|
The fact that getting multilateral efforts together and making them work is difficult also points out that we have failed internationally since WW II to find a way to deal with demonic forces of death and destruction that governments and internal conflicts can unleash on populations around the world. An old world order, the way business has always been done, is in conflict with new realities and no one has really come to terms with the dynamic involved.
In the past, nations said they respected the "sovereignty" of other nations, even if they were composed of murderous thugs, by not attacking unless provoked. The word sovereignty, of course, has its roots on monarchical government systems. Pirates, thieves, midnight bombers and other nice fellows created governments by force and, after a decent interval, they would be accepted into "the family of nations". Qaddafi himself, more murderous than any serial killer on death row across America, was reformed (by cash payment and promises to behave) and then readmitted to a marginal status of normalized ruler, prior to the start of the current revolt. What more outrageous example could one have of a thug not merely being allowed to remain in power, but also being accorded at least minimal respect?
The old rule boiled down very simply: you might be a murderer, a thug and a crook, but if you were the head of state and we needed you, you would given a pass. Also, if you are powerful enough, like China, you can do almost anything you want and no one says much of anything about it. By these rules nations make the pretense of civilization and conduct their necessary business without shame or apparent remorse. At times, they do resemble crime bosses meeting in the woods.
Now, we live in a world where the most despicable conduct of such rulers cannot be hidden. It might be said that we have gone to war in Libya to cover over, and perhaps bury, our own long record of doing the opposite when citizens are shot down in the streets by their governments. The implicit contract between governments was as if they owned their populations, like ancient kings, and could do almost anything they wanted, short of and sometimes including genocide. If we looked the other way when they got tough, they would look the other way when our government did too. Not unlike the mafia, again.
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED about what we are doing, and intend to do, in Libya. This shouldn’t be so much of a mystery, but apparently it is.
The purpose of this war: First, to stop Qaddafi in his tracks when he set about creating a killing fields (accomplished, for the most part). The longer term goal: to give the people of Libya opposed to this madman a chance to organize and fight back in a stronger fashion against a weaker enemy. (partly accomplished). As for not knowing, and thus not being able to endorse, those who oppose Qaddafi, we do know they are on the right side of history and deserve the chance that the American revolutionaries had in the 18th century. A chance, but not a guarantee.
There should be no doubt that all of this could end in disaster. A stalemate would likely serve no one well, but it is a stalemate we might have for a good while. I believe that long, difficult and complex tasks cannot be attempted if one believes there is only one safe passage way toward success. Sometimes we have to accept the possibility of partial failure, too, in this case in the name of preventing an immediate massacre. It will take time to work our way through the maze. We have to do so with some degree of faith in ourselves and in our purposes and fully realizing that in the affairs of war, nothing is entirely certain.
The comments of the Arab League mean nothing. They endorsed the action and then tried to take it back. Too bad. The French aren't being cooperative? This bulletin just in! When have they ever been cooperative, even within their own country?
This loose group of nations will respond to American leadership when it is needed. We must admit to the risks and to the possibility that we have opened another deep problem for ourselves that could become much bigger. We are in, we aren't absolutely sure where we are going or how we are going to get out. We are there trying to balance the scales of death and power against Qaddafi and in favor of some sort of self determination for the people of Libya. What other choice was there?
Doug Terry 3.22.11
|
|
