On The Record For Just A Moment

It’s late at night and I’ve other things to attend to.

Military intervention in Libya would be an extraordinarily bad idea, an adventure that could easily go wrong and cost us a lot of blood and treasure and produce no tangible benefit to the USA, to Libya, or to anyone else.

If the rebels form a coherent government and request imposition of a no-fly zone, and if that no-fly zone is approved by an international coalition (say, NATO, if not the UN) that is willing to shoulder the burden of doing that, I’m not 100% averse to the US participating. But I am averse to us going it alone.

This revolution belongs to the Libyan people, for better or for worse. I relish the idea of a Qadaffi-less Libya. But I have a great fear that if we intervene, things will work out very badly in the long run.

Burt Likko

Pseudonymous Portlander. Homebrewer. Atheist. Recovering litigator. Recovering Republican. Recovering Catholic. Recovering divorcé. Recovering Former Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. House Likko's Words: Scite Verum. Colite Iusticia. Vivere Con Gaudium.

One Comment

  1. Utilizing a coalition is useful for the strategic reason you allude to (i.e. having the US as your enemy gives you street cred) and the operational reason that having more planes and logistics is better than having fewer planes and logistics.

    Necessary, but as I think you agree not a sufficient condition. Ultimately the merits or lack thereof of any particular operation needs to be evaluated on its on terms; broader consensus and participation cannot – should not – play a big factor in this calculation. To wit, there is a full and enduring UN and NATO imprimatur for (near) full spectrum combat and other operations in Afghanistan, but that doesn’t make them a good idea.

Comments are closed.