The war in Libya has just started, and already the coalition is falling apart. On the homefront, it’s not particularly popular.
And it’s not hard to see why there are so many sceptical folks all around the world.
Michael Brendan Dougherty writing at The Awl has a great argument against the war. There’s almost no potential advantage to the US here. It’s just a cost.
You could blithely say this is about oil — the easy explanation for a lot of Mideast foreign policy — except that the best thing for oil cheap oil would be for Qaddafi to crush the uprising and get back, as soon as possible, to the status quo.
The best outcome, oil-wise, is that we turn the taps back on to where they were before.
Because the advantages to the US are so scant — no, Qaddafi didn’t pose a threat to us or our allies — it’s safe to assume that this war really is about the principal that people shouldn’t have to live under an oppressive dictator.
And it’s not like this was some huge civil war, with one side clearly on the side of liberal democracy. The rebels are basically down to one or two cities, and it’s pretty doubtful that the rebels, if victorious, would create a country that’s sympatico with US interests anywhere.
So basically we’re prosecuting this war not for oil, not for safety, not for alignment of interests, but for the right of a small group not to live under a dictator whom they despise.
It’s astoundingly principled that we’ve gone to war for that reason. Try naming another war in years that offers to little to the victors.
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.