Would you support a UN sanctioned hit on a dictator instead of 'no-fly' zones?

I get that any type of military solution will most likely entail some collateral damage. I tend to balance such damage against the likely or proven results of doing nothing. So what are the options? I think one viable option would have been to have the UN vote to give a Gaddahfi (sp?) a simple option - get out or get assassinated. Give him 48 hours to leave. If he refuses to step down, put a UN sanctioned hit on his head. Maybe $10MM to get it done. Obviously, there has to be a significant majority of members in the UN to agree to such a measure, but would that not accomplish the goal of removing a criminal dictator without punishing the people and infrastructure of Libya? Wouldn't that also have been the way to go in Iraq? If this proves ineffective (Gaddahfi remains bunkered down), the option for military action could always be put back on the table.

Given the huge advantage a dictator like Gaddahfi has in modern military technology and assets at his disposal, allowing him to remain in his leadership position reaffirms the principle 'might makes right'. It's foolish to think that democracy can ever be realized in countries where this type of imbalance occurs. In the old days, people could uprise against a dictator because military technology was relatively crude and the equation favored the side that could muster the popular will of the majority. That equation no longer works.

Seems to me, when a dictator starts using these modern military assets against the civilian population, he loses his moral authority to lead.

I'd also suggest that such an approach, utilized effectively a few times against murderous, anti-democratic dictators, would change the mindset of current/future dictators to rethink their attitude on indiscriminately slaughtering their people to maintain their power....unless they have a death wish.

What kind of doublespeak is going on here?

I can only guess at the rationale at this point but it's generally a diplomatic principle that you never assasinate a foreign leader. Maybe it's to prevent asassination from becoming an acceptable tactic, or maybe it's just that all the other leaders have skin in the game, being leaders themselves. But this thing is treated like it should never be done.

But that kind of goes to the heart of the situation. We can bomb the shit out of Libya and maybe kill Gaddahfi in the process, but scores of innocent people will die in such an action. Isn't that what happened in Iraq?

I don't take this lightly and I don't think this should be up to the Security Council. There has to be a clear and significant majority of the UN's General Assembly to support it. But what other viable options do we have? Just sit back and let the genocide go on without attempting to stop it?

Or play a high-stakes game of chess. Or something. They're generally the ones who benefit, so.....

there would be major repercussions. Right now the people are on our side. If Walker is taken out, not only will moderates complain and get angry, but it would give carte blanche to assholes on the right who will target liberals and progressives.

and if Gaddafi and his closest associates died in such an action no one would mourn. It's what should have happened with Saddam.

I doubt that such an action would garner more support than a 'no fly zone' here.

Or perhaps you're in the "No - There are better options, I just can't think of any." camp?

but it is politically too nasty...don't want to get their hands dirty, at least not in public...that's why we all have special forces.


mark

Make this a private matter, and give an outfit like Blackwater/Xe a chance to truly earn their keep.

One person, one (well, you get the idea)

Each country can then deny any knowledge of the matter, since many have a score to settle with the bastard anyway.

:sarcasm:

Even if saves lives, it creates quite a precedent. I think the UN action defined the mission pretty well.

Are we the land of renditions, torture, Patriot Acts, war crimes and their cover ups, of Wall Street Bandits ripping us off without a worry of prosecution?
Are we a land of assassination?

What has happened to America?

To be sure, Gaddafi is insane. He had a commercial jet blown up, killing hundreds. He has posed a danger to other nations, and to his own people.
But, does America run assassinations? Is that what we want from this nation?

Personally. I don't think the US should stand for the status quo that allows dictators to subjugate civilian populations

Some users here say trials of dictators are just for show, but IMO it's kind of a human right, even for scum like them. Plus we get interesting last words (a bit mean?) and to see how they react to just being any other person on trial. =\

Just any old dictator, no. A dictator doing something heinous like Gaddafi is right now, one would think yes, but there's a lot of problems with that. Dictators tend to be extremely unaccessible exactly because of their fear of assassination. They always have someone (usually a family member) just as despicable waiting in the wings to take over. Even wiping out the whole family wouldn't be enough since some other person close to the dictator would then attempt to take over. There would also normally be chaos because of fights between those wanting to be the one to take over.

Because of all these problems contemplating assassination inevitably leads to the realization that "regime change" is the only workable solution, since just assassination isn't going to solve the problem and likely will make the situation even worse. Once a dictator needs to go, the whole of their system needs to die with them and the power vacuum needs to be replaced with something and someone better. And once you get involved in doing this with another country, you're far too much involved. Yet another reason why it is so important that a country with an internal conflict needs to deal with it themselves so that THEY are making all these decisions for themselves... it's THEIR country. There are, of course, many ways to HELP them do it themselves so long as they want help... aid, advice, intelligence, organization, evacuations, refugee camps, training, etc. Once you get so involved that you make yourself part of their war militarily you are far too much involved.