Why are we, The U.S.A., taking sides in a civil war? When I heard that the “international community” wanted Moammar Khaddafy out of Libya, I wondered: Is Khaddafy or Libya signatory to some treaty or compact that surrenders to the “international community” rights of self-determination of the Libyan people? No matter how bad Khaddafy may be, by what right does the “international community” intervene in a civil war? Oh, yeah, I forgot. Khaddafy suddenly “lost the legitimacy to rule” when he used “mass violence” against his people. By that standard, half the countries on Earth are ripe for interference by the “international community.”
Make no mistake, the “international community” (by which I mean the bureaucrats at the United Nations) wants to establish a precedent that allows them to stick their noses into other countries’ business. Permitting them to do so is a bad idea. Taking part, even worse.
Oil or not, I see no “upside” here for the U.S. Here we are attacking yet another Arab country which is, big surprise, gonna piss off some Arabs somewhere, you can be sure. Barely a day into the action, even the Arab League said the U.S. had gone too far and was exceeding its mandate.
I guess it’s about supporting U.S. allies in the middle east. Bahrain, though oppressive, will not be attacked by the U.S. Egypt, Lebanon? Look the other way.
This interference in Libya will come back to bight the U.S.A. in its collective backside.