Originally Posted by doggin94it
Well, for one thing, I'd say the fact that the triggering act was an assault on the US is a pretty strong sign.
A counter-argument on cause.
Perhaps the "Anti-Militia" Protestors are not, in fact, Pro-USA at all, but are:
1. Fearful of a potential American Reaction (i.e. missiles from afar in mass quantities).
2. Are of a differing, but equally extreme, sect of Libyan Society and see this as an opportunity to further weaken their internal opponents.
3. Are Libyan Nationalist (the side we helped in the War), and hence against militias (the side we blew up), but are as stridently Anti-American interventionism and as "extreme" is their ideology as the militias themselves are. So much so that if they were to become out of power, they themselves would form a militia then as well, invalidating the idea that this is a real, meaningful, socio-political change.
We would need far more evidence to know which of the possible scenarios (or which combination) is at play. Describing it as "GREAT News" for us is, IMO, premature at the very least.
No, it doesn't make one "automatically moderate" on other issues.
This was all that was needed, thanks. The rest, while interesting, is off-point of my question, and the lack of evidence of this being good for the U.S. as yet is quite clear.
When you're the side with the State and Government behind you, no matter how you feel about the U.S., you don't need or want alternative-poerblock militias. That fact does not equate to an anti-militia move in Libya being "GREAT News" for the U.S. or U.S. Interests in and of itself.
Again, while it MAY be great news for the powerblock currently in power in Libya that there is an anti-militia movement, it is not a de facto great news for us. Such a claim is premature, it could come to pass, or it could not. We don't know yet.