Summary: A child-like simplicity and innocence is the common element of the articles by our geopolitical experts advocating US military intervention in Libya. Here we examine them, and contrast them with detailed reports from Libya. This is the fourth in the series about Libya; links to previous chapters appear at the end. What are the common assumptions …
Summary: A consequence and contributor to the militarization of US foreign policy is a vast pro-war establishment outside the government. Often funded by government contractors, a horde of advocacy groups, think tanks, and academics exists to explain why the answer to most foreign policy challenges is a large military — or actual military action. These are warmongers, in the most …
Summary:Â There is a belief among some combat veterans that anti-war advocates “just have not seen enough people bleed to death”. They know that rapid intervention by America’s most highly trained and experienced warriors could stifle Qadaafi’s plans to unleash terror and death on the pro-democracy forces. Why would we stand on the sidelines and …
“You just have not seen enough people bleed to death” Read More »
Summary: Large military forces give us a greater range of options — but they also narrow our options. The existence of arms creates pressure to use them. Our ability to intervene creates a feeling of responsibility. Deaths following our failure to intervene become our fault (see Lang’s comments below). Yet military strength provides neither the wisdom or …
About attacking Libya – let’s give this more thought than we did Afghanistan and Iraq Read More »
Summary: Another crisis, more calls to invade. With maximum moral tone, minimum specificity about the costs, maximum use of euphemisms, and no mention of costs or risks. No need to wait for an invitation, since good hawks know those brown people are too dumb to ask for our help. Updates appear in the comments. Here are today’s readings.  The first …
Libya’s people need uninvited infidel foreigners to save them! Read More »
