Thus far the basic questions being asked are:
Should we have intervened militarily in the first place?
What is the mission?
How will it end?
How much will it cost?
Is it really in the best interests of the United States?
Who are the rebels, and what assurance do we have that they will be friendly to the U.S. if they should overthrow Qaddafi?
Why are we focusing on Libya and not threatening to intervene in Bahrain and Yemen?
I think some of the questions that we need to answer are:
What is really happening in the Middle East?
What are the driving forces?
How does it differ country-by-country?
What is the nature of tribal politics?
How strong are tribal allegiances – and how do they differ in the cities and in the countryside?
What models have succeeded in countries with strong tribal divisions?
What models have succeeded in countries with major religious differences?
When is force necessary and under what auspices?
The experts we need to ask are not the policy wonks that are part of the debate on television, but with social anthropologists, multilingual historians, and political theorists – preferably not associated with partisan think tanks.
But it is rare to see any of them interviewed – much less a serious discussion.
With a couple of exceptions – CSPAN and NPR.
Most media outlets seem to prefer theatrical confrontation. Is that really what the public wants? And if it is, what does that say about our society? –js
