3 ms·
Libya
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoNot sure if I want to wade into this topic, and I'm very happy to see Scott being a lot more humble with his opinions -- my opinions are mostly half-formed as well. But since I've read 20-30 editorials on this topic, I thought I would share what I've learned. From the best of the editorials I've read, this is about the revival of the idea of using military force to stop humanitarian disasters. After Iraq, there were a lot of folks who hated using force for regime change but who wanted very much to put in place an international system to regularly and effectively use force to intervene in these huge humanitarian disasters the world keeps having. They were very upset that the pendulum had swung so far back to the other side that no use of force for any reasons was the standard position. The Libyan situation looked like a great opportunity, especially with so many countries already on-board and so much popular support. It's not establishing a rule, it's seeking to start creating a repeatable system of humanitarian intervention. I don't want to argue merits or any of the other details -- seems like that's asking for a flame war. But I did find that insight useful in my own understanding of the situation. Of course, like all information in editorials, it's mostly supposition sprinkled with bias. But it made sense to me. And since Scott asked, there's my answer.
- bartonfink 16y agoBut I have to ask whether the US is in the best place to intervene. Like Scott said, $100 million buys a lot, and that $100 million could do a lot of good in other ways at home.