[DiogenesKynikos]

Obama intervened in the Libyan civil war. The outcome was disastrous for Libya (13 years of chaos and counting, the entrance of ISIS into Libya, the re-emergence of slavery in Libya, to name a few consequences). Obama blatantly violated the War Powers Act, which requires the President to seek Congressional approval for any war waged abroad after 60 days. The act was passed on the tail end of the Vietnam War, to prevent a repeat of things like Nixon invading Cambodia in secret. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but that power is absolutely meaningless if the President can just wage war wherever he chooses without a declaration.

Obama specifically won the Nobel Peace Prize for talking about his "vision of a world free from nuclear weapons" as a candidate. As President, he initiated a massive program to upgrade the US' nuclear arsenal. It made a complete mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize, though Kissinger also won the Nobel Peace Prize, so it's not as if the prize has any credibility anyways.

[varjag]

The outcome was positive for Libya, as it experienced only a fraction of human suffering compared to Syria where the United States did not intervene against the regime.

Either way Libya operation was spearheaded by France with Obama joining only reluctantly later.

[mafribe]

Can you explain why starting a war (still ongoing), killing >10k people, and converting Africa's best functioning and richest country into one of the world's worst functioning places is positive outcome? I don't understand this.

The Syrian Civil war was clearly (in parts) engineered by the west. Here is some evidence.

- Western government spokesperson in 2003: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

- In 2014, the West officially intervened in the Syrian civil war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_intervention_in_the_Syrian_...

- Western government spokesperson in 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/...

- As of 2024 the West still has at least 1000 military personnel in Syria: https://theconversation.com/us-military-presence-in-syria-ca...

[varjag]

American military on the ground did not engage Syrian government forces except once in 2018 when they were attacked. They were there only for ISIS.

See the sibling comment for human toll perspective.

[DiogenesKynikos]

The US intervened in both civil wars, though in Syria its involvement early on was much more through funding and arming of various armed groups - notably Sunni fundamentalist groups. How you can say that the outcome was positive for Libya is beyond me. The country was utterly destroyed. It went from being the one of the most developed countries in Africa to a war-torn country with competing warlords and open slave markets.

[varjag]

Human death toll in Libya and Syria differ by almost 60x. Half a million Syrians could have lived, the refugee crisis and the rise of far right in the West could be avoided had Assad been droned in 2013. Putin would also not have dared the 2014 annexation either.

[DiogenesKynikos]

The US had hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground in Iraq for over a decade. More than half a million Iraqis died. There was intense violence between different religious groups and political factions. But you come here and say that everything would have magically gotten better with more US involvement in Syria.

A direct American intervention in Syria probably would have made things even worse. Droning Assad, as you suggest, probably would have led to an even greater amount of chaos (besides being totally illegal). It's bad enough as it is that the US funded Sunni extremists in Syria.

[varjag]

Notice how I specifically talked about Syria and Libya. I (along with a lot of other people) opposed Iraq war as well and it took you to pull it here for lack of consistent argument.

Don't see the point arguing with you further. Some day both Putin and Assad are going to be dead and I hope they suffer in their last minutes. I will be cheering while you will be mourning your tyrants.

[DiogenesKynikos]

You argued that the US intervening more heavily in Syria would have prevented all of the human suffering. I'm pointing out to you that the US' other interventions in the Middle East show that the opposite is likely the case.

Just imagine the chaos in Syria if the Sunni extremist groups that the US supported had won. How would the various religious minorities, like the Shiites, Alawites and Christians, have fared? What's the chance that the Sunni extremists would have carried out genocide against religious minorities? It's one thing to say that Assad is a tyrant, but another to say that everything would be better if the US toppled him.

In Iraq, supporters of a US invasion made the exact same argument. "Saddam is a tyrant? Why don't you want to get rid of him?" The US toppled him, and half a million people died as a result.

Your analysis - everything will be better if the US topples tyrants (and realistically, empowers people who might be even worse) - is very simplistic, and has a terrible track record in the real world.

[esafak]

The US did intervene in the Libyan conflict; they trained and armed the FSA, remember?