I see the NATO involvement in Libya as only very superficially different from Iraq.

[LadyLeigh]

Ok, so there was a UN mandate for some kind of involvment. Certainly
not one for regime change, but at least some kind of mandate. Bush
arguably could have had (i.e. strong-armed) one of those too, if he
had wanted to, but chose not to go that route, partially because he
was set on displaying that he did not need UN approval, i.e.
set on displaying disregard for the UN.

The "coalition of the willing" in Libya consisted mostly of the same
countries, the exception being France, which has a different government
now than it did then.

Libya is coincidentally, yet another resource rich nation.

We are told that the difference is that there was a "popular uprising"
in process in Libya. Arguably that was the case also in Iraq, although
the "uprising" there was in a dormant state for the time being. The "uprising"
in Iraq is known as "secterian tensions" or "Shia and Kurd militias" and
it certainly broke loose once Saddam was attacked.

The humanitarian angle was played well in Libya, but Saddam was just as
much a "monster" than Ghaddafi, who "used violence against his people"
to at least the same degree. Arguably the justification to remove him
by force under some "responsibility to protect" principle was just
as strong as in Libya.

We were told that "massacres were immanent". But massacres were happening
also regularly in Iraq for decades.

Then of course there were the lies. The lies about the motivations,
but more importantly the lies about the scope of the involvement.
In Libya we were promised "days not weeks" by president Obama.
That we would be "greeted as liberators" was implied. "Mission accomplished"
was declared once the capital was taken. Now we are more
than six months into the fighting, tens of thousands of dead later,
and despite regular reports that "victory is just around the corner",
there is no clear indication that the rebels will ever be able to
establish a secure hold on the entire country. It is hard to tell how
far the influence of the rebel force reaches beyond the capital.
Perhaps NATO presence will be required for years from this point to
"stabilize" the new government.

I should add that the rheteroic was exactly the same towards those
opposed to the intervention. The pro-war Democrats behaved exactly
like the Bush supporters, accusing everyone who disagreed on the
matter of being a supporter of "teh monster" (tm). I actually
see the war Democrats as almost a little bit worse than the war
Republicans, since they are even better at wrapping themselves
in "the humanity of it all".

I don't quite understand people who say they supported ousting
Ghaddafi on principle, but not ousting Saddam on principle.
It appears to me to be somewhat inconsistent.

[court jester]

1. KR

Libyan oil production to resume soon - NTC

The NTC is keen to restart the fields quickly to halt surging fuel import costs and to earn revenue.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/84860/libyan-oil-production-to-resume-soon-ntc

Fun with Libya War supporters: Ask them to name some "rebels" !

The next target has already been selected...Stay tuned...

[pampango]

2. I agree that conservatives love to show disdain for the UN, but then so do some progressives.

Juan Cole: Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq.

If Bush thought he could get a UN resolution supporting his invasion of Iraq he would have gone for it. That's why he had Colin Powell make his (in)famous presentation at the UN.

The fact is that he knew that the UN would not support it so he decided to ignore the UN from that point on. That made the Iraq War illegal in international terms (if legal in the US because he got congressional authorization). The case of Libya was the opposite - legal in terms of international law and illegal, at least arguably, in the US since congress was never called upon to authorize it.

[CJCRANE]

3. People in Iraq didn't like Saddam

but there was no active resistance, no opposition movement waiting in the wings to take power. It was very clearly an occupation, Bushco even installed an American "Governor of Baghdad" - Jay Garner.