Sunday, March 20, 2011

France and the UK

Incidentally, some of my liberal friends are reassuring me that the input of France and the United Kingdom means that I shouldn't worry about America engaging in another war in the greater Middle East.

Because, you know, when you think about a history of enlightened foreign policy, you think of France and the UK.

Update: The support of the Arab League is supposed to sway me? The Arab League is the tool of the autocratic regimes we are supposedly opposed to! If the Arab League was against this war, would that sway you? Would it sway anyone? You can check my record: I have never treated the involvement of the UN, or the "international community," or any other tools of governmental power as an excuse for military aggression. And when it is convenient for them not to, neither do the people supporting this war.

5 comments:

Petey said...

I'm agnostic on the Libya mission.

But it's worth noting that it went forward not because of getting France and the UK on board, but instead because it had the endorsement of the Arab League and a UN Security Council resolution behind it.

That doesn't necessarily mean the mission is a good thing. The devil is in the details. But whether good or bad, it sure is multilateral.

Petey said...

"The support of the Arab League is supposed to sway me?"

No.

I'm just saying that it's not France and the UK that make this a multilateral project.

I'm serious when I say I'm agnostic about this mission. The devil is in the details, and I don't know enough about the cost/benefit here to have a coherent opinion.

Multilateral doesn't necessarily make this a good idea. But it still is what it is.

Mike said...

Yes, "input."

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/20/libya_war_coalition/index.html

Remember the "Coalition of the Willing" arguments from the buildup to 2003? How we went to war side-by-side dozens of nations, instead of three that were almost entirely us?

Petey said...

"Remember the "Coalition of the Willing" arguments from the buildup to 2003?"

See, that's my only real point in this thread. This is fundamentally different than 2003 on that concept.

The Arab League signed off, and there was a UN Security Council resolution to validly act upon.

Again, I'm not saying that makes the Libya operation necessarily a good idea. But it really is different than what happened in 2003 in terms of internationally validity.

Freddie said...

Developing.

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/03/20/libya_arab_league_criticizes_strikes