It takes a village to support a military intervention

All true, but admit it - it's his funny hats.

Nuh.
Its the giant tent

The argument of "you cant help X because you didnt help Y" has always been asinine. Whether or not an intervention is wise is always a legitimate debate to have - I certainly have my own doubts on this. But as recent Middle East adventures show clearly, even a super power has limits to how far it can effectively extend its reach before exceeding its grasp.

Essentially, do these people think that charities should be condemned for helping SOME, just because no charity is big enough to help ALL?

It's hard to get people to pay attention to anything but bilateral relationships. And a lot of people don't like neoliberal institutionalism, which is pretty much what this is. It's performed pretty well so far (as IR theories go, which isn't saying much) but it remains unpopluar outside of academia. To use it effectively requires knowing far more about the politics of other nations than even most policymakers want to (especially if you toss in some constructivism as well to help explain how these relationships develop over time).

It's much easier to explain structural realism to a non-specialist, and much easier to apply it, than it is to try to use perspectives that require understanding the systemic effects of the international system and how this interacts with domestic political action. I've been a little surprised that the commentary has displayed this so much, while I don't expect people to have a deep understanding of IR theory I had assumed enough journalists were political science undergrads that they'd at least have a basic grasp of the internationalist perspective but I've hardly seen it explored. Rather I'm seeing the old Idealist vs Realist divide which I learned in introduction to international relations as an undergrad, which we then spent a semester undermining in favor of more modern takes on the subject.

I don't think that the argument is, "If you can't help the citizens of country A, don't help the citizens of country B."

Instead, I thought the argument against Libyan intervention was, "It's weird to justify helping the citizens of country A for reason 1, when you can use reason 1 to justify helping citizens in countries B, C, and D, and in addition to not helping the citizens in those countries, America is actively allied with the autocratic governments of countries B and C."

In other words, I don't object to helping Libyans. I just think it's hypocritical to pretend we're doing it for any other reason than the fact that Qadaffi stopped being the "Good dictator" that France was willing to allow to set up a huge tent in Paris on a state visit a few years ago, and instead became the "Bad dictator" who wasn't smart enough to allow America to host a military base in his country like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

@Martin Horn

I think you do not really understand what hypocritical mean, to be honest. Most people who are supporting the war against Libya will most likely admit that we are treating a lot of countries who are as bad completely different because we are dependent on them. That is not being hypocritical, that is being bout by reality.

I am pretty sure that most people in the West would like to create democracy in all of the world and end all poverty if we just knew how to do or was able to to. We are however, not and that means doing a lot of compromises, but that is not the same thing as being hypocritical.

This time however, we can and want to make a difference.

That is all good baby :D

There's a reason there's more international support. Libya is the most likely to have effects beyond its borders, providing the most bang for the buck. Libya is an oil-rich country making stability more important than elsewhere. It has the possibility of becoming extremely bloody. Gaddafi is certifiably insane. It's the most visible conflict right now, making inaction look weak and cruel. So it doesn't always take a village but if the village supports it, the case for military intervention is probably pretty strong.

Correction:
The Arab League and Russia have already withdrawn their support publically, since it has become obvious this is not a humanitarian mission.

I'd throw in some more geopolitical context.

Arabs rose up in non-violent protests. We denounced violent crackdown, slowly and reluctantly at first, but becoming more vehement as things went. It helped to prevent their rulers going all Kaduffy.

But Kaduffy went out all Kaduffy. We told him loudly and publicly to knock it off. The clown stepped up even more.

If we didn't intervene, it would have been the green light for Yemen, Morocco, and others to crack down their pesky protesters. And these are the Arab countries with which we do business in cordial terms. Our public tell-off would have lost all creditability, and future business with these countries would become bit more awkward for us.

It's become heresy, on both sides of the spectrum, to engage in realpolitik. You either have to be pure, and always do what the party line says in each instance (intervene for humanitarian reasons everywhere, cuts taxes in all situations, to give an example from each side), or do nothing, because to do anything in between would be to show your not a "true" whatever.

