ToxicAdam said:
Libya is a clusterfuck. There is no win in that situation. Even though it's under the banner of the UN, everyone over there will still blame America for any tragedies that happen.
I highly disagree. This is not just another American meddling in the ME and won't dampen our image. On the contrary, it will better our relations with the Muslim world. Allow me to explain. The very first thing to take into consideration is the fact that NATO action lead by USA is a
response, not unprovoked
aggression. Secondly, Col. Gaddafi isn't liked in that region, and his favorability rating crashed into ground as soon as he started shelling peaceful demonstrators on the streets. Practically everyone in the Muslim world was glued to their TV Screens watching the events in Libya unfold. Things took an extremely troubling turn when Gaddafi gave a 48 hour ultimatum to Rebels in Benghazi (second most populous city) and his rhetoric contained even more worrisome language, such as "cleansing", "showing no mercy", "hunt down like rats door to door". This 48 hour ultimatum gave the UNSC required impetus to act immediately. During this timeframe, Sen. Marco Rubio asked one of the military chairpersons when will the UN implement NFZ,
"before or after the bloodbath?" Considering the fact that he was bombing and shelling his own citizens, Colonel Gaddafi's actions have made him the common enemy of Islamic extremists, moderates and the west alike. This will go down as a popular and much liked decision in the Muslim world, similar to how Clinton's leadership on forming NATO alliance against Slobodan Milosovic turned out to be much liked and appreciated decision.
Anyways, the situation looked like foxes surrounding a henhouse and Al-Jazeera's continued coverage of the pro-democracy movement in middle-east, sometimes with a sympathetic view, changed the perception of intervention over in that region. The fact that US was seen as indecisive over the creation of NFZ was creating discord in the region, leaving some to believe that USA doesn't really care about Muslims and wants a continued relationship with Gaddafi and his oil fields. But these perceptions were shattered when USA ponied up support quickly after Clinton's meeting with rebels and spearheaded NFZ resolution in UNSC. The NFZ had the unprecedented support of UN, Arab League, OIC, European Union and African Union, something Iraq war 2003 was lacking dearly. This NATO intervention is seen as an answer to rebels' prayers, who have already won favor with the Muslim world.
Libyan state TV under Gaddafi will try to blame some deaths on NATO missions, but barring any major incident, everyone in that region can see through the Colonel's lies.
The Experiment said:
A concern I don't think is mentioned too often is that it might start a precedent where we feel obligated that we have to assist every Arab uprising militarily because if we did it for Libya, why leave Bahrain or Yemen in the dark? What about Saudi Arabia? If we invade Libya but leave Saudi Arabia alone, people will piss and moan that we left them behind due to the oil. It will cause us to get entangled in a multibillion dollar (at a time where we can least afford it) clusterfuck that will get blamed on us.
Again, Libya is a different animal compared to other on-going protests. None of those other countries have had their leaders drop bombs on the protesters. Libya devolved into an armed rebellion as soon as the first bomb dropped on the demonstrators, and within couple of weeks Gaddafi was looking at slaughtering an entire city using his military might. When leaders in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria start using military against their own citizens, UN will come into action.
