

The real reasons for waging war - marcog1
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=137791

======
paganel
You don't see that many states declaring war on the United States because of
Guantanamo or the immoral treatment of Bradley Manning. So, let's forget this
moral bullshit scenario we use as an excuse and give correct references to
Hobbes and Machiavelli.

In other words, we attacked Lybia because we are stronger than them and
because we thought that the costs will be smaller than the benefits.

~~~
TomOfTTB
I'm normally not that cynical about things but here I have to agree for the
most part. It's hard to cite humanitarianism when the world community allowed
Gaddafi to bomb the rebels by plane for over a month (the uprising started
Feb. 15th and the Allied Assault began March 21st). Not to mention the fact
we're ignoring an almost identical situation in Bahrain.

In the end this seems to have a lot to do with politics. Sarkozy needs to move
the discussion away from his personal life, Obama needs to repudiate Bush's
methods, and so on. Humanitarian concerns are at best secondary.

~~~
anamax
> Obama needs to repudiate Bush's methods

How is this a repudiation? It looks more like an extreme caricature.

Note that Bush got Congressional approval. He had several UN resolutions that
went much further than Obama's only resolution. Bush had more partners.

You may disagree with Bush's reasons, but he was far more clear than Obama.
Remember, Obama has said that Gaddafi must go, yet also states that they're
not using force to oust him.

> Not to mention the fact we're ignoring an almost identical situation in
> Bahrain.

And other places. Iraq and Afghanistan were distinguishable in Bush's stated
reasons. Obama's reasons apply far more generally, yet ....

~~~
TomOfTTB
Right. But you're looking at this from your perspective and not The
President's perspective.

President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the Bush
administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International
community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's
approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the
UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one (and
in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have the most
respect for)

So I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on whether Obama's actions
are in fact a repudiation of President Bush. I'm simply saying that was
clearly his goal.

~~~
anamax
> President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the
> Bush administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International
> community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's
> approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the
> UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one
> (and in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have
> the most respect for)

The problem with that analysis is that Bush had more approval from the
"International Community" than Obama did.

As I wrote, Bush had multiple UN resolutions in support of Iraq and
Afghanistan. Obama has one, and it had more absentions than Bush's.

In addition, Bush's initial Iraq and Afghanistan coalitions had more members
than Obama had at the start of Libya. And, Obama has already lost one.

------
locopati
War is a Racket...

<http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html>

by Major General Smedley Butler...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler>

~~~
paganel
Thomas Paine (<http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/123.html>):

> War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and
> expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering
> at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot
> be increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditure. In
> reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a
> bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare
> that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to
> carry on taxes.

------
wlievens
I just want to chime in and say that public opinion on this is completely
different in Europe compared to the US.

We don't view this as a US-led incursion on par with Afghanistan or Iraq. It's
a humanitarian action undertaken by France, the UK and allies, and the US is
lending its support.

~~~
anamax
> It's a humanitarian action undertaken by France, the UK and allies, and the
> US is lending its support.

That makes sense only if Europe has changed its view on how much civilian
slaughter is unacceptable, it values Libyans more than it did Iraqis, or it
didn't know about Saddam Hussein and knew about Gaddafi.

After all, Gaddafi is far less of a monster than Saddam was. Yes, on both
relative and absolute scales.

However, we will get to see how Europe handles the aftermath. Right?

~~~
wlievens
Arguably, the difference is that Iraq (in 2003!) didn't have a democratic
opposition movement with a fighting chance.

There is a world of difference between 'nudging' the direction of a civil war,
and nation-building from scratch. Especially in the case of a far larger
country than Libya.

~~~
anamax
> Arguably, the difference is that Iraq (in 2003!) didn't have a democratic
> opposition movement with a fighting chance.

That's a pretty weak argument.

Shouldn't one give more help to the opposition that doesn't have a chance
without help? Otherwise, you're rewarding tyrants who are more effective at
crushing their opponents.

As to "democratic", want to take a bet as to whether libya or iraq will have
more elections in the 10 years after "liberation"?

Face it - the real difference is that you folks didn't like Bush and you
really want to like Obama.

~~~
wlievens
Obama didn't argue for this intervention in the first place. At least not in
public discourse. Europeans argued for it, the US decided to support it later.

Also do note that I'm a firm supporter of humanist interventionism, you just
need to have a pretty solid plan (or aspiring-democratic opposition) in place
to fill the vacuum. A sizable portion of the population should support said
invasion. Those are two criteria that make a world of difference in this
situation.

But it's all moot since this thing is still ongoing. I'm curious to see how it
works out.

~~~
anamax
> Also do note that I'm a firm supporter of humanist interventionism, you just
> need to have a pretty solid plan (or aspiring-democratic opposition) in
> place to fill the vacuum.

Yes, but the question is still, why Libya and not Iraq?

One answer is that Iraq has shown that it's plausible.

Another answer is that the Euros think that they thought this one up. (No, I
don't think that Obama thought this up - he's getting dragged along.)

