From ALJAZEERA:
…There is no need to rehearse that history here since the failure of such past interventions to advance the humanitarian welfare or political aspirations of local populations is well-established. But because the possibility of intervention is debated in some circles as if the starting point is a clean slate, it is important to begin by recalling this dismal history. For instance, the imposition of a no-fly-zone on Iraq did little in and of itself to shift the balance of power against the Saddam Hussein regime, but it did result in the deaths of hundreds of civilians.
Further, the no-fly zone served as a predicate for the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq insofar as the ongoing use of this coercive measure against the regime from 1991 until 2003 was cited in support of the argument that there was “implied authorisation” to forcibly topple the regime…
The historical record clearly establishes that an external regime change intervention based on mixed motives – even when accompanied with claims of humanitarianism – usually privileges the strategic and economic interests of interveners and results in disastrous consequences for the people on the ground. Indeed, the discord currently evidenced among Western powers concerning intervention in Libya is precisely based in their doubts as to whether their strategic interests are adequately served by such a course…
Click here to read the full article.
At this stage it seems like a big mistake to dispose of the body so quickly. If for nothing else, it requires been kept to show the thousands of relatives of the victims of 9. 11 that he’s effectively dead. At the moment all they have is the word of the us government.
I can imagine that they want more and would perfectly understand should they do. It even seems unfair to them: this guy is responsible for the death of their family members and his body is afforded a rapid disposal supposedly due to religious concerns?