military action against Libya

Your argument is a case of begging the question because your premise assumes the conclusion at which you intend to arrive. It can just as easily be said that we are protecting Libyan civilians because we don't like Kadaffi. When you state that "we are helping the rebels," you assume your own conclusion without having demonstrated it.

Now, to dispense with the silly analogy about France aiding Americans in their revolution

Whether or not you agree that it is the case, the overt reason (at least) for the UN resolution is to protect Libyan citizens from their own government. I did not allege nobility on anyone's part, and of course, i was sufficiently honest to point out the inferential hypocrisy. That you think we are taking sides in a civil war you have made abundantly clear--as i've pointed out at least twice now, i don't say you're wrong, i say you haven't made your case. ...

If stopping war means taking military actions which benefit the rebels, how is that evidence that the purpose of these missions is to choose sides in a civil war? You admit the ambiguity yourself.

I can't at all argue that posing as noble saviors of the Libyan people would be a disgusting exercise. But i don't recall that anyone is doing that, unless you refer to Mr. Obama's "we can't stand idly by" statement about Libyans being killed by their own government.

If the rebels were winning and engaged in bombarding Tripoli, I don't think we'd be doing anything but urging Gaddafi to surrender, but that is my opinion.

Q: Mr. Secretary, can I ask – your British counterparts in London today has said that he thinks the operation should include the possibility the dropping of a bomb on Mr. Gadhafi himself in order to make sure that the regime is overturned. Would you support that?
SEC. GATES: Well, I think that it’s important that we operate within the mandate of the U.N. Security Council resolution. This is a very diverse coalition and the one thing that there is common agreement on are the terms set forth in the Security Council resolution. If we start adding additional objectives, then I think we create a problem in that respect. I also think that it is unwise to set as specific goals, things that you may or may not be able to achieve.

I don't dislike it, I just think that the assumption that it can achieve consensus about anything important, and, even more to the point, remain cohesive in the face of even small, easily anticipated, difficulties is extremely remote. In short it isn't anything serious people should ever rely on.

Please recall the naive, pompous posturing in the early pages of these threads about the ascendent arousal of the "international community" to support the Arab awakening. It hasn't even survied a week's worth of minor difficulties.

My strong impression is that the governments of both France and the UK have been fairly consistent about their goals in Libya from the start.

Moreover the sainted Obama has endorsed their goals (the removal of Ghadaffi) as well. I don't think anyone can truthfully claim to have been deceived or that their earlier agreements have been breeched.

I disagree that it is incapable of what you say it is, but more importantly I really don't think that you'd accept multi-lateralism if it were. I think your fundamental objection to multi-lateralism is the multi-lateralism itself because of how it infringes on superior US military power.

Of course, I may be wrong but it really does seem like you don't want the international community to gain the reliability anyway because the only way to do so would represent a reduction in the power and influence of the US.

I disagree with both the characterization of pomposity to it as well as the notion that it hasn't survived. Disagreement has been voiced but that is hardly lack of survival.

Quote:

My strong impression is that the governments of both France and the UK have been fairly consistent about their goals in Libya from the start.

Sure, but the agreements they signed onto are not consistent with their goals. This is the core problem, in my opinion, getting people to agree to something much less than what you intend.

Quote:

Moreover the sainted Obama has endorsed their goals (the removal of Ghadaffi) as well. I don't think anyone can truthfully claim to have been deceived or that their earlier agreements have been breeched.

The US has been clear that we want Gaddafi to go, but we have also been clear that we do not see this resolution as authorizing military intervention to do so while the UK seems more willing to ignore that it clearly doesn't (their argument is essentially: "killing Gaddafi protects civilians" ).

You are extrapolating on a surmise that goes way beyond anything I wrote and, in addition, conflating cause and effect. I support U.S. sovereign independence precisely because the existence of a reliable "international community" is itself an illusion - even if we are able to deceive ourselves into thinking it might value our interests at all.

Even Gulliver decided the Liliputians didn't really have his interests at heart.

It is the same after the fact quibbling we have all seen before. It is just an excuse for backing out when the going gets tough by the timid and irresponsible. Indeed this is precisely why such International Community efforts are unrelaible and untrustworthy.

Our words and actions have been anything but clear. Instead Obama has been very clear that he is trying to create the illusion of cooperation and committment while providing himself a quick escape and rationalization if things go wrong.

"Now, I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi needs to go."
But Obama said he's still hopeful that other "tools" the administration has used, such as freezing billions in Libyan assets, will eventually help the Libyan people push Gadhafi out.

Obama's comments show the delicate balancing act facing the administration as he tries to adhere to the tight U.N. mandate while knowing the mission is unlikely to be seen as a true success around the world unless Gadhafi goes.
"There are a whole range of policies that we are putting in place that have created one of the most powerful international consensuses around the isolation of Mr. Gadhafi and we will continue to pursue those," Obama said. "But when it comes to the military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Resolution 1973 that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts, and we are going to make sure we stick to that mandate."