Libyan Civil War Megathread

[alfred russel]

I don't think it is a radical position that we shouldn't start dropping bombs and killing people unless we are quite certain that doing so is going to lead to a good outcome.   

I disagree. I think it is very much a radical position. I think fighting tyranny is a worthy endeavor even if we are not certain at all that we will win. I think it is a radical position to do nothing without certainty, since that position means we will never do anything, since the outcome is never certain, much less "quite certain". That metric would have resulted in the (excuse my Godwinism, but when is this a more perfect example?) triumph of totalitarianism.

The Brits and French would never have declared war on Germany using this measure. They certainly were not "quite certain" that they would win, or that the outcome would be "good". Indeed, the outcome for the French was defeat.

Your argument is perfectly suited to London, England circa September 1940. "Why in the hell did we ever support those Poles? We would all be better off just letting the Germans win than suffer this terrible war!"

Certainty is the wrong word. Let me change that to the expected outcome. And since war is a significantly negative summed endeavor, the stakes and prospects for success must be very high to have a positive expected outcome.

[Berkut]

I don't think it is a radical position that we shouldn't start dropping bombs and killing people unless we are quite certain that doing so is going to lead to a good outcome.  

I disagree. I think it is very much a radical position. I think fighting tyranny is a worthy endeavor even if we are not certain at all that we will win. I think it is a radical position to do nothing without certainty, since that position means we will never do anything, since the outcome is never certain, much less "quite certain". That metric would have resulted in the (excuse my Godwinism, but when is this a more perfect example?) triumph of totalitarianism.

The Brits and French would never have declared war on Germany using this measure. They certainly were not "quite certain" that they would win, or that the outcome would be "good". Indeed, the outcome for the French was defeat.

Your argument is perfectly suited to London, England circa September 1940. "Why in the hell did we ever support those Poles? We would all be better off just letting the Germans win than suffer this terrible war!"

Certainty is the wrong word. Let me change that to the expected outcome. And since war is a significantly negative summed endeavor, the stakes and prospects for success must be very high to have a positive expected outcome.

But that is an argument to make with those who want to engage in war with Qaddafi to overthrow him. It is a good argument before the war/rebellion starts. It doesn't apply to the decision about whether to support the rebels once the war starts.

The "expected outcome" is null. There is a hoped for outcome, and a feared outcome. The argument that the result at any particular moment is by definition the "expected outcome" or the feared outcome is a bit silly. We don't know what the outcome is of the decision to intervene yet. Quitting because we have not reached the optimal outcome already, a bare few months into the conflict?

Where would we be today if the US had quit after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor???

[Malthus]

The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. 

I think the experience of losing in the Revolution had them rethink their policy, at least with regards to their colonists, and helped them get back on the right track.

Yeah.

They should have treated those Yanks like they treated the sepoys during the Indian Mutiny.

http://indiaexplored.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/sepoy_mutiny_execution.jpg

[MadImmortalMan]

Heh. Cynthia.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-21/world/libya.mckinney_1_moammar-gadhafi-economic-policies-mckinney

[Caliga]

  The people that elected her insane ass to Congress should be ashamed of themselves.  They probably aren't, though.

[Barrister]

The Brits were on the way up, hitting their apogee in the late 19th century. 

I think the experience of losing in the Revolution had them rethink their policy, at least with regards to their colonists, and helped them get back on the right track.

Not really.

We had our own revolts in the 1830s, a mere 50 years later, and it was that (and the subsequent report of Lord Durham) which caused Britain to rethink their policy with the colonies.

Ironically the US Revolution probably retarded the development of self-government in the remaining colonists by the influx of loyalists.

[alfred russel]

But that is an argument to make with those who want to engage in war with Qaddafi to overthrow him. It is a good argument before the war/rebellion starts. It doesn't apply to the decision about whether to support the rebels once the war starts.

The "expected outcome" is null. There is a hoped for outcome, and a feared outcome. The argument that the result at any particular moment is by definition the "expected outcome" or the feared outcome is a bit silly. We don't know what the outcome is of the decision to intervene yet. Quitting because we have not reached the optimal outcome already, a bare few months into the conflict?

Where would we be today if the US had quit after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor???

I'm a finance dork. You make investing decisions in an uncertain environment, but can come up with an expected value. For example, you launch a new kind of cookie. There is a 10% chance it will work, and you will make $10 million. There is a 30% chance it breaks even, and a 60% chance it fails and you lose $6 million. Your expected value of launching the cookie is to lose $2.6 million (.1 * 10 + .3 * 0 +.6 * - 6).

I'd expect that the state department would do some sort of similar analysis before jumping into Libya (using different variables than just dollars, of course).

You are arguing against a bit of a strawman by bringing up the idea of quitting (not to mention a certain law regarding WWII): as I've posted, now that we are in I'm in favor of escalation, even if I believed before and continue to believe this intervention is a mistake.

[Valmy]

Not really.

We had our own revolts in the 1830s, a mere 50 years later, and it was that (and the subsequent report of Lord Durham) which caused Britain to rethink their policy with the colonies.

Ironically the US Revolution probably retarded the development of self-government in the remaining colonists by the influx of loyalists.

So Quebec is responsible for the glory of the British Empire eh?

[viper37]

Not really.

We had our own revolts in the 1830s, a mere 50 years later, and it was that (and the subsequent report of Lord Durham) which caused Britain to rethink their policy with the colonies.

Ironically the US Revolution probably retarded the development of self-government in the remaining colonists by the influx of loyalists.

So Quebec is responsible for the glory of the British Empire eh?

to be fair, the revolts occured in the Maritimes and in Ontario too, albeit at a smaller scale.

[Valmy]

to be fair, the revolts occured in the Maritimes and in Ontario too, albeit at a smaller scale.

Your modesty becomes you oh Hero of Britannia.

[Malthus]

Not really.

We had our own revolts in the 1830s, a mere 50 years later, and it was that (and the subsequent report of Lord Durham) which caused Britain to rethink their policy with the colonies.

Ironically the US Revolution probably retarded the development of self-government in the remaining colonists by the influx of loyalists.

So Quebec is responsible for the glory of the British Empire eh?

to be fair, the revolts occured in the Maritimes and in Ontario too, albeit at a smaller scale.

Yup - Mr. Mackenzie led a historic ... tavern brawl. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery%27s_Tavern

[Malthus]

Heh. Cynthia.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-21/world/libya.mckinney_1_moammar-gadhafi-economic-policies-mckinney

I have changed my mind.

They should treat *her* like the brits treated the sepoys.

http://indiaexplored.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/sepoy_mutiny_execution.jpg

[Berkut]

Separately, McKinney appeared on state-run Press TV this week in Iran. She was reported to be in Tehran attending the International Conference on Global Alliance Against Terrorism for a Just Peace.

just....wow.

[Valmy]

As somebody who is constantly wanting the US to reduce its international presence people like her and Chomsky are always embarrasing.

[dps]

As s human being people like her and Chomsky are always embarrasing.

fyp