« reflections on obama | Main | hillary's had enough »

March 16, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


o you think it will only be a strategic defeat because the West have mishandled the situation so badly?
Gadaffi is of course a revolting individual but in recent years he hasn't been (has he?) a strategic threat to the West. The U.S. & allies could have put out some suitably outraged press releases and gone no further;I realise that's a brutally cold realpolitik option.
Instead you've got Cameron and the French charging around and the U.S. being indecisive, and Gadaffi will slaughter the rebels and hate the West again. Worst of all worlds?

I wonder what Blair would have done.


He hasn't been a strategic threat because he's been made to feel part of the international community again. Not any more. Now he owes his survival to nobody but himself, and he will have sufficiently weakened his internal opposition (mostly by killing) them to feel newly confident and empowered to do what the hell he likes.

Cameron, to his credit, has been the only Western leader to sound slightly alarmed at the prospect of Gadaffi hanging on.


Sarkozy too surely?

I meant to say, Gadaffi will react against the West because of the bellicosity of the no fly zone etc proponents- and that possibly if they'd followed Robert Gates' lead, things might have returned to normal after a suitable period.
Gadaffi's internal opposition never had an effect on his relations with the West anyway, did it?

I don't think Obama's handling this well, but he's entitled to feel annoyed about other countries demanding a no-fly zone that he'd be responsible for, I think.

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics


my other places