Eric, the flag you are talking about is the flag of the Berber or Amazigh nationality. They are an ethnic minority in Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria and are the remnants of some of the indigenous (originally non-Arab) culture. Gaddafi tried to stomp them out or pretend they did not exist. That flag was banned under his regime.
Willingness of international community to intervene depends on:
1) How great is the atrocity?
2) How disliked is the ruler by other countries?
3) How strategic is the country?
4) Are assets positioned so we can easily intervene?
In the case of Libya, it was a perfect storm. Gaddafi was going to slaughter a good portion of his second largest city. He is despised by both the West and Arab nations. Libya is very strategic both for its oil reserves and its location on the Mediterranean, and it is within striking distance of a good half dozen NATO nations.
Syria so far does not match up on any of those four to the same degree, but is moving that direction.
Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's rulers are considered "friends" by most Arab nations and the West. This keeps us more silent. I will argue that this is setting up a larger future implosion in the name of short term stability. They are, so far, not using heavy artillery against their own cities.
This is true. There are two "red flags" that autocrats (tyrants) in the Middle East have used to scare the West into either outright supporting them financially or militarily OR at least to mute criticism. #1 is the argument that their society is too backward/tribal/poor/unsophisticated to dare allow the masses to actually decide what they want. #2 is that the autocrat is the only thing standing between that raving horde and Israel/The West.
Unfortunately, we have bought that hook line and sinker and after the cold war began thawing it became one of the primary drivers of our M.E. foreign policy. Someone forgot to tell our policy gurus that tyrants eventually die or citizens eventually overthrow them. And afterward those citizens remember who supported the tyrant.
We owe it to our own long-term self-interest to apply the same standards to our allies that we expect of our own government...that they do so with the consent of the governed. Otherwise the hypocrisy becomes a foreign policy albatross around our neck down the road.
@Mark your analysis is unrealistic with respect to Libya. In Libya, the regime did not negotiate nor discuss. Those who resisted peacefully were threatened or tortured at best, disappeared or killed at worst. Research the 1200 (mostly political) prisoners who were slaughtered in Abu Salim prison in the 1990s.
Then look at what happened to the families who dared to even ask what happened to their loved ones who died there.
Then try to find out what happened to the attorney who tried to help those families.
Then look at how many of the peaceful people who protested his arrest were killed or beaten.
Then look at how many protesters were killed or beaten for protesting that event.
Discussing and negotiating only works when the ones with guns see you as human and let you draw as second breath after your first demand. Qaddafi's militia would have left few alive in Benghazi alive to negotiate with.
That was 1000 defectors from the actual Libyan military. The rest of the 'rebel' forces are untrained civilians who grabbed whatever they could find and got 5 minutes of training in how to not shoot their own fingers off. Saw interviews early on remember out of a dozen guys, most were students, shopkeepers, engineers, even one doctor.
At least 109 people have been killed in the rebel-held city of Misurata and more than 1,300 wounded in a week of attacks by forces loyal to Gaddafi, a doctor in the city told AFP news agency.
Eric, the flag you are talking about is the flag of the Berber or Amazigh nationality. They are an ethnic minority in Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria and are the remnants of some of the indigenous (originally non-Arab) culture. Gaddafi tried to stomp them out or pretend they did not exist. That flag was banned under his regime.
@Scott good question.
Willingness of international community to intervene depends on:
1) How great is the atrocity?
2) How disliked is the ruler by other countries?
3) How strategic is the country?
4) Are assets positioned so we can easily intervene?
In the case of Libya, it was a perfect storm. Gaddafi was going to slaughter a good portion of his second largest city. He is despised by both the West and Arab nations. Libya is very strategic both for its oil reserves and its location on the Mediterranean, and it is within striking distance of a good half dozen NATO nations.
Syria so far does not match up on any of those four to the same degree, but is moving that direction.
Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's rulers are considered "friends" by most Arab nations and the West. This keeps us more silent. I will argue that this is setting up a larger future implosion in the name of short term stability. They are, so far, not using heavy artillery against their own cities.
@Jason
This is true. There are two "red flags" that autocrats (tyrants) in the Middle East have used to scare the West into either outright supporting them financially or militarily OR at least to mute criticism. #1 is the argument that their society is too backward/tribal/poor/unsophisticated to dare allow the masses to actually decide what they want. #2 is that the autocrat is the only thing standing between that raving horde and Israel/The West.
Unfortunately, we have bought that hook line and sinker and after the cold war began thawing it became one of the primary drivers of our M.E. foreign policy. Someone forgot to tell our policy gurus that tyrants eventually die or citizens eventually overthrow them. And afterward those citizens remember who supported the tyrant.
We owe it to our own long-term self-interest to apply the same standards to our allies that we expect of our own government...that they do so with the consent of the governed. Otherwise the hypocrisy becomes a foreign policy albatross around our neck down the road.
@Mark your analysis is unrealistic with respect to Libya. In Libya, the regime did not negotiate nor discuss. Those who resisted peacefully were threatened or tortured at best, disappeared or killed at worst. Research the 1200 (mostly political) prisoners who were slaughtered in Abu Salim prison in the 1990s.
Then look at what happened to the families who dared to even ask what happened to their loved ones who died there.
Then try to find out what happened to the attorney who tried to help those families.
Then look at how many of the peaceful people who protested his arrest were killed or beaten.
Then look at how many protesters were killed or beaten for protesting that event.
Discussing and negotiating only works when the ones with guns see you as human and let you draw as second breath after your first demand. Qaddafi's militia would have left few alive in Benghazi alive to negotiate with.
That was 1000 defectors from the actual Libyan military. The rest of the 'rebel' forces are untrained civilians who grabbed whatever they could find and got 5 minutes of training in how to not shoot their own fingers off. Saw interviews early on remember out of a dozen guys, most were students, shopkeepers, engineers, even one doctor.
At least 109 people have been killed in the rebel-held city of Misurata and more than 1,300 wounded in a week of attacks by forces loyal to Gaddafi, a doctor in the city told AFP news agency.