The UN, and the bombing begins | Michael Tomasky

So the strikes will begin soon. I guess one has to say that this sort of thing is pretty much what the UN was created for. The 10-0 vote and the backing of the Arab League, taken so far as we know of its own volition, do show a genuinely multilateral and international approach to dealing with crisis.

Contrast this most obviously with Iraq, when it was clear that the US was going in (Bush still lies about this point, even in Decision Points, which is patently ridiculous, but he has to lie about it because to tell the truth suddenly after years of maintaining this crucial lie would destroy whatever vestigial credibility he retains). And when we bullied and browbeat other Security Council members into voting with us. And at least Obama isn't running around and making a humiliating spectacle of himself by bragging about the Marshall Islands being involved.

Contrast it even with the Persian Gulf War. There, Bush Sr. and Jim Baker did a somewhat more honest job of rounding up international support. And Iraq did after all in that instance invade a sovereign country (albeit one that was evidently taking some of its oil, a point many people forget these days). But even there, you felt Bush, a recession president whose numbers were flimsy at the time, wanted a good little winnable war.

This is a war nobody wanted. Well, not nobody. Cameron and Sarkozy wanted it, evidently. I haven't followed them closely enough to know their motivations, but let's face it, it's easy enough for them. In the back of their minds, they always know that if things get messy it's really the United States that will be left holding the bag.

Hussein Ibish writes:

So what changed? I think it's obvious: the Qaddafi regime appeared, in the past 48 hours, to perhaps be on the brink of a decisive victory, potentially pushing into and recapturing Benghazi, the rebel stronghold. If that happened, it would secure its grip on almost all of the country and probably be able to capture or wipe out most of the rebellion's troops and leaders. It is the prospect of this, and this only, that moved the international community so far and so quickly...

...What this means is both simple and profound: it was always coming to this, and the long period of pointless hesitation must now be viewed as a significant and foolish mistake.

I largely agree with the first point, but I respectfully disagree with the second. If the US and Britain and France had tried to ram through a resolution, Bush-style, a month ago, the world would not have been as united as it is right now. That may be putting it mildly. There's a price to the delay, probably, but there would have been a price to swift trilateral aggression too.

The die is cast. The only thing to do now is pray it works. Quiz coming soon, by the way.

United NationsLibyaUS foreign policyMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds