies can take on modern armies and expect victory, is all I am saying. In both Kosovo and Libya, NATO provided modern air support and rebel columns the ground force. That combination is not always possible.

        Don't panic. Demonstrate.

        by Quicklund on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:21:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think that anybody actually (7+ / 0-)

    thinks that Libya and Iraq are in any way similar. To the extent that some here refer to Iraq, I think they're just trying to be snarky. The differences between the two situations are about as stark as can be imagined.

    I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

    by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 04:58:57 PM PDT

    •  Unfortunately.... (7+ / 0-)

      ....that wasn't the case six months ago, when I was constantly being told Libyan intervention was another Iraq

      But I'm glad for the Libyan people's sake it wasn't.

      "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

      by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:03:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, it's one thing for people (5+ / 0-)

        back then to be concerned that the Libya thing would escalate. That does happen. But now, when it is clear that it did not escalate, and that it was a huge success, I am mystified that there are still some who are literally irate about our policy there. Mystified.

        I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

        by doc2 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:09:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  One thing that is similar (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        A lot of premature celebrations and questioning of "love of liberty" of people who are not persuaded that this was good policy.

        Sad that you are endorsing that rhetoric.

        •  I'm not endorsing any rhetoric (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Athenian, fou, doc2, Nulwee, KenBee, evergreen2

          Having been heavily engaged in Bosnia, I suppose the UN's responsibility to protect doctrine as outlined above.

          I hate Neocon imposed regime change from above.

          This is not that.

          You are still fighting the Iraq war, and basically making the assumption than anyone who believes in any kind of foreign intervention at any time must subsist on a diet of freedom fries.

          This has nothing to do with rhetoric for me, but stability and reform in the Mashriq or Maghreb.

          If it could have been done without any US intervention, I would have been happier.

          "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

          by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:15:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right now (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q, divineorder

            I am fighting the rhetoric that you are endorsing in this thread.

            Please tell me that you can condemn this sentiment:

            "Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya"

            How can a believe in progressivism and liberty agree with that sentiment?

            If I don't agree I do not believe in liberty? Is that your view?

            I'm not argung the policy now, but the sentiment behind that rhetoric, To me iit is deplorable.

            You may be right on Libya policy. Your are absolutely wrong to support that rhetoric.

            •  You're tilting at windmills.... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Athenian, hardart

              ...not fighting rhetoric. Let's look at that one line in context.

              We are in support of the civilian population, who did most of the heavy lifting. And an awful tyrant has been removed. Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya.

              That's an exhortation not an imperative. It doesn't imply coercion.

              E.G.. I can only say that your search for a McCarthyite phrase there is a complete diversion.

              Of course, I could say more....

              "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

              by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:27:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're wrong (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                divineorder

                You should say more.

                How is "Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya"

                "I do not salute our efforts in Libya."

                According to the comment that means I am NOT an "American who believes in liberty and justice" as a result.

                There is no other way to read that.

                It is McCarthyism.

                 

                •  I'm going to leave you to your linguistic tangle (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BlueStateRedhead

                  You didn't get the gag. You object to the exhortation

                  Anybody on the left OR the right who is an American and believes in liberty and justice can only salute our efforts in Libya.

                  I can only say, I didn't read it that way.

                  I'm sure you're safe from the Unamerican Committee.

                  Have a nice evening

                  "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                  by Brit on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:33:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Nobody's belief (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Armando, Brit, Johnny Q, KenBee, evergreen2

                  in liberty and justice is contingent on supporting U.S. Libya policy. There are questions of U.S. Constitutional authority and international law to consider alongside the actual outcome for the Libyan people (which we haven't seen yet, this should not become a "mission accomplished" moment as we have no idea what the future may bring.)

                  With that said, I think it may be best if you let this one rest, Armando. You've made your point and it is a valid one, but I think you may be taking too much umbrage for such a flippant remark.

                  Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

                  by NMDad on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:54:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, "true progressives" here... (7+ / 0-)

      waxed eloquent on and on and on and about how Obama started "another Iraq".

      Hell - they may STILL be going on about it - I turned the channel on them quite a while back.


      Kevin dropped his ice cream and blames Obama? He's gone hamsher!

      by punditician on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:42:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you, Brit. I appreciated the perspective (6+ / 0-)

    and the new information on the planning that has been going on.  I think it shows in what has happened in the parts of Libya that have been under rebel rule for some time.  Hopefully, the Libyan people will be able to realize their aspirations.

  •  Wow... (10+ / 0-)

    Sure seems Obama did this one right. Shows how a REAL leader can...well, LEAD. Once again, much as I wish Obama were more progressive, I am still SO GLAD we have him in office and not Bush or McCain or any other Republican fool.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

    by mole333 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:23:57 PM PDT

  •  This shows how we and the... (0+ / 0-)

    ...neoconservatives can have the one goal of making the whole world just like us.

    I didn't care for math, but when I first understood the concept of finding the slope of a curve at a point, I wanted to grab the first girl I saw and kiss her with wild abandon, just like in that WW II photo.

    by dov12348 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:28:37 PM PDT

    •  Just like us in not being ruled by mad dogs? n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell

      We spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about. Tim Jackson

      by Athenian on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:33:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. Let's fix the whole world and... (0+ / 0-)

        ...not stop until all our soldiers are dead.

        I didn't care for math, but when I first understood the concept of finding the slope of a curve at a point, I wanted to grab the first girl I saw and kiss her with wild abandon, just like in that WW II photo.

        by dov12348 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:02:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You'd have preferred... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brit, timewarp, Athenian, evergreen2

          ...that we'd have sat on our hands while Ghaddafi murdered tens if not hundreds of thousands of his own people, while we had the power to stop it?

          If we're going to have all these guns and planes and missiles—and let's be honest, we're going to have them—supporting the people of a nation as they rise up against a brutal dictator is about as good a use as I can think of for them.

        •  Libya is not Iraq, not a single US soldier died (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe from Lowell, evergreen2

          and tens of thousands of civilians (at least) were saved from certain death by NATO's actions.

          Post-Gaddafi, Libyans will sort out their own affairs without foreign troops in their midst. They own their liberation in a way that the Iraqis never did.

          One of the many things that pissed me off about Iraq is that we could have gotten rid of Saddam without invading but of course for Bush and Co. the whole point was to invade.

          Libya shows that you can help people get rid of a mad dog dictator without putting soldiers in the field.

          Big difference I think and a very good call by our President.

          Cheers

          We spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about. Tim Jackson

          by Athenian on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:42:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This was the Libyan people's war. They won it. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brit, KenBee, evergreen2

          Not us.  Talking about this as yet another chance to deploy your list of your favorite anti-war slogans about the United States from the Iraq War doesn't make this about us.  Almost all the fighting, all the dying, all the suffering, to overthrow this dictator was donenot by the United States, or by NATO, or even by the UN. but by the Libyan people.

          Perhaps you didn't notice them.  They might not be easy to see from way, way up there with your anti-war self regard.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:17:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  'Ats'a Three!!!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brit, joe from Lowell

    Gaddafi's now a fugitive somewhere and may not be found for a day or two, but the simple fact is that he's lost the war.

  •  No, Libya is Not Iraq. Not Even Close. (6+ / 0-)

    I can't take seriously the people who make that hollow argument. They're such apples and oranges comparisons. The only people who make the "Iraq = Libya" claim are those in the "Obama Sux" crowd and people who recced that horrible war casualty porn troll diary that was posted and re-posted here about a month ago.

    Remember when DKOS was a Democratic site focused on getting Democrats elected?

    by kefauver on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:47:01 PM PDT

  •  A Victory For a New Model of American Intervention (5+ / 0-)

    A victory for Obama and Democratic war strategy over Republican war strategy.

    That's actually the most important from a global historic perspective in my opinion.

    The way we intervene in places like Iraq can't be repeated at this point without the people who start such wars being labeled corrupt, inept money wasters from the outset at best, war criminals intent on killing American boys and girls for profit at worst.

  •  The MSM media is not (0+ / 0-)

    so reporting it.  They are reporting concerns with what happens after the fall a la Iraq.

    Where is Q?

    Ordinary political process is dead. The Supreme Court killed it. In Chambers. With a gavel.

    by Publius2008 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:06:16 PM PDT

  •  Complete failure! (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q
    Hidden by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    When the human race is able to change governments without the deaths of Mothers Fathers sisters brothers sons and daughters, then one can claim victory.

    •  And when there is no death of any kind (4+ / 0-)

      on earth, for any reason, then the world will be as it "should be."  Or so it would seem, from your comment.

      I still remember how this all began.  With peaceful demonstrations. Who were massacred for asking for a peaceful transition to a more just society.

    •  That's kind of the point of this, no? (5+ / 0-)

      The Libyan people have replaced a brutal dictatorship with what will likely be some form of democracy—and democracy has historically been the form of government that is most likely to produce changed governments without resultant deaths. That, I think, is a major stride toward victory.

      •   Well the point of peaceful demonstrations is to (0+ / 0-)

        change Govt peacefully, You know to avoid war. Failure. The Govt was not at war until the attempt to overthrow it. Hopefully the libyan people can set up a govt that will not wage war I am not optimistic.

        •  The Libyans tried peaceful demonstrations. (4+ / 0-)

          Ghaddafi's response was not to accept the will of the people of his country, but to shoot at the protestors—and then go into another round of political imprisonments and violence against those he saw as threats. Only this time the people didn't back down.

          The "failure" you cite was entirely, 100% on the part of Moammar Ghaddafi. I hope he is brought to face justice for the crimes he has committed against his people.

          •  They did not try very hard, and unfortunately drug (0+ / 0-)

            alot of people into war who probably wanted nothing to do with it , especially with an ageing leader. The leaders of the protests knew full well the danger protesting against a dictator like Gaddafi and should have been up front with those believing it would be peaceful, they knew it would turn violent and should have stood up to take full resposibility to protect their fellow citizens from war.

             With that said Gaddafi failed in creating a govt responsive to his people, failed to show compassion for his fellow countrymen, yes gaddafi is the bigger failure by far, but failure is on both sides.  Yes Gaddafi deserves harsh punishment.

            •  I can't believe I'm reading this. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Brit, evergreen2

              "They did not try very hard"? Bite me.

              I cannot believe that on this site, you are honestly blaming the victims of Moammar Ghaddafi for the violence they suffered at that butcher's hands because (to paraphrase you) "they should have known better."

              The people who stood up to that tyrant are brave people, they are heroes and patriots, and you denigrate them and their cause with your suggestion that they are in any way responsible for Moammar Ghaddafi's violence.

              What a disgusting, revolting sentiment.

              •  Glorifing these people who where very much a part (0+ / 0-)

                in plunging the country into civil war does not alieviate their responsibility to maintain a peaceful demonstration or call to it off so it does not develop into a war. unfortunately alot of people stood up to that tyrant are dead or severly wounded. Unfortunately alot of people who wanted nothing to do with the leaders you glorify are dead or wounded.  How sad you view peace as a disgusting revolting sentiment.  

                •  The absence of open violence is not peace. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Brit, evergreen2

                  Libya under Ghaddafi, before the protests, was not in a state of peace; even if the violence didn't take the form of his shooting dissidents in the streets before the protests began, that doesn't mean the violence wasn't there.

                  In the name of your false "peace," you would give the dictator veto power over the voice of the Libyan people, by telling them that it was their responsibility to keep the protests nonviolent - not that of the one who ordered and instigated the violence when he decided to shoot protestors.

                  You would blame those who raised their voices against the dictator for his violent reaction; in this you sound similar to one who defends a battering husband by suggesting that his wife is to blame because she "provoked" him. Such victim-blaming sentiments, whether the victim is a battered wife or a battered people, have no place in our discourse, and you need to change your opinions on this matter.

                  I categorically reject your willingness to coddle dictators in the name of your false notion of "peace." Libya was never a nation at peace while Ghaddafi ruled over it. Only now that he has been overthrown is there a chance that Libya could see peace.

                  •   not going to convince me that Libya was already (0+ / 0-)

                    in a state of civil war before the protests. It was not.  Battered wife scenario is just false equivalency.  We are talking about a nation and its citizens.  Leaders need to know when to up the ante and when to fold. If peaceful demontrations for reform is the goal then one must fold if they turn violent.( and yes its usually the govt that creates the violence) If overthrow is the goal ones just keeps anteing, building the pot hoping the other folds, while preparing for a showdown. Each side one upped the other into civil war.
                     Would you be willing to offer your son's , daughter's, wife's, parent's life for a chance, a possibility to have a better government or different dictator also knowing there is a possibility it may be a worse govt or only slightly better dictator? If you knew civil war would take the life of a family member would you still support that action?

