Because politicians accept limitations on their own power and NATO does anything without its members agreeing.
Politicians created constitutions, the NATO charter, the UN ext. Whilst there are Nixon's out there I don't think most politicians are, Sure they may be self adsorbed, double down or switch sides too much (depending on who) but I will argue most understand the limitations on power.
If they're universally willing to push boundaries why were so few of the US's European allies in the second Gulf War?
Observing in a symbolic resolution
And calling for more action and specifically listing a coarse of action that can be taken. I really don't see why you think the fact they were urging something and giving a specific action should be overlooked.
that the possibility could exist for needing to implement a No-Fly Zone is not an endorsement or approval of one. Observing that an eventuality may be necessary in a symbolic measure in one house of Congress is not equal to approving of that eventuality. No matter how you slice it, observing that one might me necessary later is not permission to have one, and your continued conflation of the two is at best disingenuous.
With respect considering how you've made inaccurate assumptions about my views on conflicts I have not commented on I would advise that you don't make assumptions about my beliefs and if you really think I'm disingenuous report my posts for trolling. Otherwise drop it as its not conductive to civil debate.
On the document: It was part of a resolution where they were urging for more action to be taken and mentioned only one coarse of action.
It did not help matters. Losing Washington mattered more.
The fall of regimes on both sides had no bearing on Libya?
The protestors in Libya were encouraged but I don't see it effecting Gaddafi as he had been in his own universe since the 1980s. (When he conducted state terrorism). And Obama and other leaders probably hoped it meant they would not have to be involved in a conflict in the region.
If your whole argument is that the Libyan incursion was necessary because the Libyan government's tactics in Benghazi may have constituted war crimes, and you're acknowledging that Saddam Hussein did face justice for his crimes, it sounds like you're saying Libya was a failure.
The mission was an air campaign there was no way to make sure Gaddafi would be captured without directing the rebels and having 100% confidence in knowing where he is.
No American administration since 9/11 has wanted to engage in any sort of medium to long term planning in the adventures abroad. I thought Barack Obama and his team were cognizant of the Pottery Barn rule given their critique of the Iraq War, which, relative to Libya, has been a success. You've yet to make clear why Libya escalating required NATO intervention but Syria escalating did not. Is it really simply a matter to you of NATO members voting to intervene or not?
I have not commented on Syria in this discussion. If you really want me to, the main difference between Assad and Gadafi is that the former did not alienate the Russians whilst the latter did. I Believe a no fly zone, like the ones in Iraq during the 1990s, should have been established but there was hesitation mostly from a lack of willingness to commit against a state with allies that had veto power on the Security Council.
Now you claim not wanted whilst that is to a certain extent true with Bush Jr and Cheney I will argue its not true of Obama. Considering the planning in the Pacific Orientation that kept getting sidetracked by events in the Middle East and Europe I argue planning is in his nature but he was President during times of unexpected events. Before the Russians invaded Ukraine how many predicted they would, especially when they didn't during the Orange Revolution.
Wait, the point was not to shield civilians from attack, but from attack by a particular person? Things in Libya are objectively worse; if your point of view is correct, NATO should still be engaged in theater. There are far more refugees than there otherwise would be.
I honestly do believe there would have been more due to examples of how Gaddafi handled matters at the height of his power.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/06/28/libya-june-1996-killings-abu-salim-prison#
In the summer of 1996, stories began to filter out of Libya about a mass killing in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison. The details remained scarce, and the government initially denied that an incident had taken place. Libyan groups outside the country said up to 1,200 prisoners had died.
Now that is near the top of the higher estimations for both conflicts in Libya.
A just conflict is one which has the approval of the correct politicians. If that's your position, then fine, but it's not as though interventions put before the alliance are turned down.
Why do you think NATO involvement was not sought in the 1991 Persian Gulf War?
My positions is that that liberal interventions are more interested in building coalitions and following international law. Bush jr and Cheney went into Iraq after the Security Council (including European allies on it) ruled against invading and weakened US influence in several allies . Clinton, Al-Gore and Obama would not have invaded anywhere after being told no by the Security Council.
On the First Gulf War, probably because the Saudi wanted to minimize the amount of 'infidels' stationed on their territory and the number of states in the immediate region reduced the need for NATO and perhaps being nervous about the fighting capabilities of the Iraqi army. As many were fearful of a blood bath prior to Desert Storm commencing.
Why was UN support necessary for your peacekeeping force if it was appropriate for them to outsource to NATO the air campaign initially?
The UN does not have an air force but does have peacekeepers so I'm not sure how seriously I should take this point.
Have there not been other recent black swan events that avoided so reckless a response? I really don't know why you're defending this when even President Obama has admitted that they dropped the ball.
The most recent edit comperable end edit blackswan event aside from the Arab Spring was the fall of the Warsaw pact and those governments did not have as many loyalist troops left.
I was thinking that the change had been earlier in the Obama presidency.
Maybe but I haven't found anything earlier than the 2016 story.
Must be why Bashar al-Assad is still in power.
If he did not have the Iranians and Russians on side how do you think he would be fairing?
It's called damage control and getting ahead of a story.
The problem with that hypothesis is considering none of the reports in Libya ever made contact with these groups that there was not there numbers needed for admission.
Libya was not a focus over the past few years because it was cooperating with western intelligence on weapons proliferation and terrorism.
If the Saudis starting killing masses of civilian protests would you be happy for nothing to be done? Heck are you happy with Trump continuing the weapons sales deal in light of their embassy murder. Or him not even trying to curb their actions in Yemen?
Democratic partners of the US believed Gaddafi should go, and I would find it disconcerting if the US stuck by him.
Regimes which have not remain in power despite behavior as egregious if not more so than Colonel Qadhafi's.
But Gaddafi was more diplomatically isolated so a census could be built.
Also, unless they're worried about underground bunkers, legitimate targets in Libya can be observed fairly well from satellites. I can appreciate that thy want to minimize civilian deaths, but I don't know how that requires enough personnel on the ground that the government allows their presence to be acknowledged as it is occurring.
None of the reporters in Libya (or rebels for that matter) ever accidentally showed these groups in action so I'm not confident that point was actually reached.