Interesting piece in The Atlantic . It highlights the ambiguity of the term ‘no fly zone’. It can only add to the concern of the sovereigntists who fear that ‘humanitarian intervention’ is ‘regime change’ by stealth. As I noted recently, the sovereigntists have appeared to draw a line on Syria. If this article is right, and Syrian opposition movements are now calling for outside military intervention, it poses the question of whether liberal states will / should go round the Security Council to provide that kind of support.
- Abdulmutallab Alexander Arab Spring Awlaki Blair Bosnia Brennan Cameron Cohen conservatism democracy promotion detention drones Gaddafi Guantanamo hierarchy humanitarian intervention ICC imminence Iran Iraq Iraq Inquiry Jenkins Kennan Kosovo Kosvo Labour Latif liberal conservatism liberal interventionism Libya military commissions moralism nashiri NATO neoconservatism New Statesman new statesman; liberal interventionism niger Palestine Preventive Military Action PSD10 Rawnsley realism regime change riots sanctions Security Council self-defense Stewart Syria targeted killing UN United Nations unreasonable veto UN Security Council veto war on terror WMD Yemen
- RT @estrangeirada: A good job opportunity for @POLISatLeeds @LeedsUniCareers graduates. twitter.com/involveUK/stat… 1 day ago
- RT @joshua_landis: You r correct that 4 many Syrians trapped under bad regime in 2010, life was v bad. But destroying state, as in Irq/Liby… 4 days ago
- RT @joshua_landis: "Most" arms being supplied to Syrian rebels were going to radicals - Washington knew this by mid-2012. Took 5 more years… 4 days ago
- Tragedy is US policy was guided by half measures when polit. reality demanded firm commitment either way #endsmeans washingtonpost.com/world/national… 6 days ago
- RT @SSPLeeds: Want to re-live your graduation? Watch it back online ow.ly/rcx830dv8DX https://t.co/BkoWiNzhcT 6 days ago