Like a lot of Americans, I am perplexed with our government. There must be some rationale for joining the coalition to attack Libya, but I am just too damn stupid to know what it is.
I doubt there is a person in our country that doesn’t feel for the victims of Gaddafi in Libya, but we felt bad for literally thousands, maybe millions of other victims of dictators during the past 25 years when we didn’t take action. What is the difference with Libya?
Since I tend to be a right winger, my comments may appear to be politically motivated, but the question is the same regardless of the party of the person in the hot-seat. There have been a bunch of dictators who have slaughtered huge numbers of their own citizens and America along with every other Western nations wrung their hands in frustration but chose not to intervene. What changed?
Should there be a doctrine under which the United States of America interferes in the affairs of a foreign country for humanitarian reasons? Should the doctrine be conditioned on United Nations agreement or a coalition of “civilized” nations who agree with us or should we be willing to go alone where injustice rears its ugly head?
I don’t mind so much that we threw in with France and the United Kingdom on this Libya situation when they finally chose to step up first; but like a lot of us, I wonder how the decision making took place that tipped the scale in favor of intervention. There must be some sort of check list that qualifies intervention in one case but doesn’t in another.
At the same time, if conditions exist where genocide is taking place in a part of the world where we don’t have strategic interests, should we be compelled to intervene or can we pick and choose where American justice prevails? Who gets to decide which deaths are worthy or which dictators are bad but not bad enough for us to act? What was the difference between Gaddafi and Mubarak? One was a good dictator and the other was bad? If a bad dictator agrees with our strategic interests, is he still a bad dictator? Is a king a dictator? When does an abusive monarch become a candidate for an intervention?
Should there be some time limits on our intervention? If we attack a foreign country on humanitarian grounds should we intentionally assassinate or otherwise remove the dictator responsible for the atrocities? We all know that intervening without removing the dictator is just a waste of time and effort.
Under what conditions do we allow American forces to be directed by foreign command?
If an intervention is determined to be appropriate, is it covered by the War Powers Act or some other statute? Where does the President derive the authority to act in an aggressive military humanitarian intervention? Does the Congress play a role or do they hold back so they can freely criticize the President for his poor judgment rather than their own?
I have questions like most of you. I just want to understand the rules that guide this process so I will know if I am off base.
No Loss for Words 
Leave a comment