In one or two recent posts I have made so bold as to suggest that some of those supporting the current military intervention in Libya, but who were fierce critics of the Iraq war, are sounding a little bit like they now understand similarities between the two cases to which formerly they would have been blind. You know, 'massive and systematic violation of fundamental human rights', 'ghastly enjoyment of killing', 'appalling crimes against humanity', 'we did nothing for too long', that sort of thing. On the other hand, you won't be short of people to tell you that the Libyan case is quite unlike the Iraqi one: a UN Security Council resolution this time, multilateralism, not cobbled together on dodgy evidence, and so forth. This is argue-till-the-cows-come-home territory. Is an elephant like a rabbit because both are mammals or not like a rabbit because rabbits are small and furry? Is a watermelon like a grape or not like a grape?
Whatever you may think about it, similar to and/or different from the intervention in Iraq, the Libyan action is a vindication of sorts for Tony Blair and his doctrine of liberal intervention. An argument for that is made here by Dan Hodges. To it let me add only the following: in September 2009 Jonathan Freedland was reporting from the Labour Party conference how delegates 'agree[d] that Blair's doctrine of "liberal interventionism" is one part of the inheritance that should be dumped in the nearest skip'; yesterday, by contrast, the vote in the House of Commons was 557 to 13 in support of the UN-backed action in Libya. And today, reflecting this outcome, Jonathan writes that 'Most have not turned sour on the principle that underpinned that ideal [of liberal interventionism]: that in a global, interdependent world we have a "responsibility to protect" each other.'
Amen to that. Until very recently you could still find it being put about that Iraq had killed the ideal stone dead for the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future has turned out to be a short one. (Via.)