But how would Boeing & friends make money?

In our latest column, Medea Benjamin and I take on the "humanitarian" case for war in Libya and argue that, instead of the currently vogue cruise missile liberalism -- which, by the way, entails not just bombing dictators, but those forced to live under them -- the U.S. government would be better off simply ending its practice of funding, arming and otherwise propping up dictatorial regimes that oppress their own people. Rather than fire cruise missiles that will inevitably kill the people they are ostensibly being fired to save, the U.S. could simply stop providing such deadly weapons to the not-so-good folks in client-states like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain.

That assumes, of course, that the U.S. and its coalition partners' motivation is protecting innocent life wherever it may be threatened and not, let's say, safeguarding certain natural resources and corporate investments. I have my doubts.