I would have agreed with your piece, had it not discussed the reality we live in. I guess if the UN HAD NOT intervened in the situation in Libya, would your arguments have made sense. Although a general skeptic of the UN's and the West's actions, I consider that the entire progress on Libya has for once been perfectly by the book. step 1: condemnation, step 2: sactions, step 3: fully approved ICC referral, step 4: shared plan of intervention with local backing, step 5: coalitionary action before the day was through. If these moves were taken to 'stabilize' libya, then, as one of the coalition leaders, I would certainly be firing my advisors. Gaddafi was on the point of steamrolling over Benghazi and continue his record-breaking 42 years in oppressive power. THAT would be the scenario of stability that would be in the interest of the 'oil-greedy West'. Not having to put their neck out (politically, and at least partly physically) and risk a prolonged stalemate or a far-stretched civil war. If realpolitik were really in control, Western world leaders would simply still be ogling the news from the comfort of their livingroom sofas. And the complete opposite criticism given in this article, I will not even go into. To contend that the aerial strikes are the 'easy way out' and more should be done is also absurd. Boots on the ground at this particular point, taking a home-grown revolution hostage, is what none of the parties want. Not even the poor souls in the firing line. For once, can we not put on those overly-easy glasses of skepticism? In either case, the whole neo-colonialist yelp has gotten kinda old don't you think?
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Jihad Islamic says militant killed, two others injured in explosion in northern Gaza Strip (Haaretz)
from the article: Western action against Gadhafi has self-serving interests