Thursday, March 17, 2011

Libya

I'm certainly no expert on Libya, so it's hard for me to get too passionate about what we ought to be doing there. But I think this point is right.

It may well be that the best course has always been to do nothing. But if that is the case, what was the point of Obama’s pronouncement that Qaddafi ‘must’ go? If it is important that Qaddafi go, then why is the United States unwilling to lift a finger to bring about the event that ‘must’ happen? And how can a situation simultaneously be urgent, but not worth doing anything about?


More concerning to me is the UN handling of the situation. Clearly, Qaddafi is a madman and a lunatic. He has been for nearly 30 years and all the world knows it. Now there is an opportunity to actually stand together and do something about it and UN sits around twiddling it's thumbs and hemming and hawing despite pronouncements by many of member nations that Qaddafi ought to go and the Arab League's willingness to support a no-fly zone. Maybe the world ought to be like this and allow nations to fight their own battles and not interfere because the cost of intervening is often high. But then...what is the point of the UN? I mean, it would be a movie studio that doesn't make movies and just develops projects and talks about making stuff. Very puzzling. It seems like Qaddafi is going to crush the rebellion and 6 months from now we'll learn about some massive numbers of civilian murders and all sorts of horrific reprisals and torture and other morally offensive things that occurred in the name of keeping this loon in power. If I worked at the UN, I'd be pretty embarrassed at the impotence of the organization.

No comments: