Comments on: Obama’s Speech on Libya

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:17:21 +0000

I agree that the imbalance of the burden of war and a militarized American foreign policy on those in the volunteer military, and the lack of impact on other Americans does present profound problems. On the other hand, we still have to make distinctions and judgments about specific policies. There was practically no justification for the War in Iraq. The way the Afghan War has been prosecuted raised serious problems. It seems to me that the present policy in Libya, on balance, has clear justification, as Obama presented in his speech. Judging the soundness of the mission will depend on how we proceed. I think Michael is, though, right: we would take such decisions more seriously if the burdens of war were more justly shared.

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:36:25 +0000

Military humanitarian interventions; peace keeping operations; policing actions, nation building and a variety of different types of wars — these all describe at risk operations in which the United States military has been asked to participate. More recently, members of the military have been asked to serve tour, after tour after tour in dangerous operations. They and their families are being asked to bear hardships, which many other citizens either ignore or oppose. Is it time to consider putting military age males and females at risk? If more average citizens were at risk would our citizens and policy makers consider policy alternatives more deliberately? It is far too easy to pass this burden on to an all volunteer military. Being in at risk situations year after year is fundamentally changing those who are directly involved, their families and friends and their communities.

By: E. Colin R.

E. Colin R. — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:15:13 +0000

I agree with the sentiment of this post. There is certainly a moral imperative to intervene. However, as I hoped to express in my comment on yesterday’s post, I am upset with US leaders’ inconsistent reading of what constitues a ‘moral imperative.’ What I am concerned about is the future. I am concerned about the application of expansive rhetoric about democracy in what is a very unique and limited moment in the history of US involvement in the region.

I am glad for intervention, but it seems a rare moment in American foreign policy, that is, a sudden and rare acknowledgement of the USA’s moral imperative to act.

I hope that this is only the beginning and that we may look back in 20 years and see this as the beginning of a new era. However, I am doubtful. I feel that America’s involvement in Libya has been largely determined by interests that lie outside any concern for supporting the Libyan people’s ability to determine the future of their nation.

It would seem answers to these questions over American involvement in Libya lie in US leaders’ future actions, and American’s ability to hold their leaders accountable.

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:32:49 +0000

I am fascinated by the implications of a couple of “what if” questions. How should the international community, including the United States, react if the forces that NATO is backing against Qaddafi inflicts significant casualties on civilians as they try to take cities controlled by Qaddafi’s forces, and may be supported by a different faction of Libyan citizens loyal to Qaddafi? If necessary would NATO, including the United States, use military force to protect citizens either supporting Qaddafi or who oppose the revolutionary leadership, assuming there are any?

By: Maureen

Maureen — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:31:46 +0000

Richard Cohen of The Washington Post writes today in an Op Ed entitled “No more indifference”: ” . . . Arguments – good arguments – can be made in opposition to the Libyan intervention. Maybe it will make things worse. Maybe we’ll get bogged down and have to stay for years. Maybe the rebels are the really bad guys. On the other hand, lives were clearly at stake and something had to be done. The world could not simply shove its hands in its pockets and stand by as some madman had his way with people in his grip – in spirit, a reprise of the Evian conference*. The Libyan intervention established a precedent: There is such a thing as the international community and, as inchoate as it may be, it will insist on certain minimum standards even for dictators: Your people are not yours to kill.”

* International conference of 1938 at Evian-les-Bains, France, to deal with Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.