It used to be common knowledge that politics was the art of the possible. And war is politics by other means. You do what you can, when you can, where you can. Hopefully for the right reasons.

One more thing to add is that in Libya there is an organized rebel force made up of a broad cross section of the Libyan population that have already put their lives on the line for regime change. Like the other protesters across the Arab world they stood up for themselves and tried to take down a despot. Unfortunately Gadhafi cracked down much harder with much more military force than other leaders have been willing to do and the rebels have had to ask for outside help.

While things in Yemen and Bahrain are starting to get ugly there is still a good chance they will be able to resolve their problems internally. To intervene with force now would be premature and counterproductive. For these rebellions to succeed and effect lasting positive change they need to be home grown.

That pretty much sums up the argument for intervening in Libya but not in Burma or N. Korea or etc... When the people in those nations want their tyrants out of power enough to put aside their own differences, organize a resistance and risk it all for their freedom we can talk intervention there too. Going in sooner will just give us another Iraq.

The Arab League continues to support intervention. There's a few possibilities regarding Amr Moussa's comments, such as providing diplomatic cover to the Arab League if things go bad or that he is personally against it, but in official statements the Arab League is still supporting the coalition.

The most recent thing I could find on it is from Al Jazeera's live blog, which I trust a bit more on Arab opinion then other sources.

5:36pm

The Arab League got back behind international military strikes against Libya on Monday after comments by its leader had indicated divisions over the campaign against Muammar Gaddafi.

The Russians never liked intervention and haven't been hiding that, though the split between Putin and Medvedev is interesting. My thought is this is planned and they simply want to have it both ways for later negotiations, but I can't resist a bit of tin foil hattery regarding Russia so that may just be my paranoia about the opaqueness of their policymaking speaking.

Free Exchange links (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/03/guns_and_butter) to a post by Mark Thoma, whch is one sentence long and states “We have enough money to pay for military action in Libya, but not for job creation?”

Mark Thoma is a professor of economics at the University of Oregon and seems to be well respected in the blogosphere as he is often linked to by influential economics writers and news outlets. This post is by no means meant to disrespect Mr. Thoma nor his intellect. With that being said, I believe his (and Free Exchange’s) view on Libya is too US centric. This US centric view has become a severe error in the thinking and analysis of too many economists, journalist, pundits, bloggers, etc. There needs to be an understanding that the things that are currently happening within America and on the world stage (which are directly linked) is not just about the United States, but rather about the complex integration of the global economy. Also, the views are quite short term, and as the US muddles thorugh in the next few years, the geopolitical stances that they are taking, including Libya, should be looked at from a long term and global viewpoint.
Free Exchange links to an article from the New York Times which states “American and European militaries intensified their barrage of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces by air and sea on Sunday, as the mission moved beyond taking away his ability to use Libyan airspace, to obliterating his hold on the ground as well, allied officials said. ”

So it looks like France is leading the charge, probably in the best political position to do so, with America and Britain providing support. Buttonwood goes on to state that “Libya poses no threat to America. It’s far from clear that American intervention will yield positive outcomes for Libyans.” He is missing the big picture. It is not so much about direct threat as it is about the potential economic benefit that the region provides, not only to the US but also to the world. There is an obvious interest to America and the G7 for stability in this region and it is directly in line with their ideology of globalization.

If we look at the demographics of North Africa, it is where the worlds young peole are located. The Economist provides a wonderful intereacive map (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/arab_league_map) called “Mapping The Arab World”. If you skim through the data and run the numbers it shows a total population of the region to be 351.5 million, with approximately 50% of the population being under 25 years of age (about 175 million people). And Lybia is smack in the middle of all this very attractive demographic with a total population of merely 6 million people, 1.7% of the population figures. Interesting.

