Does their caution in Libya show that Americans will make war no more?

I don't see the US getting involved in Libya or any other war or quasi-war in the near future for a couple of reasons.

First, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't anyway. If we stay out of conflict, we're accused of indirectly sanctioning genocide (e.g. Rwanda). If we intervene, we're accused of being imperialist and this is doubly sensitive in muslim countries.

Second, we're not exactly in the best financial situation at the moment.

Third, in a combination of the first two points, I don't think there would be domestic support for an intervention unless significant and tangible American interests and lives are at stake. I'd say the general view here is why should the US spend the money, take casualties and fuel "anti-imperialist/crusader" sentiments for no benefit? We (and the Europeans) intervened in Kosovo to protect a largely muslim population, but that didn't seem to stop criticism that the West is on yet another crusade.

Fourth, other than oil, why Libya and not any one of a number of other countries with similar attrocities (e.g. Burma, Ivory Coast, etc.)?

If the world doesn't want the US as its policeman, that's fine with me - just don't complain about it.

@ Loki2: show me proof of genocide in Kosovo before the bombing started and maybe I will believe you that the Europeans and Americans did what they did to "protect the population" there

- The guy uses helicopter gunships and mercenaries to murder civilians.
- His TV performances do not suggest level headed sanity.
- He is not sponsored or protected by a country like China or Russia.
- The country is on Europe's doorstep.
- The great majority of its trade is with Europe.

If the western countries aren't prepared to make sure that this madman gets the boot, come what may, when will they ever be prepared to defend human rights anywhere?

The shame here is not that America doesn't act (after all, America is a relatively minor trading partner in this case).

The shame is that, once again, as in Bosnia, the major European powers are unable to overcome their smallness. The conduct of Italy and France in this matter has been an open disgrace. Their tepid welcome of events speaks volumes.

This ball should not be falling into America's lap.

But the Libyan people could be excused for believing that President Obama actually has some commitment to, and understanding of, defending civil rights, and therefore prefer American help to anyone else.

Heaven knows, if they rely on the Europeans to help them, they face a terrible fate.

So in future "America [will be]more sceptical of unilateral military action ...and less inclined to dismiss Europeans and other well-meaning foreigners as wimps...may also become more inclined to seek international co-operation, sometimes even showing signs of humility.”

What happened to the people who coined phrases such as "Cheese eating monkeys" and "liberty fries". If memory serves me correctly many of these 'non-humble' morons were actually members of the US Congress.

@ kxbxo:

Western countries have never been and will never be ready to defend human rights anywhere. Only where it matters to them.

To be honest, if you are only now concerned with the hypocrisy of the West and Human rights due to Libya, then you are no better than those who you slander, because there are plenty of other places in the world where human rights abuses are occuring on larger scales than in Libya.

So I ask, why is Libya more important than say North Korea or Myanamar or several other places that makes Libya look like heaven?

@Lafiel:

I think the "proof" was what happened just to the north, when the US/EU was criticized for not doing more and just watching in places like Szrenbica while genocide was committed by the same people. There were also incidents like Racak, which while not by themselves on a genocide-scale, probably seemed awfully similar to Kosovars to what happened at the start of the Yugoslav civil war.

What exactly is you point? Are you saying intervention is only justified if genocide has already happened, or never justified, or that nations only intervene when in their own self-interest.

If the latter, I'd say that's almost always true and certainly conventional wisdom on international relations. Iraq and Afghanistan fall into this mold (despite claims by Bush that we were liberating Iraqis from despotism). However, I don't think Kosovo or Somalia can be explained this way, at least for the US. What did the US stand to gain exactly?

A simple footnote: Author mentions the loss of American life in the Iraq and Afghan conflicts which is admirable. However, the author completely ignores the massive and still ongoing civilian casualties; over 100,000 dead in Iraq, and 25,000 dead civilians in Afghanistan! The human cost is far higher than this article would make it seem.

What is inherent in liberal democracies that always have them averring towards the overly optimistic in the face of common sense, realpolitik, and even basic statistics?

