Kristof: Hugs From Libyans - Great Column! #p2

[Pirate Smile]

Quote:Hugs From Libyans

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 23, 2011

This may be a first for the Arab world: An American airman who bailed out over Libya was rescued from his hiding place in a sheep pen by villagers who hugged him, served him juice and thanked him effusively for bombing their country.
Even though some villagers were hit by American shrapnel, one gamely told an Associated Press reporter that he bore no grudges. Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a “thank you rally.” They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives.

-snip-
This is also one of the few times in history when outside forces have intervened militarily to save the lives of citizens from their government. More commonly, we wring our hands for years as victims are massacred, and then, when it is too late, earnestly declare: “Never again.”
In 2005, the United Nations approved a new doctrine called the “responsibility to protect,” nicknamed R2P, declaring that world powers have the right and obligation to intervene when a dictator devours his people. The Libyan intervention is putting teeth into that fledgling concept, and here’s one definition of progress: The world took three-and-a-half years to respond forcefully to the slaughter in Bosnia, and about three-and-a-half weeks to respond in Libya.
Granted, intervention will be inconsistent. We’re more likely to intervene where there are also oil or security interests at stake. But just as it’s worthwhile to feed some starving children even if we can’t reach them all, it’s worth preventing some massacres or genocides even if we can’t intervene every time.

-snip-
Some Congressional critics complain that President Obama should have consulted Congress more thoroughly. Fair enough. But remember that the intervention was almost too late because forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi were already in Benghazi. Indeed, there was a firefight on Sunday right outside the hotel in Benghazi where foreign journalists are staying. A couple of days of dutiful consultation would have resulted in a bloodbath and, perhaps, the collapse of the rebel government.

-snip-
A senior White House official says that the humanitarian argument was decisive for President Obama: “The president was chilled by what would happen to the people of Benghazi and Tobruk. There were critical national security and national interest reasons to do this, but what compelled the president to act so quickly was the immediate prospect of mass atrocities against the people of Benghazi and the east. He was well aware of the risks of military action, but he also feared the costs of inaction.”
I’ve seen war up close, and I detest it. But there are things I’ve seen that are even worse — such as the systematic slaughter of civilians as the world turns a blind eye. Thank God that isn’t happening this time. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinio...ml?_r=1&hp

[jaxx]

Thank God that isn't happening this time.

Says it all, doesn't it? Change we can believe in.

I do laugh quietly to myself when the peeps get going with they shoulda consulted congress.....like that would have been a one day event! Every damn teabag committee would have had to hold hearings, it would have dragged on for months....and nothing would get done. Just like the budget....it would have languished in a week at a time land.

[Pirate Smile]

(03-24-2011 11:07 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Thank God that isn't happening this time.

Says it all, doesn't it? Change we can believe in.

I do laugh quietly to myself when the peeps get going with they shoulda consulted congress.....like that would have been a one day event! Every damn teabag committee would have had to hold hearings, it would have dragged on for months....and nothing would get done. Just like the budget....it would have languished in a week at a time land.

Plus Congress was on VACATION! And they have stayed on vacation for the following week. Should President Obama have waited for them to come back into session? I don't think that would have worked.

I just saw Jane Harmon on MSNBC complaining about this. She said that since Congress was on vacation, some of them had to call in to the meeting the President had with them and some of them had "phone lines" that weren't very good. She them mentioned that one time President Reagan had sent planes to pick up Congress people to consult with them on some military action.

It is all about them.

It reminded me of this tweet from Josh Marshall a couple of days ago:

Quote:@JoshTPM Members of Congress demand Libya briefings at their Caribbean vacation villas and recess fundraiser locations

[Julie]

I hope this continues to go well and the more in the Arab world join the effort.

Julie

[The Capitol Punisher]

(03-24-2011 11:22 AM)Julie Wrote:  I hope this continues to go well and the more in the Arab world join the effort.

Julie

To be fair, Qatar and UAE are involved.

[Cha]

Wow! Thank you for this Pirate Smile.

And, Dennis Kuncinich wants to throw around "Impeachment" so he can demagogue his constituents into joining in the Fundraising.

[Treestar]

Thanks for posting that, PS.

Now a Republican congress can decide if they are against military involvement abroad. Gee they were always for it before.

[nofurylike]

this is very moving. and informative.

thank you for posting it, Pirate Smile!