Saturday, April 16, 2011

Moral War Arguments DOA

The moral arguments for and about the attacks on Libya consistently get discredited. Genocide invokes a more serious problem then seems to have existed in Libya. There were none of the tell tale signs of an impending genocide like a campaign to dehumanize a race or religious sect. Perhaps Gadhafi was just biding his time, over the last few decades until the right moment came along to wipe out large segments of the population. However the fighting had not left a cluttered trail of bodies as Gahdafis forces retook cities. So it seems unlikely. This was a civil war and it was already winding down.

Even if R2P (the UN rule of right to protect populations from genocide) was applicable the spirit of resolution 1973 was violated from day 1. Ground attacks started immediately which has decimated the Libyan Military. Now it would be all but impossible for their military to even defend the states borders.

Gadhafi’s forces are fighting and defending from urban terrain as are the Rebels. They do this because it would be stupid to stand in the open and wait to get shot. Urban terrain offers both cover and
  concealment. Urban terrain is, and has been, the "new" battlefield long before even the first castles were built. Referring to it as hiding behind human shields is just childish propaganda..  

Is it really possible that by extending the length of the conflict there would be less death? They won’t arm the rag tag rebel group. Nor does this group appear to be an effective force. It was not in any foreign state or coalition interest to have this quickly shift in the rebels favor. They needed to build allies and an alternate government they could approve of and that takes time.

Make no mistake the Libyans are less safe because of the intervention. The intervention may have failed its stated intent, which of course has changed. It also could be humanitarian intervention under the guise of a different humanitarian intervention. However when the premise does not align with facts it can put the interventions credibility in question. Then people wonder if the West intendeds to co-opt the fight for their own interests such as oil, arms, debt, and other influence enhancers.

Semantics my dear friend semantics whats good for the goose???