I'm very disappointed by this article, and I certainly hope that Ms. Dufka's opinion is not representative of the views of the organization which she represents, which I (usually) have enormous respect for. Yes, things are terrible in Côte d'Ivoire, probably worse than in Libya in many respects. However, as terrible as Gbagbo is, he has a constituency, and the Ouattara-Soro coalition isn't particularly rock-sold. The country is fractured on a number of different levels, and introducing an external shock like a military intervention will have consequences that are impossible to predict. In a volatile social environment like that, I doubt the consequences will be pretty. What if we get stuck in a guerrilla war? What if military intervention facilitates ethnic cleansing like it has in other places? Frankly doing nothing at least has the benefit of abiding by the "do no harm" principle. I agree that efforts at providing economic assistance to the legitimate government, squeezing Gbagbo's administration economically, and diplomatically isolating him have done nothing to alter the stalemate, but it can't last forever and is not an argument for an invasion.
An intervention would aim at "protecting civilians," but in reality its goal could be nothing less than ousting Gbagbo, since he is no longer the internationally recognized leader of the country. As far as international law is concerned, he is a warlord, and an international military effort could not just leave him in place. This means, in effect, regime change for part of the country, and the alienation of tens or hundreds of thousands of his supporters and their dependents. The consequences of this are incalculable. Ultimately the solution is political,and a I doubt very much that a military intervention could significantly alter the fundamental political stakes and end up igniting a conflict far worse than the current one.

We might have to accept the fact that maybe "we" just can't do much at all. Sad, but probably true.

Look, I first have to note that there is no doubt that the people of the Ivory Coast are suffering... possibly even more so than the people in Libya. All human life is sacred and my heart goes out to these poor people. I will say, however, that one must use some common sense here, at least from an American perspective. I honestly don't know how any serious person would expect the United States to get involved in yet another foreign adventure. While the rest of the world may (if they aren't as broke as we are) have some resources available to help out, the situation in Libya brings us to a slippery slope here in the U.S. How do we justify giving military aid to rebels in one country and virtually no aid at all another? I think many readers already know the answer to that question as far as things go now, but it is something that we must seriously consider in America as we are already in two... no, wait... three wars. This isn't even mentioning the serious fiscal crisis at home and abroad. I think it's coming to a point where we will have to re-evaluate our foreign policy of interventionism and decide if we want to rebuild our own country or blow up other countries. As Jon Stewart put it, "You know, wars aren't kids - where you don't have to pay attention to the youngest one because the older two will take care of it." It's time for the U.S. to start shifting the burden and making people around the world responsible for their own destinies.

Well that didn't take very long for people to start arguing that because we intervened in Libya, we should also intervene in other sovereign countries as well.

Is there any conflict today that Idealists (in the IR sense of the word) do *not* want to get involved in? Is 60 years of disastrous Western involvement in Africa, South America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia not enough evidence for you that things would probably be better if we didn't get involved?

Moral is moral. Unless Obama wants to be remembered for yet another potential Rwanda, we must intervene. This is a crazy dictator who does not have the support of the people, except for a few loyalists and want to commit murder.

And, lets not forget what is happening in Syria, for gods sake we know what must be done!! What does Obama want to be remembered for, except the potential genocide of innocent civilians in Syria. We MUST intervene!

And in Iraq, and in Burma, and in India, etc.

Or does Barack Obama want to be remembered for yet another genocide? That is what this is about, right?

I completely agree that the international community has forgotten about the Ivory Coast almost entirely. It is sad and we have to spread the word as to the crimes that is being committed by the government over there.

BUT this does not follow that since we intervene in one country we should do the same for another, although in both countries a humanitarian crisis may be taking place. And also it does not follow that either we intervene in both or do nothing at all. Is it better to aid one people and reluctantly not do the same for the other or is it better to argue that since we cannot help both, let's help neither at all.

The above argument went for military interventions, however when it comes to sanctions and things alike, I am completely with you.

How can we know who actually won that election if the UN, France and Mr Quattarra contineu to insist that the electoral papers CAN NEVER be recounted??? Even after the other two presidential contestants still dispute the final verdict? This one is not rocket science; An election was held. The result announced, Some parties objected to the announced result and asked for a re-count. What is the problem with that? Why not just go ahead and do the recount and save everybody the long crises? Ban Ki Moon who is slowly morphing up to be the dowdiest puppet in history went to the AU to argeu against a recount. WHY??? Why must Mr Quattara be forced on the people of Ivory Coast if some of them genuinely suspect his "victory"? The propaganda following the events in Libya and Cotdvoire is frightening.

Humanitarian intervention such as this author and John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and President Obama among others is a momentary feel good move. Our interventions must be strictly on America's national interest. Our strategic interests must be primary.

If any interventions were justified I would have to say the repeated use of poison gas, a weapon of mass destruction, as used over 250 times in Iraq against its own people was far more justified than going into Libya.

I am so very sorry to say that I believe that Libya is nothing more than a distraction from our critical national interest of requiring American to confront Iran. Is the slaughter, torture and hanging of gays, women, and children yearning for freedom against a raving Islamist government hellbent on producing a nuclear bomb, wink, wink for peaceful energy use, to wipe Israel off the face of the map less important than Libya? Where has Hillary and President Obama been on leading America against such a serious national interest threat.

Oh yes that is right busy trying to cram a peace treaty down Israel's throat without their input or participation. Nothing like systematically trying to destroy Israel which I might add most people in the United States of America recognize as our best friend and ally.

I apologize for being critical of the Obama Doctrine of only supporting America's enemies and confronting our allies with contempt

One must use some common sense here, at least from an American perspective. I honestly don't know how any serious person would expect the United States to get involved in yet another foreign adventure. While the rest of the world may (if they aren't as broke as we are) have some resources available sazky to help out, the situation in Libya brings us to a slippery slope here in the U.S. How do we justify giving military aid to rebels in one country and virtually no aid at all another? I think many readers already know the answer to that question as far as things go now, but it is something that we must seriously consider in America as we are already in two... no, wait... three wars. This isn't even mentioning the serious fiscal crisis at home and abroad. I think it's coming to a point where we will have to re-evaluate our foreign policy of interventionism and decide if we want to rebuild our own country or blow up other countries.