= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sight comments on Open Thread, January 11-17, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (180)
So what about Libya? What about the fight against ISIS? The former was a quick-strike operation that caused the country in question to go to hell fast. The latter is an example of things going to hell so badly after a "successfully ended operation" that we had to intervene again.
As compared to what alternative? There is no success condition for large scale ground operations in the region. If the criticism of the current administration is "failed to correct the lack of strategic acumen in the Pentagon" then I would agree, but I wonder what basis we have for expecting an improvement.
It seems to me we can identify problems, but have no available solutions to implement.
Well, not intervening in Libya for starters.
What are your criteria for good foreign policy choices then? You have conveyed that you want Iraq to be occupied, but Libya to be neglected, so non-intervention clearly is not the standard.
My current best guess is 'whatever promotes maximum stability'. Also, how do you expect these decisions are currently made?
I wouldn't object nearly as much to occupying Libya as to what Obama actually did. Namely, intervene just enough to force Gaddafi out and leave a huge mess.
Actually I would still object, but that's because Gaddafi had previously abandoned his WMD program under US pressure. So getting rid of him now sends a very bad message to other thrid world dictators contemplating similar programs.