And Libya goes on...

[Dayuhan]

Why do I not see any reference to civilians here? Was their protection not the primary reason for the intervention after all?

Don't confuse the purpose of the intervention with the purpose of the US role in the intervention. Two different things. A specific US commitment to protect civilians would have been far too open ended and made it far too easy for the US to be pulled into a greater role than it wanted. The US role from the start was to use its unique capacity to create an environment where a NATO-led mission dominated by the British and French could pursue the wider objectives. The intention from the start was to scale down and hand over the operation once that limited objective was achieved.

Of course I know al about the inflated rhetoric used in justifying the participation (that was well overdone, IMO). Like most inflated rhetoric, it doesn't mean much. Looking at what was actually done gives a much better idea of what was intended. I see no reason to suppose that the US ever intended to take on the blanket role of protector of Libyan civilians, nor can I see any credible reason why the US should have or should take on that role.

If there is a stalemate it is because Obama wants it that way. If people continue to be killed and maimed in Misrata and elsewhere it is because Obama doesn't care. Gaddafi's forces could have been destroyed in a very short time had Obama wanted the military to do just that. He didn't. Obama has the blood of the civilans in Misrata and elsewhere on his hands.

Repeating that a thousand times won't make it anything but nonsense. The US has no more responsibility to protect Libyan civilians than any other UN member state... and the UNSC Resolution authorizes military action, it doesn't require it.

Agree with just about everything McCain is reported to have said (and have probably said so already). The bad news is that because he says it the Obama Administration probably won't do it.

Not sure though whether he thinks a negotiated settlement with Gaddafi is the final solution. If so we disagree on that.

What struck me about McCain's comments was the complete lack of any consideration for what comes after. he seems to treat the removal of MG and victory for the rebels as an end point in itself, which anyone who actually has power in the US can't afford to do. The primary goal of any US involvement in Libya, IMO, has to be assuring that the US is not sucked into any involvement in post-MG stabilization and "nation-building". McCain doesn't seem to acknowledge that getting rid of MG will be only the first step in a process that's certain to be long and likely to be an enormous mess.

My point is that in this particular case, people have chosent to change the regime.

Some people have chosen that. Don't forget that MG still has a substantial base of support, and there's likely to be conflict between those factions of the populace long after MG leaves.

I can see why US feels tired of being the sherif of the world. And France is not going to the replecement neither.
But there is a need to go deeper than just unwillingness because of possible bias, pitfall and what ever bad interpretation of such political line.
But still, it might be youth idealism.

If we're going to hold up humanitarian intervention as a goal, the first requirement has to be acceptance that neither the US nor anyone else can be "Sheriff of the world". Any nation stuck in that role would have to balance the responsibilities of that role with its own perceived interests at any given point, and with its responsibilities to its own people. Any nation in that role will be suspected by the rest of the world of using the badge to advance its own interests, and that suspicion will often be justified. if there's going to be a responsibility to protect, there has to be a way of sharing the responsibility for both the decision and the execution.

I've nothing against humanitarian intervention in principle, if it's used with caution and with appreciation for the full range of issues and potential consequences involved. I just don't want the US stuck with the role of making the decisions, executing the decisions, and taking responsibility for the outcome.