The West would do well to stay out of it, that is unless we want a whole row of Afghanistans. Western intervention in these things does not generally result in fewer lives being lost, and it causes resentment among the inhabitants of whichever country we're talking about at the time. The current trouble in Libya is a recent thing, and it may well only last a few more days. Western leaders can use diplomatic means to make it clear whose side they're on, and other non-military means. The one thing that will aid the religious nut-jobs over there is Western powers throwing their weight around, trying to "help".
Corrupt and brutal regimes are slaughtering their people in many countries, yet the West is only interested in oil-rich countries. Nobody helped the Sudanese, the Zimbabweans or the Burmese. How about Rwanda, which the US called a "local conflict" and refused to step in - 800,000 people get killed making Libya look like a play school. We just sat and watched. Nobody gives a toss because we can't use those countries. Nobody talks about invading China because they brutalise the Tibetans - too much trouble. Keep buying their cheap crap, give them the Olympics and let's hope they lighten up a bit. It's a bad joke.
Facebook didn't cause the latest round of revolutions - Facebook gets used in the course of events, like new technology gets used in the course of everything. Nobody blamed the telephone for the First World War.
|