                    •  There are more than two states of being. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      evergreen2

                      "War" and "peace" aren't a binary, such that one is either at war or at peace; it's a continuum, and a rather robust one at that, where there are many, many states in which a nation can both be not in open warfare and not at peace.

                      Libya under Gaddhafi was in such a state; the violence with which Ghaddafi propped up his regime prior to the protests may not have been open and bloody as it was during the civil war, but the violence of repression, of disappearings, of secret imprisonments and torture and terror, is no less violent for its being done in secret rather than in the public square.

                      Quite simply, the battering husband metaphor does work in this situation; just as he would make excuses for his actions by saying that she shouldn't have started an argument with him because she knew he was going to hit her, so too do you make excuses for Ghaddafi, saying they should have given up or backed down because they knew Ghaddafi was going to answer them with violence. You are, whether you like this fact or not, engaging in apologia for a brutal dictator's repression by suggesting that the people should have simply backed down and let him keep repressing them when he first started shooting them in the streets, instead of rising up to fight back.

                      And many people in Libya did make the choice you indicate—devoting their lives, or watching their sons or daughters or wives or husbands or parents devote their lives, to the cause of bringing down a ruthless and brutal tyrant. The hope of a better government was what spurred them into action, and I have hope that the government that takes Ghaddafi's place will be a better one, a democratic system of governance elected by the Libyan people to obey their will. But you and I both know that democracy was never going to be a reality while Ghaddafi or Ghaddafism—continued by whichever of his sons or generals managed to wrest power after he eventually died—continued to reign in Libya.

    •  when u deliver us unto UTOPIA u can pontificate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      evergreen2

      till then

      click

    •  That is a grotesque, immoral response to Libya. (4+ / 0-)

      These people you're calling a "complete failure" were trying to replace their government peacefully, and then that government started killing them by the thousands.

      But now they're the warmonger thugs who need you to lecture at them.

      Grotesque.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:26:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since pigs will fly first, let's discuss that (0+ / 0-)

      instead.

  •  What a Pleasant Change from the Previous Admin. (6+ / 0-)

    Just goes to show that you don't have to fabricate evidence and send 120,000 troops into a country along with a handful of "allies" to effect regime change.

    Funny, W considered Qadaffi an ally in the "War on Terrah." Didn't W know that Qadaffi had aided and abetted terrorists for years?

    Remember when DKOS was a Democratic site focused on getting Democrats elected?

    by kefauver on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 06:28:06 PM PDT

    •  Remember how Bush handled protests in Pakistan? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DEMonrat ankle biter, evergreen2

      Remember when the lawyers and judges led mass street protests against Bush's buddy Pervez Mushariff?  Did Bush side with the protesters, choosing democracy over a thug we had on our payroll?

      Of course not.  The administration warned us that the government was going to fall and al Qaeda gets Pakistan's nukes if the protesters got their way.  They backed Mushariff to the hilt.

      I look at Egypt and Tunisia, and think, what a pleasant change from pretty much all previous administrations.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:29:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the far right is nuts (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brit, kefauver, DEMonrat ankle biter

    The ones who dislike this  are trying to say this is bad for America and Israel and Obama has let the Muslim brotherhood  get more powerful.
    If they support the uprising it is all because of Bush.With Obama it's heads you win tails you lose.

  •  Just wait a bit........ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett

    This 'revolution' - arising perhaps from real grievances WAS 'helped along' by others with their own agendas.  

    It is much easier to let people depose their own leaders than take those leaders out by intervening with outside forces.

    BUT if/when it becomes obvious that those who 'helped' expect repayment of their favors, things may be very different.'

    If you believe this is NOT about western oil companies having unfettered access to Libyan oil you are naive.  

  •  This is what happens when (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flhiii88, Brit, evergreen2

    it's not a Texas Republican leading the campaign.

    You've got actual people with actual intelligence doing this stuff. Not just a lot of hat and no cattle good ol' boy fratboy antics.

    The world will never forgive America if they put a Republican back in charge in 2012 after seeing such a stark contrast in effectiveness between a GOP led White House in the US and a Democratic one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site