Libyan Civil War Megathread

[derspiess]

Afghanistan is a great example. It was different in that we were fighting the Cold War, but in hindsight the war we helped them fight against the Soviets was a disaster. They may have won, but it actually eroded the cause of democracy and freedom.

How's that?  I think the mujahideen still would have won without our support.  It might have taken longer for them, using Chinese weapons instead of U.S. weapons, but I think they would have won either way.

[alfred russel]

How's that?  I think the mujahideen still would have won without our support.  It might have taken longer for them, using Chinese weapons instead of U.S. weapons, but I think they would have won either way.

Okay.

[grumbler]

Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... 

True.  What made it worse was that France had never been bankrupt before and Europe had never had trouble before.  No intervention was worth causinng trouble.

[Malthus]

Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... 

True.  What made it worse was that France had never been bankrupt before and Europe had never had trouble before.  No intervention was worth causinng trouble.

Excluding a middle much? 

Obviously, the French intervention in America was a well-thought-out plan, intended to benefit the poor downtrodden oppressed Americans, that ended well for France. 

[Berkut]

Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... 

True.  What made it worse was that France had never been bankrupt before and Europe had never had trouble before.  No intervention was worth causinng trouble.

Excluding a middle much? 

Obviously, the French intervention in America was a well-thought-out plan, intended to benefit the poor downtrodden oppressed Americans, that ended well for France. 

It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.

[The Brain]

Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... 

True.  What made it worse was that France had never been bankrupt before and Europe had never had trouble before.  No intervention was worth causinng trouble.

Excluding a middle much? 

Obviously, the French intervention in America was a well-thought-out plan, intended to benefit the poor downtrodden oppressed Americans, that ended well for France. 

It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.

Their German is terrible.

[Malthus]

It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.

Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.

A distinct improvement. 

[Berkut]

I think whatever the number is, it is quite a bit higher than if we let Qaddafi win. And I don't think the bar for success is "stable democracy in 5 years" anyway. The question is not "Are we certain that if we help the rebels will Libya will be a stable democracy in 5 years (or 10)". The question is "Should we support people trying to overthrow a dictactor, or should we ignore them?"

I think you are creating a false dilemna - saying that unless we can be assured of some outcome, we should not take action. If you use that criteria, then you will never take any action....ever. Because there are no sure outcomes.

The starting point of any decision needs to be that intervention could (and in this case has) resulted in a stalemate where millions have had their economic lives significantly disrupted, infrastructure has been destroyed, thousands of rapes and murders have taken place, tenuous routes for international aid are now needed to meet food and medical requirements, education has been disrupted, etc.

Is the level of intervention we are providing likely to produce an outcome that helps peoples lives to such an extent that the short term troubles are worth it? You can't just put a team democracy t-shirt on and say any price that by some small percent increases the chance of democracy is worth it.

Afghanistan is a great example. It was different in that we were fighting the Cold War, but in hindsight the war we helped them fight against the Soviets was a disaster. They may have won, but it actually eroded the cause of democracy and freedom.

Aghanistant is a great example.

The US support did not create the Mujahadeen, nor did it cause the Soviets to invade. That was a mess whether we helped them out or not.

This is the basic error you are making - you think that Western support is what is creating the "short term troubles". I think that is grossly wrong - they are going to have those short term troubles whether we help or not.

Once the level of tyranny became high enough (or lasted long enough) that people got enough sick of it that they were willing to endure those "short term troubles" in order to get the *chance* for long term freedom from that tyranny, chaos was the result.

There is no option that does not include the "short term troubles". The argument that we should sit back and let dictators butcher people and crush any chance for progress because it is better for the people who are actually willing to fight for the chance to overthrow them is morally bankrupt.

A bunch of people in Libya decided that they would rather fight and take on all the risk and pain that involves than continue to live under a tyrant. Your argument is basically that we should not support them because...well, because it will make it harder for Qaddafi to win, and the people in question would be better off just getting crushed, because the pain would be over quicker.

I think there are some good arguments to stay the fuck out. From moral argument dealing with our role as interventionists, to practical arguments about whether our intervention actually helps given how the West is viewed, to even pragmatic arguments about whether or not it is our problem or not, or whether we should expend our resources on someone elses freedom.

But the argument that we should not help because the people desperately trying to overthrow a dictator would be better off under that dictator as opposed to the pain of rebellion, and what is more, that WE are the best judges of whether or not they should be willing to endure that pain, is simply reprehensible.

"Gosh, we would love to help you in your fight for freedom, but you know, we kind of looked at the situation and decided that you guys really shouldn't be fighting to begin with, and are simply better off under the tyrant! What are you whining about?"

[Berkut]

It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.

Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.

A distinct improvement. 

No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.

[Jacob]

No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.

Yeah good thing. You couldn't compete with us on that score; Canada may very well be #1 when it comes to mediocrity.

[alfred russel]

Aghanistant is a great example.

The US support did not create the Mujahadeen, nor did it cause the Soviets to invade. That was a mess whether we helped them out or not.

This is the basic error you are making - you think that Western support is what is creating the "short term troubles". I think that is grossly wrong - they are going to have those short term troubles whether we help or not.

Once the level of tyranny became high enough (or lasted long enough) that people got enough sick of it that they were willing to endure those "short term troubles" in order to get the *chance* for long term freedom from that tyranny, chaos was the result.

There is no option that does not include the "short term troubles". The argument that we should sit back and let dictators butcher people and crush any chance for progress because it is better for the people who are actually willing to fight for the chance to overthrow them is morally bankrupt.

A bunch of people in Libya decided that they would rather fight and take on all the risk and pain that involves than continue to live under a tyrant. Your argument is basically that we should not support them because...well, because it will make it harder for Qaddafi to win, and the people in question would be better off just getting crushed, because the pain would be over quicker.

I think there are some good arguments to stay the fuck out. From moral argument dealing with our role as interventionists, to practical arguments about whether our intervention actually helps given how the West is viewed, to even pragmatic arguments about whether or not it is our problem or not, or whether we should expend our resources on someone elses freedom.

But the argument that we should not help because the people desperately trying to overthrow a dictator would be better off under that dictator as opposed to the pain of rebellion, and what is more, that WE are the best judges of whether or not they should be willing to endure that pain, is simply reprehensible.

"Gosh, we would love to help you in your fight for freedom, but you know, we kind of looked at the situation and decided that you guys really shouldn't be fighting to begin with, and are simply better off under the tyrant! What are you whining about?"

I'll blame us for the current problems because we have prevented one side from prosecuting the war in a way that will lead to it winning, while not committing to help the other side win. We set up the stalemate, and it wasn't hard to see this happening at the start.

I don't agree with "A bunch of people in Libya decided that they would rather fight and take on all the risk and pain that involves than continue to live under a tyrant" as binding the country to a course of action. Some people have done so—some people presumably would rather live in peace. Others still are backing Quaddafi. And I definitely disagree that we should assume "a bunch of people in Libya" overthrowing Quaddafi are better than Libya under Quaddafi.

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.   

[Barrister]

It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.

Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.

A distinct improvement. 

No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.

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

[Valmy]

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.

[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!"

[Berkut]

It did - had they not intervened, the USA would never have been formed, and the French would all be speaking German today.

Naw - they would would be part of the invincible British Empire, and all be speaking English.

A distinct improvement. 

No way, the Brits were already on the decline. French support for the US just made it so we were not dragged down into mediocrity with them, like Canada.

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

The writing was on the wall!