“For the past few days, the United States, France, Britain and other countries have already conducted several rounds of air raids on Libya. With the bombing of oil pipelines, civilian casualties, more anxiety and turbulence of Libya’s domestic situation, peace-loving people around the world once again profoundly realized that hegemonies only have an eye out for crimes against Western interests.”

Of course once we know that the Arab League pressed the UN for a No-Fly Zone over Libya, and that both Qatar and the United Arab Emrites have commited military assistance to enforcing the No-Fly Zone. Although the majority of airstrikes are being conducted by Western countries, this operation cannot simply be categorized as “Western Interventionalism.” Furthermore, Xinhua news added, “The civilian death toll from five days of Western-led air strikes had reached almost 100, the Libyan government said later in the day.” Civilian deaths obviously a very serious matter, and way way way way too many civilians died in the disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Yet, the number cited here are given by the Ghaddafi’s regime, not necessarily the most realiable source.

Consider also the surprising disagreement between Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev over this issue (found in Time magazine):

Putin: “In the policies of the United States, [military intervention] is becoming a stable tendency and trend,” Putin said, counting the conflicts in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq as examples. “Now Libya is next in line, with the excuse of defending its civilian population. But when you bomb a territory, it is the civilians who die. Where is the logic and the conscience in this? There’s neither one nor the other.” Then, borrowing the words of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Putin said the U.N. resolution on the bombing raids resembled “the medieval calls for a Christian crusade.”

Then Medvedev: “Under no circumstances can anyone use phrases that, in effect, lead to a clash of civilizations, such as ‘Christian crusades’ and so on. This is unacceptable,” Medvedev said. Russia chose not to veto the resolution against Libya in the U.N. Security Council because, the President added, “I do not think that resolution is wrong.” Gaddafi brought it on himself, Medvedev said, when he used force against his own people, “and everyone should remember that.”

Notice that Putin implicates the generic “West” without conducting a deeper analysis of what is going on in Libya. It is important to remember Juan Cole’s words here: “Those who forget or cannot see the humanitarian achievements already accomplished are being willfully blind.” The Pakistani english-language Nation stuck a similar tone to Putin with an article entitled “Obama’s Fatal Jihad into Libya”: “It appears that Obama is looking for another Kosovo or Kuwait, although Libya is altogether a different ballgame.”

However it appears that Obama was no looking for no such thing as he is being criticized by Republicans for taking to long or being indecisive on the matter.

I agree however that from the perspective of the rebels in Libya, the military operation, or whatever you may want to call it, is a matter of “practical action.” The rebels indeed are greatful for the intervention, and now it appears as if Ghaddafi’s forces are in trouble.

Yet there are obvious problems with military intervention in Libya; for one thing, Barack Obama did not consult Congress before authorizing military force; and yes the United States has in the past over-played its Humanitarian Interventionist hand, as not only other nations, but the US public itself has grown tired of the military intervention abroad. Yet the nuances of the situation in Libya need to be considered before one draws hasty conclusions. Furthermore, it is no coincidence that some of the harshest, and I might I add most distorted, criticism of the intervention in Libya is coming from those nations who are harshest on the voices of dissent within their own borders. They too have their interests to look out for.

As for what happens after Ghaddafi in Libya, there is simply no guaruntee that Libyan civil society will produce a democracy. How much do we really know about the rebels, those with the weapons, and perhaps if the are victorious, the power, other than the fact that they want Ghadaffi gone? Yet there were in fact widespread calls for democacracy in Libya from the people (whoever that may be) themselves. The expectation is indeed democracy, yet not all democracies are in fact created equal.