Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong.

[Her Sister]

NATO intervened to protect civilians, not to set up a democracy


http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/04/12-libya-intervention-hamid#.Vw1j47VQCtc.twitter

EXCERPTS:

Libya and the 2011 NATO intervention there have become synonymous with failure, disaster, and the Middle East being a "shit show" (to use President Obama’s colorful descriptor). It has perhaps never been more important to question this prevailing wisdom, because how we interpret Libya affects how we interpret Syria and, importantly, how we assess Obama’s foreign policy legacy.

The most likely outcome, then, was a Syria-like situation of indefinite, intensifying violence. Even President Obama, who today seems unsure about the decision to intervene, acknowledged in an August 2014 interview with Thomas Friedman that "had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria...And so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction."

What caused the current Libyan civil war?

Critics charge that the NATO intervention was responsible for or somehow caused Libya’s current state of chaos and instability. For instance, after leaving the Obama administration, Philip Gordon, the most senior U.S. official on the Middle East in 2013-'15, wrote: "In Iraq, the U.S. intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster. In Libya, the U.S. intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the U.S. neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster."

More...

[yallerdawg]

1. Of course...

facts have no bearing on opinion for the Hillary Haters.

I still remember how I felt in those last days and hours as Qaddafi’s forces marched toward Benghazi. In a quite literal sense, every moment mattered, and the longer we waited, the greater the cost.

It was frightening to watch. I didn’t want to live in an America where we would stand by silently as a brutal dictator—using that distinct language of genocidaires—announced rather clearly his intentions to kill. In one speech, Qaddafi called protesters "cockroaches" and vowed to cleanse Libya "inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alleyway by alleyway."

Already, on the eve of intervention, the death toll was estimated at somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000. (This was when the international community’s tolerance for Arab Spring–related mass killings was still fairly low.)

As Obama’s advisers saw it, there were two options for military action: a no-fly zone (which, on its own, wouldn’t do much to stop Qaddafi’s tanks) or a broader resolution that would allow the U.S. and its allies to take further measures, including establishing what amounted to a floating no-drive zone around rebel forces. The president went with the latter option.

[creon]

5. with HIllary haters

facts are stupid things.

[pandr32]

8. It works if it is something they can twist and bash Hillary with

That's the extent of their "concern"--they couldn't care less about real issues otherwise it seems.

[creon]

9. true

I think that some Sanders supporters hate her more that they like Sanders.

[pandr32]

10. Yep--they have been trained

[creon]

11. They sure have

They learned their talking points from the RW noise machine.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Maybe there is a lack of knowledge of foreign affairs is the biggest problem.

[NuclearDem]

3. The hypocrisy has just been disgusting.

The people who cheered the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt simultaneously cheered Qaddafi's butchering right next door.

[Lucinda]

4. Thank you for this!

[creon]

6. No good options

The consequences for doing nothing may have been worse than what we have now.

The UNSC resolution was authored by France and the UK. It was, basically, their show.

[LAS14]

7. Thanks for the reminder! nt