Trevor Loudon is making an extraordinary case that would suggest strongly the answer is not just yes but hell yes and that the UN’s Responsibility to Protect doctrine has everything to do with it:
According to Radio Free Europe
Those who justify the Libyan intervention on humanitarian grounds draw much of their logic from a concept which has dramatically gained ground over recent decades. The concept is known as “R2P,” shorthand for the world’s “Responsibility to Protect” civilians.
But what does this catchy little phrase mean? Where did it come from? What are its implications?
The United Nations reported in July 2009;
The Obama administration is supporting moves to implement a U.N. doctrine calling for collective military action to halt genocide. In a week-long debate on implementing the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, the U.S. joined a majority of U.N. countries, including Russia and China, in supporting implementation of the policy. The doctrine itself was approved in 2005 by more than 150 states including the U.S.
The doctrine specifies that diplomatic options such as internal conflict resolution, sanctions and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, should be used first. If they don’t work, then a multi-national force approved by the Security Council would be deployed.
In other words, if the United Nations does not approve of a certain government’s behavior, and that government’s leaders will not respond to sanctions and the threat of prosecution, they will be attacked militarily.
Trevor has much more, including names and profiles of those directly and indirectly involved.
It’s eye-opening stuff made all the more interesting when we juxtapose it with Obama’s decision to ignore Congressional approval before engaging the United States military in the Libyan affair and to instead seek the approval of the UN before committing our forces.
One can’t help but wonder where the imaginary line is that must be crossed before a President is seen to be a threat to a nation’s preeminence and autonomy.