Very quickly, I’d like to bring up, in the context of America’s soon to be intervention in Libya, the fact that we still don’t know what we would be fighting for save the broad ideal of democracy. Barack Obama drew a line in the sand, saying that our goal would not extend beyond the protection of civilians, but are the U.S. and its allies then acting as referees in a game of civil war? And if they are, are they going to be impartial?
Of course not. Quaddafi must go; he is persona non grata throughout most of the world. How, then, does mission creep not occur if the rebels are on the verge of losing?
Philip Gourevitch expounds on the issue:
Are we prepared to accept that, by the grim logic of our intervention, the only way we can avoid being defeated in Libya is by defeating him? That could happen swiftly, or it could be a brutally drawn out, bitter, bloody slog, and come at a terrible price.
Either way, the military campaign is likely to be the easy part. Then what? We know that we are fighting against Qaddafi, but whom are we fighting for? It is impossible not to sympathize with victims of Qaddafi’s reign of terror who want to overthrow him. Still, do we have a good idea of who the Libyan rebels are and what they stand for? Jon Lee Anderson’s superb dispatches from the eastern front in recent weeks have made it clear that even the rebels themselves don’t know exactly. Some say the fight is for freedom; some say it’s for democracy. Meanwhile, an acting chief of the rebellion is a man who served, until a few weeks ago, as Qaddafi’s own Minister of Justice.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I’m uncomfortable with this however it ends. I simply cannot accept that we will be in effect supporting a group that uses child soldiers. But it appears that we now are.
Civil Minded 