Protecting Civilians in Libya
Letter to the Editor: The Post was wrong when it described NATO’s authority in Libya, based on U.N. Resolution 1973, as “protecting civilians from government forces.”
Letter to the Editor: The Post was wrong when it described NATO’s authority in Libya, based on U.N. Resolution 1973, as “protecting civilians from government forces.”
“The success of Libya’s uprising will have a great deal to do with the willingness of its leadership to break its dependency on the United States and NATO,” said Bennis in an article on Alternet. She asks, “whether events so far are ultimately a victory for the Libyan people, or for NATO. Given recent models of U.S. and NATO involvement in overthrowing dictatorships, we don’t have a lot of examples of how it can be both.”
Emira Woods takes questions on what can and should come next for Libya.
Rebel forces claim that they need not observe Ramadan.
They’re at obvious odds with the ostensible purpose of the siege — to benefit the Libyan people.
NATO is shirking “Responsibility to Protect” in favor of regime change in Libya.
Jihadists see a window of opportunity in Libya.
Can mourning Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros more deeply than Libyans who are killed be justified?
Libya begs the question of how something as benign sounding as humanitarian intervention got such a bad rap.
There are rumblings that U.S. and NATO airstrikes on Libya might leave both mired in that country.
If giving up nuclear weapons doesn’t immunize a leader from regime change, what does?
“In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.” — AP
Should progressives drop their reflexive opposition to use of force overseas that’s not in the service of national defense?
Many on the left favor the Libya intervention.
Can an airstrike ever be humanitarian?