BG, normally you'd be right about UN. But Libya's case, it was the French troops that led the military operations. There was another major European player helping France as well, but I can't seem to remember which country it was. The US specifically stayed out of the bulk of the military operations because their troops are already stretched super thin across Afghanistan and Iran, and the US is too broke to afford additional military spendings. They did, however, take the strategic/tactical leadership role at the beginning and handed those operations to France, and they contributed some of their Predator drones to some of the strikes. But for the most part, it was a mostly French-led effort.
The primary motive for western intervention was of course not out of humanitarian concerns. More likely than not, it was to secure a stable oil supply because that is of national interest among numerous nearby European nations. However, I would not say it is an invasion of Libya at all. Instead, the western world only wanted a stable Libyan state. Many would have preferred Gadaffi to stay in power in the beginning. But because Gadaffi was too stupid and stuck to his oppressive means in trying to crush the Libyan Arab springs movements, the western world were left with no choice but to side with the rebels -- to do so otherwise would have been contrary to their official national ideals, and the respective European and American governments would have faced massive protests or at least major resentment from their own citizens. In a democratic country, that would mean the governing party gets voted out.
So while the means may not be humanitarian nor democratic, the ends are still the same -- that the Libyan tyrant was overthrown.
-Lik |
發表於 2011-10-27 12:13
| 
