Boo and I have had a few arguments of late - largely because I feel he accepts the militaristic framing of political problems so beloved of the neocons even if he doesn't share their intentions.  He has also taken to bemoaning the responsibilities of being the world's sole superpower whilst not being shy of reaping the benefits.  

On Libya, he basically wanted Europe to do the invading and the regime change.  He argued that basically that was what the UN was sanctioning.  My point is that under international law, the UN can sanction no such thing.  Protect civilians, yes. Prevent human rights abuses, yes.  Ultimately attack Gaddafi forces if they violate the ceasefire, yes.  Overt invasion for the purposes of regime change crosses the line.

Europe isn't here to follow neocon framing and act as the USA has done in Afghanistan or Iraq.  Boo is now arguing that gross human right's violations are not the USA'a problem.  He's wrong on that score as well.  It is the responsibility for all UN members, and particularly Security Council members, to act.  But the solution isn't the invade first and ask questions afterwards.

It used to be US conservatives who were the isolationists.  Now it is US progressives - disillusioned by Iraq and Afghanistan - who take that stance. What we actually need is a more sophisticated model of graduated intervention, not the all or nothing approach Boo seems to be advocating.

Index of Frank's Diaries