Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (
-   Diavlog comments (
-   -   Humanitarian Nonintervention (Robert Farley & Daniel Larison) (

Bloggingheads 05-01-2011 01:54 PM

Humanitarian Nonintervention (Robert Farley & Daniel Larison)

bjkeefe 05-01-2011 02:32 PM

Been too long since we saw Daniel hereabouts. Looking forward to this one.

AemJeff 05-01-2011 03:43 PM

Re: Hurrah!

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 206613)
Been too long since we saw Daniel hereabouts. Looking forward to this one.

Yeah, that goes for me, too.

Freddie 05-01-2011 07:58 PM

Re: Humanitarian Nonintervention (Robert Farley & Daniel Larison)
Thank goodness for Daniel Larison.

Ocean 05-01-2011 08:45 PM

Re: Humanitarian Nonintervention (Robert Farley & Daniel Larison)
Excellent discussion. Please invite Daniel regularly.

bjkeefe 05-01-2011 09:17 PM

Re: Hurrah!

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 206613)
Been too long since we saw Daniel hereabouts. Looking forward to this one.

As I expected, there was much that Daniel brought to this discussion that encourages deep reflection. The only criticism I'd make, and it's a very mild one: I wish Rob had, if only for the sake of debate, argued a bit more. I think it's not too hard for a smart guy who's been paying attention to find all the faults with the Libyan intervention, and so it might have been instructive for the audience, and a good exercise for Rob, to have challenged Daniel a bit more vigorously, despite his evident agreement with most of what Daniel had to say. Daniel was, it has to be admitted, speaking from the luxurious position of hindsight, even if he's on record as opposing the intervention from the get-go.

As I say, a very mild criticism, and only of academic interest. As a diavlog judged against other other Bhtv diavlogs, this was A-level at least.

Diane1976 05-01-2011 11:59 PM

Re: Humanitarian Nonintervention (Robert Farley & Daniel Larison)
Thanks very much to Robert and Daniel for a very thought provoking discussion. I especially appreciated that they talked about the roles of the other western players.

In terms of motivation for the intervention, misguided or otherwise, perhaps the whole context of the ME/North Africa uprisings was a bit left out. I think it's highly unlikely this intervention would have happened in Libya, were it an isolated incident, unless there was much more evidence to suggest a possible massacre, or some more obvious and immediate western interest than seems apparent.

The whole idea of downtrodden people rising up, apparently with some success, in Egypt and Tunisia, was really heartwarming to most people. And then, along came the Libyan protesters turned rebels, I think mostly in reaction to excessive use of force by the government.

The goal of western countries, including US, seems to have been largely, as was mentioned in the diavlog, to make sure they were seen to be on the side of "the people" as opposed to the "dictator", but not "meddling" in their own selfish interest, as such, rather, responding to the will of "the people". This could be seen as in their long term interest, to reduce hostility. It was a good point, though, that we easily mistake exactly who "the people" are and how much support the dictator really has.

Re, other coutries in the region, and why Libya and not elsewhere, I don't think there has been any sign from anybody inside those countries that they want outside intervention, but I might have missed it.

Also not mentioned much was the importance of the UN approval and what appeared to be support by the regional organizations, which might have meant more outside the US. One way to assess whether R2P goals, or at least reasonably high minded ones, are genuine, or a cover for self interest, is by how many countries, especially influential ones, with really diverging interests, support an intervention, or are not so opposed as to actually veto. Legality means something to some people, also.

Re Euro politics, I think there was some urge on the part of UK and France to assert Euro influence, as well as influence within EU, thus the disappointment at Germany's reluctance. But they actually supported the intervention, just didn't want to participate militarily, and some people still find that understandable.

I think it was a mistake to demonize Gadaffi so much, to refer him to the ICC, as, I think, the Indian representative said, and to create a situation were he has little option but to fight, and negotiation with him is practically unthinkable.

Meng Bomin 05-02-2011 03:56 AM

What, no hat?
This may be the first time that I've seen Robert Farley in a diavlog without a hat.

Meng Bomin 05-02-2011 05:33 AM

Re: Humanitarian Nonintervention (Robert Farley & Daniel Larison)
More seriously, having just finished watching the diavlog, I want to echo some of the previous commenters that were pleased with the discussion and want to add my name to the list of people who'd like to see Daniel Larison here more often.

I think that one of the most important points in the diavlog was made by Robert Farley here:
I think that in both political and popular conceptions of authoritarian regimes there has been a tendency to treat them as solely centered around their figureheads, which has led to weird cartoon depictions of events on the ground during the recent (and ongoing) Arab uprisings and frankly, I think that this type of "understanding" played a large role in our post-2001 wars, especially Iraq.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.