« Two traps in thinking about international relations in the 21st century | Main | Why the Libyan rebels will (probably) win »

March 21, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I dont know what to make of Yglesias on Libya. His response to Chait yesterday about how the existence of people who only want humanitarian improvements in Africa if they are accompanied by wars is really odd. The alternative to doing nothing is most likely widespread slaughter of civilians and Ghaddafi emboldened. The international circumstances lined up to make it relatively easy to push him back (though of course much more could yet happen). If you believe that there are moments when military force is justified, this would seem to be a very clear-cut case of one. Even if you accept the idea that the logic for Libya means we should be doing more elsewhere and we are therefore hypocritical for not doing so, that's not an argument for laying off Libya. How would that be better than the status quo?

Hey bud, you need to change your blog title to include North Africa and Middle East. What do you think of POTUS' speech this morning? Did Chilean sea bass and wine increase its stock value?

The comments to this entry are closed.