Skip to main content

Home/ CULF 3331: "Middle Eastern Revolutions"/ Group items tagged #libya

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
allieggg

What Happened to the Humanitarians Who Wanted to Save Libyans With Bombs and Drones? - ... - 0 views

firstlook.org/...nted-save-libyans-bombs-drones

humanitarian libya civil war politics US Intervention NATO revolution

shared by allieggg on 23 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • “Libya is a reminder that sometimes it is possible to use military tools to advance humanitarian causes.”
  • intervention was a matter of upholding “universal values,” which itself advanced America’s strategic goals. In justifying the war to Americans (more than a week after it started), President Obama decreed: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”
  • But “turning a blind eye” to the ongoing – and now far worse – atrocities in Libya is exactly what the U.S., its war allies, and most of the humanitarian war advocates are now doing.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • “this was a rare military intervention for humanitarian reasons, and it has succeeded” and that “on rare occasions military force can advance human rights. Libya has so far been a model of such an intervention.”
  • What’s most notable here isn’t how everything in Libya has gone so terribly and tragically wrong. That was painfully predictable: anyone paying even casual attention now knows that killing the Bad Dictator of the Moment (usually one the U.S. spent years supporting) achieves nothing good for the people of that country unless it’s backed by years of sustained support for rebuilding its civil institutions.
  • As the country spun into chaos, violence, militia rule and anarchy as a direct result of the NATO intervention, they exhibited no interest whatsoever in doing anything to arrest or reverse that collapse. What happened to their deeply felt humanitarianism? Where did it go?
  • But the most compelling reason to oppose such wars is that – even if it all could work perfectly in an ideal world and as tempting as it is to believe – humanitarianism is not what motivates the U.S. or most other governments to deploy its military in other nations.
  • If there were any authenticity to the claimed humanitarianism, wouldn’t there be movements to spend large amounts of money not just to bomb Libya but also to stabilize and rebuild it? Wouldn’t there be just as much horror over the plight of Libyans now: when the needed solution is large-scale economic aid and assistance programs rather than drone deployments, blowing up buildings, and playful, sociopathic chuckling over how we came, conquered, and made The Villain die?
  • The way most war advocates instantly forgot Libya existed once that fun part was over is the strongest argument imaginable about what really motivates these actions. In the victory parade he threw for himself, Kristof said the question of “humanitarian intervention” will “arise again” and “the next time it does, let’s remember a lesson of Libya.”
  • allieggg on 23 Nov 14
     
    This article basically lays out the faults in US intervention in Libya during the fall of Gaddafi and condemns the US officials for their lack of hindsight in their agenda. The US claimed that they could not "turn a blind eye" to atrocities and human right violations in other countries and to intervene in Libya was a matter of upholding "universal values." After the successful ousting of Gaddafi, the US hypocritically turned their back on the country as a whole, leaving them to pick up the pieces and re-build themselves in the midst of socio-political and economic chaos. The US claims that military intervention is sometimes necessary to address human right violations, but in the case of Libya more violations have occurred as a result of a fallen regime rather than because of its reign. The author basically says that the US should have predicted that short-term intervention strategies achieves nothing without years of sustained support for rebuilding the civil institutions. 
allieggg

Egypt's Sissi Urges West to Support Libya - 0 views

www.voanews.com/...2528417.html

libya civil war US Intervention egypt ISIS politics war Sissi

shared by allieggg on 21 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi called on the United States and Europe Thursday to help the Libyan army in its fight against Islamist militants now to save the country from requiring intervention on the scale of Iraq and Syria.
  • "When we deal with terrorism only in Iraq and Syria, Libya will begin to be an attractive region affecting the stability of ... Libya and its neighbors. We will need the same measures happening in Iraq and Syria to be taken in Libya," Sissi said in an interview with France 24.
  • "The international community -- Europe and the Americans -- must help the Libyan national army regain its position and combat terrorism in Libya to restore security and stability," he said.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • "If we intervened directly, I would not hesitate to announce that. But all we have done so far is to help the Libyan national army, the Libyan parliament, and the Libyan government," he said.
  • Egypt is training anti-Islamist Libyan forces on its soil and sharing intelligence in a bid to stamp out militancy next door.
  • "There are no Egyptian armed forces in Libya," Sissi said. "We protect our borders from inside our borders."
  • andrea_hoertz on 21 Nov 14
     
    Sissi calls for internationals support on fighting Islamic power in Libya.
  • allieggg on 23 Nov 14
     
    The Voice of America reported President Sissi's call to the US and Europe to aid the Libyan army in their fight against ISIS, saving the country from requiring intervention on the scale of Iraq and Syria. Egypt has been training anti-Islamist forced on its own soil and sending them out to fight in Libya, but they have yet to intervene directly. He calls on the international community to help prevent further Islamic insurgency for the sake of stability throughout the region as a whole. 
allieggg

Lessons from the Libyan War | The American Conservative - 0 views

www.theamericanconservative.com/...lessons-from-the-libyan-war

libya civil war US Intervention politics war american conservative

shared by allieggg on 23 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • In the Libyan case, this involved attributing to anti-regime forces the “values” that Americans wanted to believe that they had, and it meant investing the conflict in Libya with far greater global significance than it actually possessed.
  • The earlier assumption that the “Arab Spring” was something that the U.S. ought to be encouraging went unexamined, once again because our “values” dictated that Washington must do this.
  • the idea that a Libyan intervention would allow the U.S. “to realign our interests and our values” was reportedly a significant factor in the decision to take military action. Thus one faulty assumption (that our “values” were at stake) led to another (we must “realign our values and our interests”) and that led to a terrible decision.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • U.S. intervention in Libya was unpopular throughout the region because most people in these countries don’t trust the U.S. and resent our government’s interference no matter which side Washington chooses to take.
  • One more lesson that the Libyan war should teach us is that the U.S. and its allies are far too quick to want to take sides in foreign disputes and conflicts, and they are then far too eager to throw their weight behind that side in order to make sure that “our” side wins.
  • That ought to put the U.S. in a position where it can serve as a neutral mediator to find a way to resolve the conflict without further bloodshed. Instead the U.S. too often chooses to pick a side and helps to intensify and escalate conflicts that might be limited and contained through mediation.
  • allieggg on 23 Nov 14
     
    This article basically condemns the intentions of US intervention in Libya. Larison conveys that the assumption that US intervention was crucial in Libya to oust Gaddafi was based on attributing "values" that Americans wanted to believe that they had, putting far more significance on the conflict than it truly possessed. US intervention was unpopular in the region because of distrust in the US and resentment to interference regardless of the side Washington chooses to take. The author says this tells us that the US is far too quick to take sides in foreign conflict, and far too eager to throw their weight behind their side to make sure it wins. The US ought to serve as a neutral mediator resolving conflict rather than initiating further bloodshed through their impulse to "do something" immediately. 
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 145 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page