Libya, Cote D'Ivoire and "Vital Interests"

Finally! A pundit draws the parallel between the humanitarian crisis in Libya and those further South on the continent. Ted Koppel on Meet the Press Sunday:

"The question hasn't yet been answered as to why it is that Libya , of all countries in that region , has won the humanitarian defense sweepstakes of 2011 . We have seen many countries, both in that region and throughout the world , where civilian loss and civilian suffering has been much, much greater. Congo for the past 12 years, we've lost about five million people. Sudan , three million people, never any talk of military intervention . Take a look at what's going on in the Ivory Coast today. Secretary Clinton was talking about the number of refugees that might have come out of a Gadhafi attack on Benghazi . You've got 700,000 refugees in the Ivory Coast right now- -close to a million, in fact."

Take a bow, Mr. Koppel.

Of course, the argument for Libyan intervention is far broader than the humanitarian rationale the president has been reiterating and that Koppel cited. Hillary Clinton made this point explicitly on MTP.

"I mean, did Libya attack us? No. They did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region and do they neighbor two countries -- you just mentioned one, Egypt , the other Tunisia -- that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders? Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration? And, you know, David , that raises a, a very important point. Because you showed on the map just a minute ago Afghanistan . You know, we asked our allies, our NATO allies, to go into Afghanistan with us 10 years ago. They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact they were not attacked. The attack came on us as we all tragically remember. They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya , we started hearing from the UK , France , Italy , other of our NATO allies. This was in their vital national interest . The UK and France were the ones who went to the Security Council and said, "We have to act because otherwise we're seeing a really violent upheaval with a man who has a history of unpredictable violent acts right on our doorstep." So, you know, let, let's be fair here. They didn't attack us, but what they were doing and Gadhafi 's history and the potential for the disruption and instability was very much in our interests, as Bob said , and seen by our European friends and our Arab partners as very vital to their interests."

I think that's probably the best reflection of the White House's thinking on this that we've heard. Not that that's going to silence the skeptics. If anything, this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink list of catalysts is probably going to stir the debate even more, since you can pick out and quibble with each individual rationale. And it's not clear that the totality of these incentives -- humanitarian, regional stability, Arab relations, NATO relations -- outweigh the statement by Bob Gates that directly preceded Hillary's explanation (which could have been directed at Gates as much as at the public).

"I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States , but we clearly have interests there, and it's a part of the region which is a vital interest for the United States."

Fascinating back-and-forth, and there's sure to be much more.