09-05-2017, 11:43 PM
(09-05-2017, 10:12 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The Libya analogy is nonsense. At the time of the 2011 intervention,
a major refugee crisis had already begun in Tunisia and Libya, with
hundreds of thousands of people pouring into neighboring countries,
and thousands crossing the Mediterranean to Italy. Muammar Gaddafi
declared war on the protesters and was threatening genocide,
especially in Benghazi. It was this refugee crisis that caused
Libyans to demand a no-fly zone, and for the Arab League to do the
same, after which the UN Security Council passed a resolution
authorizing a no-fly zone, which turned into the 2011 military
intervention. ( "5-Mar-16 World View -- A look back at Libya in 2011 as the West debates another military intervention"
) The invasion of Libya had nothing to
do with genocide and millions of refugees, and had nothing to do with
giving up WMDs.
While I agree Putin's conclusion is clearly mistaken and self serving, the Libya analogy does make sense. One can certainly imagine a situation where refugees were streaming out of North Korea into, say, China or South Korea, the Kim family decided that this could be somehow fixed through genocide, and others called for ending the Kim regime as a result. And It does seem likely that if Qadafi had nuclear weapons rather than having given up his nuclear program, Europeans would have elected not to destroy his regime.
The conclusion, though, is that we should avoid destroying regimes just for "humanitarian" reasons, not that we should avoid destroying nuclear programs. Destroying North Korea's nuclear program while leaving the Kim regime in place would be an excellent example to show third world dictators that getting nuclear weapons is not a solution.
