Our geopolitical experts see the world with the innocent eyes of children (that’s a bad thing)
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 of the interventionists (certainly not hawks or warmongers)?
If we can intervene, we should intervene. Few consider possible adverse consequences; they tend to see only the benefits and the worst-case costs of inaction.
We’re too rich to consider costs ofmoney or blood.
We’re pure of heart and therefore can and should decide which government deserve to be overthrown.
National sovereignty is an outmoded concept. Excerpt for US sovereignty, which conservatives consider sacrosanct. Other nations opinions about US actions — such as torture, indefinite detention without charge or trial, and routine rape of prisoners (even children, see section 5 here) – are an outrage.
Gaddafi is a bad guy, therefore the rebels are good guys. A new regime must be more favorable for the US.
Of course there are good reasons to intervene in Libya. Rather that so many of the advocates present arguments that are little more than cartoons. These articles provide astonishingly clear examples: