Military intervention in another country's affairs is always a delicate situation and nowhere has that been proven more clearly than in Libya where France, the UK and the US have launched attacks based on a UN Security Council decision to create a no-fly zone there. The nations that led the attack were reluctant to do so without a UN mandate, but it was also a call from the Arab League for intervention that prompted action. Now, almost everyone involved is at odds over how to continue. The idea of limited military action is always touted as a justification for intervention, but it seems naive to think that such campaigns are controllable, especially in cases such as Libya. The intention of the foreign intervention was said to be to protect civilians from the indiscriminate bombing and strafing executed by Gaddafi's forces. That certainly is an honorable goal, but given the open rebellion and, essentially, civil war underway in Libya, a no-fly zone could easily be interpreted as support for rebel forces. Indeed, the discussion over Gaddafi's own fate is being conducted in secret by the foreign forces even though world opinion appears to favor deposing the long-entrenched dictator. Nevertheless, foreign intervention to overthrow a government often borders on being illegal. Even if there were an international consensus regarding how to proceed in Libya, it is still unclear who would replace Gaddafi if he were to be removed from power. A power vacuum in the country would be disastrous and produce even more turmoil than that which exists there now. The truly frightening aspect of the discord among the foreign countries taking action is the apparent lack of detailed discussion and agreement on the nature of the campaign. It seems clear that anyone calling for military intervention will have no control over the action. And, in this case, it seems apparent that a hastily organized campaign is no way to intervene. We expect more of the world leaders and want them to meet that expectation. __
