“Why the U.S. Went to War”
The next day, Obama said the U.S. was intervening in Libya not just to prevent attacks by Gaddafi on civilians but to set a precedent. If Gaddafi were not stopped, he said, “the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.” Maybe the administration will get lucky: intervention could set Libya on the road to democratic development and help continue the political change sweeping the region. Most importantly for the rehabilitators, perhaps it will bring new credibility for the idea of humanitarian intervention. But even those administration officials who most want to see the return of humanitarian intervention realize how big the stakes are. “I’m praying that this works,” says one.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/20/why-the-u-s-went-to-war-inside-the-white-house-debate-on-libya/#ixzz1HGCC45Af
The inherent problem with American intervention is that it may be too late. Though the Economist is reporting today that Gaddafi’s forces that seized the rebel stronghold Benghazi on Saturday have been routed by airstrikes, their assertion that the tide of the war has shifted seems premature. Furthermore, the chance that the mission will suffer from inevitable mission creep are high. That is to say, now that the ‘west’ is committed, they can’t lose this engagement without losing serious face. They will have to increase this commitment to ensure that Gaddafi is eventually overthrown.
Oh, the Economist article for anyone interested.
