(NY Times Week in Review) Obama’s Choice: To Intervene or Not in Libya

For President Obama, who told Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi last week that it was time to quit, the bloodshed and terror in Libya have posed a dilemma that sooner or later confronts every modern American president: whether, and how, to intervene with military force in a distant conflict.

This time, the choice has been made even tougher by history, geography and the peculiar circumstances of Libya’s upheaval: a famously ruthless and unpredictable leader willing to do anything to cling to power, in a conflict that seems as much an African civil war as an Internet-fueled youth revolt of the kind that forced out Arab dictators in Egypt and Tunisia.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, Africa, America/U.S.A., Defense, National Security, Military, Economy, Energy, Natural Resources, Foreign Relations, Globalization, Libya, Middle East, Office of the President, Politics in General, President Barack Obama

One comment on “(NY Times Week in Review) Obama’s Choice: To Intervene or Not in Libya

  1. Ad Orientem says:

    NOT. While I am highly sympathetic to the protesters/rebels, this is their country and their war, not ours. It is none of our affair. We Americans really need to learn to mind our own business.