|
My sinuses appear to have spontaneously exploded, so I'm not sure how clearly I'm thinking.
But I'm watching last night's Q&A, which I missed, and we've had yet another question on the topic: "So, there are violent dictators all over the world, why do we only intervene in Libya? IT'S OIL ISN'T IT".
Strangely, Julia Bishop, who I dislike quite a bit, is the first person I've seen actually give the relevant reply to this: Gaddafi declared an all-out assault on his people.
What's the difference between Libya and Bahrain, or Zimbabwe, or insert-dictatorship-here?
Tanks.
If you're going to intervene in most of these countries, what you're going to require is an invasion of ground-troops, reaching every city and population centre, because you're dealing with soldiers and policemen on the streets, firing on protesters with hand weapons.
This is a difficult and dubious process. Civilian casualties will be just about inevitable, and military casualties will be high on the part of the invading power.
The world does not have the moral authority to bomb cities, and the world does not have the military forces to go street to street in every one of them.
The difference is tanks and air strikes and heavy ordnance, rolling out to fulfil a pledge of "no mercy".
As a distinction, this isn't trivial.
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}