I saw this anti-war poster next to the Hopkins shuttle stop in Baltimore:
A mixture of probably true and not-so-true rhetoric about Libya. It's about oil! Well, partly -- but a single intervention can have multiple motivations, both humanitarian and otherwise. And then: "Attacking LIBYA is Attacking AFRICA!" which is helpfully illustrated with a map of Libya showing that it's, well, in Africa. This is a fascinating reimagination of the "all Africa is the same" meme. Another interesting observation: the poster is all about the Pentagon, with no mention of President Obama.
On the other hand, I think anti-war voices are healthy and helpful, even if the rhetoric is misguided. I'm torn on the Libyan intervention -- I believe it's justified, but I'm deeply worried about what happens next. Sometimes there are no good options, and the best possible option (intervening) can still lead to terrible outcomes.
Kristof provides this powerful justification that I can't get away from:
I’ve seen war up close, and I detest it. But there are things I’ve seen that are even worse — such as the systematic slaughter of civilians as the world turns a blind eye. Thank God that isn’t happening this time.
But another valuable voice is Alex de Waal, who doesn't have quite the audience of Kristof. De Waal shares these troubling thoughts:
Much of Libya is now ungoverned. That is particularly true of southern Libya. There has been little attention to the towns of the south, such as Sebha and Kufra, with no international correspondents there. These places are matters of great concern to neighbouring governments such as Niger, Chad and Sudan, because these towns have served as the rear base for armed rebellions in their countries, and rebel leaders still reside there. Gaddafi’s opening of the Libyan arsenals to anyone ready to fight for the regime, and the collapse of authority in other places, means that such rebels have been able to acquire arms and vehicles with ease. [....]
I spoke with one African military officer who welcomed the NATO action in Libya, saying “nothing could be worse than Gaddafi.” I suggested that he wait and see.
Update: Andrew Sullivan links to Daniel Larison's critique of Kristof's view that the intervention averted civilian slaughter:
Saying that the war has averted a humanitarian catastrophe is an extremely useful claim, and there’s no obvious way to disprove it. Outside governments intervened, and a humanitarian catastrophe hasn’t happened, and supporters of the war take it for granted that one would have happened otherwise. Of course, this is why they supported the war, but this points to the dilemma that humanitarian interventionists have. If they intervene in a timely fashion and don’t make the situation drastically worse in the process, there is nothing concrete they can point to that vindicates the decision.