Qaddafi vows to keep fighting (for his tyranny) and says he will "die as a martyr at the end."
Sounds good to me. Over to you, Libyan people.
**********
Qaddafi also claims that he "not yet ordered the use of force, not yet ordered one bullet to be fired... when I do, everything will burn."
Bullshit.
**********
**********
According to CNN, citing a senior U.S. military official, "the Pentagon is looking at 'all options' it can offer President Barack Obama in dealing with the Libyan crisis."
"Our job is to give options from the military side, and that is what we are thinking about now," the official said. "We will provide the president with options should he need them."
It makes sense for the military to provide the president with military options, even if they're not at all desirable, but it would be a terrible idea for the U.S. to intervene militarily in Libya. At most, it could provide humanitarian and other support in the event the Qaddafi regime falls.
Still, what to do if Qaddafi unleashes even greater force and crushes the protest movement in the streets and wherever else he can find it? At what point does U.S. military intervention of some kind -- say, as part of a broad international force that includes even some Middle Eastern states -- become defensible?
The pro-democracy movements in the region -- in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Bahrain -- have met with some internal resistance but not with the sort of force Qaddafi has already unleashed. This situation in Libya is much different than the situation in Egypt. Mubarak basically faded away after a brief period of intransigence, while Qaddafi is clinging to power with all his might. And so the U.S. and others must respond differently. But how?
No comments:
Post a Comment