The region is ripe for major increases in productivity output due to the demographics not too mention the strategic location along the Mediterranean and Red Sea’s, with the west coast to the North Atlantic Ocean and the east coast to the Indian Ocean. It is logistcally ideal, directly in the middle of east and west.

This region could well be an important engine to global growth. If you had to choose a place in the world to put a low wage manufacturing hub, disregarding political risk, this is probably where it would be. Particularly with the aging societies in the Western world (and Japan) and also China’s inevitable move up the value chain, there will be a shift in the global economic structure at some point.

In time of crisis such as these it creates a small window of opportunity to gain control and exert influence. I am not going to be a conspiracy theorist and say the dominoe effect of the uprisings was given a push by the G7, corporations and their interests, although that will be in the mind of some, but the opportunity to pounce on the geographic region will obviously not be passed up.

As for the money being spent there rather than on American employment. Well that is an awfully narrow view. The money being spent in Libya is a long term investment in attempt to allow globalization to link itself properly and bring the ever so needed young in to generate some further low cost productivity as well as consumption. So in the name of Facebook, Twitter and Freedom, the opportunity was taken. Such decisions are being made by folks with interests and motivations which are very different than is the normal assumption.

Are "things really different"? Nobody liked Sadam Hussein either. We know next to nothing about those who we might help take over Libya. The Arab League "support" costs them nothing and could disappear at the drop of a hat. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire coalition melted away and left us, once again, holding the bag.

Oh, and why are China and Russia now holding hands together with the rest of the "global village"? Because they'd like nothing better than to see the US military tied up in yet another costly Middle East entanglement.

"The US-led coalition effort to reconquer Kuwait from Iraq in 1991 was successful, and led to the re-establishment of a stable Kuwaiti state, because it was supported by the Gulf states and the major Arab countries, and not opposed by Iran."

Chasing Iraq's troops out of Kuwait was a well-defined and easy task. In Libya we have no well-defined task. Is that loosely-defined task easy? How could we know? We haven't even defined it.

FrannyD,

I personally would be first to sign up to build my factory in Libya following a civil war! I can't think of anywhere with more uneducated low skilled labor and shorter life expectancy than maybe Papua New Ginea and that is what is important in sugar cane slaves, I mean, labor force these days. And damn the supply chain!

Oil is thicker than blood when you add chemical dispersant and water.

I'm sorry that was a bit rude. But I don't know what kind of priorities it shows if you care more if Adidas might have to pay a Guatamalean child 10 cents more to sew soccer balls if we don't spend a billion borrowed dollars on a military intervention in Libya, which will have to be cut from essential government services later-later meaning pretty soon. These are services we need like social security, medical care, education and ACTUAL defense.

The Arab League and Russia have already withdrawn their support publically, since it has become obvious this is not a humanitarian mission.

SirW, The Arab League has withdrawn its support in an effort to have it both ways. If Qaddafi survives, they can say that they didn't support most of what happened to him. And if the rebels win, they called for the no-fly zone originally. I doubt it will work all that well either way, but it might. That's why people hedge their bets.

As for Russia, I somehow doubt that "a humanitarian mission" was a factor in Russia not vetoing the Security Council resolution. And I'm frankly amazed that anyone would think it might have been.

If the principles that guide whether to intervene include humanitarian support high on the it could be applied to many places in the world. But then add other principles such as alignment with national interests/future benefits and minimal short term costs to avoid upsetting domestic constituents then the number of possible interventions is much smaller.

Here, the humanitarian and national interest arguments coincide. Showing the Arab world that the West will support anti-regime protestors is a means of taking forward a Neoliberal Arab Project which means improving energy security and national security of the West by installing pro-western market democracies across the Middle East.

At limited risk (e.g. no occupying troops), it keeps the momentum of the uprisings going which threatens the likes of Yemen, and gives the US much more political leverage over places where military intervention is not desired such as Bahrain.