Is there any basis to conclude that just because the 'jasmine revolutions' managed to depose of Mubarak and Ben Ali in a relatively bloodless manner that all Arab or African despots were simply going to collapse like a house of cards?

Qaddafi looks like he will 'win' this by stalemate.
I don't think that the US should commit itself to any overt action towards 'regime change' in Libya for all the reasons stated in the article.
But I think the euphoric expectations regarding some burgeoning era of Arab democracy unfortunately needed a dose of realism too...enter Qadaffi.

We are about to hoist ourselves on the petard of our own expectations yet again

Americans remain, on the whole, a belligerent people, even if Iraq and Afghanistan (and a bad economy) have managed, for the moment, to dampen people's enthusiasm for foreign adventures. No one can reasonably doubt that casualty aversion plays a large part in political and military calculations. Our forces currently prefer to move this risk over to indigenous civilian populations, and that sits well with the American people. A drone army, built on the cheap in China and deployed to some dusty corner of the world that most Americans could even find on the map, would trouble few back home.

Had American lost, say, 3,000 lives within the first few months of fighting, I rather doubt we would be talking now of its "extraordinary staying power." Not to minimize the loss of life, but we suffered six times greater casualties a generation back in Vietnam, and six times more again another generation back in WWII. I see no stomach for such losses today in anything but the most dire of situations.

I reckon that American will probably content itself with lobbing bombs from afar for another generation before it gets the itch to prove its mettle again.

please check out ‎http://www.islamicsolutions.com/my-log-10-tyrants-in-muslim-world/

The US is damned if they do and damned if they dont.
Ultimately it needs to stay out of this conflict....give the UN its proper mandate.

Terrible situation. Give the rest of the world hope about the functioning of the UN. The big 5 now need to quit the leverage politics.

This is now a civil war.... if another country becomes involved, it will alienate the other side (a significant portion of the population). The vicious circle will just continue.

God bless them all

In some ways, the United States was involved (although not directly) in bringing down Mubarak because the US provides the Egyptian military with substantial funding and thus hold substantial influence. This is exactly why the Egyptian military stood on the sidelines neither supporting nor opposing Mubarak. The US had the army by a leash and thus the regime toppled much easier.

On the other hand, Qaddafi's forces are not supported by external forces since much of his funds comes from the massive oil money revenues. Thus there is little or no external influence to disrupt his actions.

The United States is unwilling to get involved because they have very little relations with Libya and do not buy any oil from them. Libya does not pose any military threat to the US, and there is little or no strategic position to be lost if Qaddafi stays since it would be the same position as before the uprising. There is simply too much risk involved in getting involved.

The socialistic/communistic left wingers keep criticizing the uSA over Libya. How come they are not harping at China?? The Chinese have more people working in the Libyan oil industry than the USA.
Where are the Europeans? They take much of the Libyan oil and gas. Their silence is indeed deafening.

hikeandski "The socialistic/communistic left wingers keep criticizing the uSA over Libya. How come they are not harping at China?? The Chinese have more people working in the Libyan oil industry than the USA."

We "socialistic/communistic left wingers" do not live in CHINA. We bitch and moan about US foreign policy because we are US CITIZENS. COMPLEX I KNOW! Fool me once.....

It was not casualties that made Americans hostile to the war in Vietnam. Firstly it must be remembered that (contrary to Hollywood, the education system, and the msm) most Americans were not hostile to the war in Vietnam - till well after the political leadership had given up on the war.

Also hostility to the war was not really about casualties (although almost sixty thousand Americans died - as well as 250,000 ARVN, over a million NVA [that was the figure Giap admitted to - the real figure was likely much higher]plus "advisers" from various Marxist nations, an unknown number of VC, plus people from many different nations from Australia to Korea).

Hostilty to the war came from two very different sources:

Ideological hostilty (mostly Communist such as the Students for a Democratic Society "SDS" - but also a few Rothbardian libertarians) - they were not hostile to war as such, they just wanted the Communists to win (even Rothbard started to ape Marxist langage - talking about a "national liberation struggle against Western Imperialism", Karl Hess used similar language but later said he should get a pass because "I was on drugs at the time" which is fair enough).

