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.
Lessons from the Libyan War | The American Conservative - 0 views
-
-
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...
-
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.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page