I was talking with my brother the other day about Libya.
Neither one of it thinks much of the US shouldering its way into another country, though probably not for the same reasons. We did not discuss our personal reasons and neither one of us pretends to be a foreign policy expert steeped in the tortuous ways of realpolitik, international version–I don’t even play one on the internet; I’m just a loudmouth with a website.
We did agree that this has more to do with pulling other countries’ chestnuts out of the fire than it does with direct US interests, specifically, chestnuts belonging to France, the UK, and the members of the Arab League.
Consequently, I find Noz’s thoughts interesting, since he knows much more than I on this topic. A nugget:
. . . when asked why the u.s. is bombing libya and not syria, secretary of state clinton can’t just say, “libya is the low hanging fruit.” military campaigns are always wrapped up in moral language. this operation is allegedly to protect civilians in rebel-held areas. i do think that is one of the actual motives behind the bombing, but just one of them. so is the fact that other countries that the u.s. has important ties with don’t like qadhafi and would like to see him go. it’s hard for the administration to say out loud that we are doing something in libya because an absolute monarch sitting on top of the world’s largest oil reserve gave his blessing to that operation and it is very unlikely that he would give the same blessing for syria. it’s also hard to say that syria is next to iraq and israel and bombing syria will have large negative repercussions in those countries that the u.s. has already invested so much.
His take on “doctrine’s” is a hoot. Accurate, also.
When doctrinificating becomes
to every President there is a doctrine,
turn, turn, turn.
it has achieved silliness.