The SDS and its radical off shoots (such as the Weathermen - who took Marxism a lot further than chanting slogans) were a tiny percentage of the population - but were still a big shock as the United States had not faced an internal movement working on the side of an enemy since the Civil War of the 1860s.

However, there was also a lot of hostility to the war for a very different reason.

THERE WAS NO PLAN TO WIN IT.

It really was a radical as that - and the knowledge that the political leadership (Robert McNamara, LBJ and so on) had no plan to win the war - WERE NOT EVEN THINKING IN TERMS OF WINNING destroyed morale.

What is the point of seeing one's friends die (and risking one's own life) if the political leadership is just thinking in terms of "talks" with the enemy (not wiping out the leadership of the enemy).

Neither the Communists in IndoChina (not the pro Soviet Marxists of Vietnam and Laos or the pro Mao Cambodian Marxists) were the sort of people one can have talks with - any more than the Taliban in Afganistan are. Their objective (indeed their reason for being alive) was/is to spread their ideology - Marxism in the case of IndoChina, radical Islam in the case of the Taliban. And the only way to stop them doing that would be to kill them (not chat to them).

Of course from the 1950's onwards the military had plans about what to do if there was a political judgement to go into IndoChina (first secure Laos by large scale land forces, in order to cut off enemy supply lines into Cambodia and South Vietnam), but the political leadership of the 1960s (first Democrat, and then Republican under Richard Nixon) was totally uninterested in these plans - indeed actively crippled military efforts (for example by treating Air Power as a political tool - declaring the most important targets "off limits", suddenly stopping operations in the middle for "talks" with the enemy and so on).

The United States is not a subtle nation, and Americans are not subtle people (I admit - I am not subtle either). Either America is at war or she is not - and if at war the objective is (must be) the DEFEAT of the enemy (not "talks" with them). If that is not objective then the war is pointless (indeed insane) and all American forces must be pulled out at once - whether it is Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

A lot of people from universities who think they are very clever, quote stuff from the "Art of War" and so on (although I could never quite see Nixon as a Chinese sage - he sweated too much). But really ancient Chinese wars were no different from war as Americans (and others) understand it. Find the enemy - DESTROY THEM, end. It does not matter how clever the enemy are - if they are dead.

If one is not there to destroy the enemy (not to have "talks" with them) then the war is insane.

Libya has a had a socialist regime since 1969 - the "Islamic Socialism" of Libya was actually more extreme than the "Arab Socialism" of Saddam and co in Iraq.

Just thought I would make that clear - as the clever people seem not to understand it (even those leftist academics in places like the London School of Economics who worked with socialist Libya for years now seem to be busy reinventing the place as somehow "rightwing" - which they define as being dominated by private business). Which reminds me of "arms to Iraq" a story the television msm always depicted by showing film of Iraqi soldiers marching carrying AK47 rifles, and then showing T72 tanks - with Mig aircraft flying over head.

I could never make up my mind whether the left were being dishonest - or really could not recognise basic east bloc weapons (perhaps because the brains of intellectuals are too complex for the simple stuff of us mortals), I suppose it does not matter.

Not an argument for going into Libya (or staying out), just thought I would set the record straight - although it will do no good at all.

Surprisingly, is it a coincidence that all the 4 countries are oil rich?

America can only hope Iraq ends up like Viet Nam thirty years from now if it ever gets the heck out and stops interfering in its internal affairs:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/11/images/...

@Paul Marks:
As opposed to Arab socialists you prefer Hamas/Hizbullah?

The alternative to a strong, civil State (you Americans would call it "the European cult of the state" is not freedom, it is religious fanaticism.

Mr. Berlusconi's government has truly been an open disgrace. Not coincidentally, his popularity has finally dropped to 28% in recent polls (it would be 8% without his TV channels). So, for how long will Washington continue to fete him as it also treated Mubarak so well? The only difference between the two is the level of propaganda sophistication exercised through Silvio's Mediaset empire, more akin to FoxNews than to Mubarak's downright thuggery.