France and Britain on Thursday agreed that Libya strongman Moamer Kadhafi “must go” and called on the EU to consider the country’s rebel national council a valid political interlocutor, Sarkozy’s office said.
“To stop further suffering of the Libyan people, Muammar Gaddafi and his clique should leave,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a joint letter to European Union president Herman Von Rompuy.
France earlier recognised the rebels as the country’s rightful representatives.
Then let England France do it. No more wars and military adventurism. This is none of our business. We are bankrupt and our military is stretched to its limits. And we have no legal right to invade other countries just because they are doing things we don’t like.
Darfur and Kosovo show the changes in international law in the past generation. Attacking one’s own people is now a crime punishable by regime change.
2. Indeed. Libya, and the process by which we resolve it, is a Rubicon that will inform how the G20 deals with politically bankrupt states. If nothing happens, then Libya becomes Obama’s Rwanda. And we dont have to do the heavy lifting; this is an opportunity to lock in BRIC at today’s prices.
Good idea #1.
There was a time when the USA was effectively the only one that made decisions on whether or not to intervene in a situation like this. But those days seem to be over. So step aside and let others make the decisions.
You alll sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1939. I for one am tired of Obama voting “present” on every world issue. The best case sceanrio for America is that our president is is a total incompetent. This, BTW is teh Bush doctrine, which was universally panned by the entire liberal world, coming to fruition. But we are going to let extreme Islam win the day rahter than democracy, and to quote Gen. Buford–there will be hell to pay.
Does anyone else remember when foreign policies seemed coherant? It seems all media-driven now.
#6–Blue–No kidding. The only thing more scary is if we do have a coherent foreign policy, and Obama is doing all this stuff on purpose.
5. David Keller[blockquote] You all sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1939.[/blockquote] Well, no. There are a number of important differences.
In the first place, the outcome in Libya really doesn’t matter to the US national interest. Chas Lindberg was burying his head in the sand about a lethal threat to Western Civilization. Libya is no such thing. Iraq was important because Hussein was poised to become a nuclear hegemon over the major oil producing region of the world, and because he would have radically shifted the balance of power in the Middle East. Libya on the other hand is a marginal country on the fringe. Europe cares for two reasons: 1) its large indigenous Arab population and 2) the threat of migration north. The US simply has no strategic stake in the outcome.
Second, Europe is more than capable of performing the actions necessary. They may not want to do so, but that is a mindset that needs to change. In general, the Europeans rather like the idea of a large powerful American military that is capable of going around the world and solving problems like this. They simply want that military power on a European leash. Remember that the European objection to Iraq was that it was a sovereign exercise of American power. It didn’t have European permission. Their idea of “solving” the crisis in Iraq was to indefinitely set the American military in the desert on a mission of perpetual deterrence while Europeans bought oil from Iraq and sold arms to Iraq.
Third, the US military does not exist to solve the humanitarian problems created by failed governments. The US military exists to defend the national interest of the US. Yes, I know we rushed into Bosnia, and, yes, Bosnia held no national interest for the US per se. That was a conflict created by the failure of European diplomacy and the inability of European powers to project power even within their own continent. The US intervened in Bosnia to save the credibility of NATO. Ironically enough, we allowed the Croats to end the war by letting them use ethic cleansing tactics against the Serbs. We looked the other way while they affected population separation. So much for humanitarianism.
carl
Talk the talk. Ok. Let me know when they are willing to walk the walk. Then I am interested. let’s have another committee meeting, a conference, a summit, a listening. “The noose is tightening…” Give me a break. larry
[blockquote] “In the first place, the outcome in Libya really doesn’t matter to the US national interest.” [/blockquote]
To the extent that that is true, it applies with equal force to Afghanistan. So why are you there? (my country is there of course, and I know why. But I am asking if you know why your country is there).
[blockquote] “Second, Europe is more than capable of performing the actions necessary.” [/blockquote]
With one exception. The imposition of a No-Fly zone *within a reasonable time-frame* is only within the powers of the USA. It can choose to do it, or not. Europe could attack of course, i.e. destroy Gaddafi’s airforce on the ground. But for a lesser response (which is what the Arab League has now requested), it is up to the USA. Of course, many Americans want their country to thumb its nose at the Arab League also.
[blockquote] “In general, the Europeans rather like the idea of a large powerful American military that is capable of going around the world and solving problems like this”. [/blockquote]
Europe can like it or not like it, but that is irrelevant. The USA has been in every conflict or peace operation because it has *chosen* to be. Every other factor is secondary.
[blockquote] “Third, the US military does not exist to solve the humanitarian problems created by failed governments. The US military exists to defend the national interest of the US.” [/blockquote]
Everyone knows that. The same is true of every military in the world. That is why the military of my country (Australia) has a history of getting involved in conflicts well away from its shores: We are smart enough to realise that that is often the best way to defend our national interest. That is why far-sighted people in the USA argued against Charles Lindbergh in 1939.
[blockquote] “Yes, I know we rushed into Bosnia, and, yes, Bosnia held no national interest for the US per se.” [/blockquote]
Of course it did. Otherwise you wouldn’t have been there.