As the violence in Libya worsens, the U.S. has repositioned a number of its warships and dispatched 2,000 marines to the Mediterranean. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the troops were deployed to rescue refugees, but warned that "nothing is off the table" so long as Gadhafi continues to target his citizens. The U.K. and NATO are reportedly ready to launch aerial strikes if necessary. And don't forget, the Libyan ruler may have up to 14 tons of mustard gas at his disposal. Is now the time to step in and rid Libya of its murderous dictator before the situation becomes even more dangerous? (Watch an Al Jazeera report about Libya's growing resistance)
We must intervene now: We cannot stand by "while Libya burns," says Hussein Ibish at Foreign Policy. Not only would military intervention protect the Libyan people from "serious, sustained mass atrocities," but it would place the U.S. on "the side of the aspirations of millions of ordinary Arabs" — sending a message that the West is a "positive force for change rather than a guardian of the older regional order." It's our chance to be on the right side of history.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The rebels must do this themselves: This uprising has been fueled by the Libyan people, says Muhammad min Libya at The Guardian, and it must remain a "wholly popular revolution." Any intervention by the West would create outrage in the Arab world. Every attempt to "bring the East and the West closer" has failed, "and some of them have made things even worse." This war must be finished by those who started it: "The people of Libya."
"Libya is united in popular revolution — please don't intervene"
We should arm the rebels: Neither the protesters nor Western nations want U.S. soldiers on the ground in Libya, says Elliott Abrams, former U.S. deputy national security director for the Middle East, as quoted by Macleans. "But what about arming the rebels?" If the U.S. covertly gives Gadhafi's foes guns and ammunition via Egypt or Saudi Arabia, it could speed the dictator's fall. Do we really want to "stand by and see [Gadhafi] win it, and then wreak vengeance on the opposition?"
-
No Kings rally: What did it achieve?Feature The latest ‘No Kings’ march has become the largest protest in U.S. history
-
Bolton indictment: Retribution or justice?Feature Trump’s former national security adviser turned critic, John Bolton, was indicted for mishandling classified information after publishing his ‘tell-all’ memoir
-
Chicago: Scenes from a city under siegeFeature Chicago is descending into chaos as masked federal agents target people in public spaces and threaten anyone who tries to document the arrests
