An Enforced Choice
In the discussion regarding fair and unfair wars, a new — or perhaps a very old — parameter was brought up this weekend. Barack Obama described it from Brazil: “But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy…”
For many weeks and for many reasons the United States was unwilling to enter a new war. Its armed forces are exhausted by the two wars they have simultaneously been involved in during the last years. The American economy is receiving a lot of pressure. The “Arabic spring” that has already led to the fall of two dictators, is based on Arabic forces and any foreign intervention will alter its character. The Libyan rebels are likeable but unknown, despite the fact that one of their leaders is Gadhafi’s former secretary for justice. There is a serious danger that the country will be divided and al-Qaida Islamists will take advantage of the situation. Whatever the case, where and when will this new war end?
Those opposed to the intervention have brought up one more powerful argument of moral nature. How is it possible to accept help for the people of Libya from Saudi Arabia and at the same time tolerate Saudi armed forces crushing the endeavors of the people of Bahrain? Why should we intervene in Libya and not for example in Ivory Coast, where the government also slaughters its enemies?
These arguments are important — more important than cries like “all this happens for the oil” or cries like “we cannot intervene in a civil war.” That is the reason why Obama hesitated all this time to get involved, to the point where Hillary Clinton — a fervid supporter of the intervention — started to “throw stones at his window,” as he said joking the other day. But the situation changed when Gadhafi threatened to invade Benghazi, a city of 700,000 residents, and start killing the rebels one by one. The West allowed a massacre in Rwanda at 1994. They allowed another massacre one year later at Srebrenica. They could not allow a new massacre to occur in front of their eyes.
Despite the responsibility that either they or their predecessors have for the power Gadhafi has today, the leaders of the West have realized that they cannot stand by and do nothing. As big as the risk they take is, because Gadhafi is unpredictable and the war could last a long time, they have seen that they have no other choice. Cynical people will shred them to pieces. The anti-imperialists will denounce them. No matter the political or economic interests, the military choice has been forced upon them.
For many weeks and for many reasons the United States was unwilling to enter a new war. Its armed forces are exhausted by the two wars they have simultaneously been involved in during the last years. The American economy is receiving a lot of pressure. The “Arabic spring” that has already led to the fall of two dictators, is based on Arabic forces and any foreign intervention will alter its character. The Libyan rebels are likeable but unknown, despite the fact that one of their leaders is Gadhafi’s former secretary for justice. There is a serious danger that the country will be divided and al-Qaida Islamists will take advantage of the situation. Whatever the case, where and when will this new war end?
Those opposed to the intervention have brought up one more powerful argument of moral nature. How is it possible to accept help for the people of Libya from Saudi Arabia and at the same time tolerate Saudi armed forces crushing the endeavors of the people of Bahrain? Why should we intervene in Libya and not for example in Ivory Coast, where the government also slaughters its enemies?
These arguments are important — more important than cries like “all this happens for the oil” or cries like “we cannot intervene in a civil war.” That is the reason why Obama hesitated all this time to get involved, to the point where Hillary Clinton — a fervid supporter of the intervention — started to “throw stones at his window,” as he said joking the other day. But the situation changed when Gadhafi threatened to invade Benghazi, a city of 700,000 residents, and start killing the rebels one by one. The West allowed a massacre in Rwanda at 1994. They allowed another massacre one year later at Srebrenica. They could not allow a new massacre to occur in front of their eyes.
Despite the responsibility that either they or their predecessors have for the power Gadhafi has today, the leaders of the West have realized that they cannot stand by and do nothing. As big as the risk they take is, because Gadhafi is unpredictable and the war could last a long time, they have seen that they have no other choice. Cynical people will shred them to pieces. The anti-imperialists will denounce them. No matter the political or economic interests, the military choice has been forced upon them.