We are now entering the third day of the US intervention in Libya. Some are saying that the US is doing too little and acted too slowly, others claim any intervention is unwise and doomed to failure. Obama has come under fire in the past weeks and many have claimed he is showing weakness in his response to the civil war in Libya, and that he is following the women (Hillary Clinton) to war.Despite the rhetoric several things are sure. First the United States has opened up a third war front that happens to be in a Muslin majority country. Second, inaction by the United States and our allies would have result in the slaughter of innocent Libyans and an even more dangerous and delusional Gaddafi. I would like to argue that Obama is not displaying either weakness at this point and that is remains to be seen if he will display wisdom, but rather indecision and lack of a clear plan. He fault has been allowing himself to be pushed by others. Compounding this is his indecision which may have had the same result as weakness (innocent people dead). Lastly, if the US is to be involved in Libya there are certain guidelines that we should abide by.
When the UK and France pushed for military intervention in Libya I could not have been more happy. It is true that the US is the leader of the free world, but we are not, nor do we have the resources be to, the sole protector of liberty and democracy in the world. It is great to see some European powers stepping up and being willing to shed some blood to uphold and protect innocent lives. It is true that both the UK and France have vendettas against Gaddafi, but who doesn't? I believe that Obama's decision to let the US take a more support role is wise (fueling planes, using navel batteries etc...). To be sure the role of the American military has been huge, but limited in nature. The President has assured us that no boots will be on the ground and this will hopefully be the case. See above video .... There is a difference between weakness and knowing ones limitations. However, the President should have been clear on his stance and should now put a time limit on US involvement. Also, by continually stating that "Gaddafi must go..." he may be committing the US more than he really wants to.The US needs to be clear that it will not be pushed into playing a larger role than is wise. This is up to Obama and time will tell if he will be the strong leader we hope he will be.
Nation building is something the international community has not got a clue about, the US included. The wars and Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the complications of failed states and attempts to rebuild them. At the end of the day the US is writing the how-to manual as we go, and there is no guarantee of success. The costs of putting US soldiers on the ground in Libya or even intervening longer than a few months in a support role are huge. Billions would be needed and the US simply cannot afford that right now. Let the UK and France put people on the ground instead of letting them hid behind the US or as most recently suggest behind NATO. Lastly, there is no legal ground for a ground invasion and if one happens we can expect tribal insurgency from Gaddafi's tribe and supporters, and more than likely terrorism as a tactic.
I support the decision for an American intervention in Libya. Gaddafi is a murdering sociopath and the Us should not stand by and let him massacre his own civilians with 21 century weapons. That being said there are certain guidelines that the US needs to stick to or we may find ourselves in another war with unpredictable long-term consequences. First the US needs to only play a support role.That means letting other nations or the international coalition take the lead. I know it goes against the American mentality to follow anyone, but let's face it, is just a matter of pride and everyone knows that America can wipe out any military on the planet. Second the US needs to stick to having "no boots on the ground." Thirdly, we need a clear exit strategy and some kind of time line. Lastly, no matter how much we may want to we really need to not take a leading role and we need to limit ourselves to preventing Gaddafi from killing people and to destroying his army so the rebels have a chance. If we become more involved we risk entanglement and undercutting the grassroots revolt.
This support role is on the strategic level. On the tactical level it should involve much of what we are currently doing: using navel batteries, fueling planes and supplying technological and logistical support such as satellites. I would also issue a world of caution on the use of to many American combat aircraft operating in Libya. Yesterday an American F15 cash-landed as a result of technical issues. Both pilots ejected and are okay. However, we should think about two things. One, even though it may be nitpicking we already have American boots on the ground as a result of this crash. Two, captured American pilots could be a disaster and would certainly result in American ground forces entering Libya. For those of you who are familiar with the American intervention in Somalia you know what I mean.
In conclusion, I believe the US intervention in Libya along with our allies was the right thing to do. Whether or no Gaddafi lives through this is not a concern of mine. If he is killed, good riddance, at least the chances of us getting someone worse are about nil. Right now the US needs to play its cards well and not get entangled in a protracted conflict. We can be sure the rebel army will try to entangle us as it is in their best interest. Having a very limited and clear mission is key. I pray for the safely of our troops and God Bless America!
Remember to check out my poll on the unrest in the Middle East at the bottom of this page!
I'd like to probe deeper into one of the issues you touch on in this post: Should the United States intervene in other nations' civil wars? Granted, Gaddafi had no intentions of showing mercy to the (armed) rebels or their (unarmed) sympathizers. Hillary Clinton urged action primarily to avoid a repeat of the tragedy that unfolded in Rwanda during her husband's presidency.
ReplyDeleteBut some have put forward the libertarian argument that, by intervening in the wars (esp. civil wars) of other nations, we run the risk of putting ourselves in situations where we are neither wanted nor can perform much (if any) good. If the rebelling faction in a civil war has broad popular support, then it can successfully overthrow the government without our support. If, however, it represents only a portion of the population, then our intervention is only propping up a new, weaker government that will--liklier than not--require our continued support to hold onto & consolidate power.
Applied to Libya, the question is dependant upon the extent of our intervention (is it ONLY to stop the Libyan military from crushing/murdering the rebels? Or is it to enable the rebels to overthrow Qaddafi and take over the country?). But whatever the case, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Alexander, thanks for your comment. To begin, whether or not the US intervenes in other countries' Civil wars should be dependent on several factors. First, limited intervention to prevent a massacre is in my mind justified especially with global and UN support. Second, beyond humanitarian concerns whether or not we intervene should be carefully weighed according to our national interests, as well as our resources. It is very common in international politics for nations to take sides in civil wars (or revolutions). For example, France support the US colonies in our struggle against Brittan, because it was in their strategic interests. Lastly, any plans for armed conflict should be follow the Powell Doctrine. 1. Is a vital national security interest threatened? 2.Do we have a clear attainable objective? 3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? 4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? 5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? 6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? 7.Is the action supported by the American people? 8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the Obama Administration has only fulfilled several of these. So any action beyond preventing a massacre will be in severe danger of protracted conflict or international embarrassment (conceived weakness) unless objectives are clarified.
I would like to briefly discuss your comment that if the rebel faction makes up the majority of the citizenry that they will succeed. While it helps rebels to have the majority of the population behind them, it does not signal a victory. If the army is loyal to the government then there is really no way it is very difficult for the rebels to win. This is exemplified in Libya were the best trained and equipped parts of the military are siding with Gaddfi and he is using 20th century weaponry against both rebels and civilians alike. In a situation like this the size of the rebellion is negated by shear quality of arms and training and they will surely loose under totalitarian rule. Libya is different from other countries that have recently seem revolutions (mass protest). For example, the protesters ousted Mubarak in Egypt because the
military stayed neutral. The Hama Massacre in Syria in 1982 exemplifies what was likely to happen in Libya had the international community and US not intervened.
Lastly, it is my opinion that the US should limited our actions in Libya to simply preventing Gaddafi from killing his people. We have no real interests there other than that and cannot afford another protracted conflict right now. The current operation should focus only on crushing Gaddafi's modern military equipment that gives hims the ability to without question oppress his population. Your point is well taken that we don't want to simply prop up a weaker government and become entangled. I would prefer a new government in Libya, but propping them up will have to come from another country. Right now I think the best thing the US can do is clarify our objective and not let ourselves be forced into a situation were we either get more involved or face international embarrassment.