Just today the UN Security Council approved the no-fly zone over Libya.
But my question is, should the US have supported the resolution?
First of all, the United States is already fighting two different wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be difficult for us to gather enough military forces to fight a third war in Libya. A no-fly zone requires an incredible amount of aircraft to enforce, and we might not be able to support all three wars at the same time, even if we have one of the largest militaries in the world. The fact that the resolution says that member states should take "all necessary measures" forces us to divide our already strained military even more.
I am not saying that we should not help Libya's civilians. We should, and in fact, the resolution already has. The resolution has already fulfilled a short-term goal: to stop Qaddafi from completely demolishing Banghazi (he became slightly nervous after the passing of the resolution). But what we should remember is that there are long-term objectives as well. What do we do afterwards? What should we do if civil war breaks out? How long would it take for the situation to stabilize? If the situation in Libya becomes something like the current situation in Iraq, this will be an incredibly expensive undertaking, forcing our government further into debt. It might even fail, as the military might not have the strength to carry out its objectives.
We have not the military resources nor the economic resources to carry out another expensive military intervention. I applaud President Obama for avoiding becoming the leader (which would make it even worse), but I question our ability to help.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't know if getting involved in Libya would be a good idea because like Charlie said we are currently involved in other wars right now and getting involved in another war would be too costly. Also, we will be suffering more because the taxes that we pay will be used to help in these wars so getting involved in the war wouldn't be a good idea right now since we have such a big debt. I think we shouldn't get involved but not getting involved may also cause more problems.
I think it was right for the US to come out in support of this no-fly zone. Obama has refused to send in troops to Libya, even though the US is shelling the country and sending missiles to attack. Today, I heard Quaddafi's son speak on the radio, which was actually interesting. He said that everything was alright in the country and that this no fly zone was just was just a result of a "miscommunication". He went on to say that anyone who supported the rebels were supporting terrorists. I thought it interesting of him to say that, and it shows how differently we see this issue. I think most Americans see the rebels in Libya as people who want democracy and who want, for the good of the country, to overthrow a horrible dictator. Quaddafi, his son, and people like them clearly see the rebels as terrorists and people undeserving of democratic rule. I take the side that the west (that's a broad generalization, I know) is taking and I believe we should support this uprising. I further support the fact that President Obama refuses to put troops into the country, which I think would complicate the matter and would make getting out of Libya extremely difficult. So far, the US has only been shelling antiaircraft guns that would enable Quaddafi to prevent the no fly zone. However, I know that several civilians have been killed in these attacks, which is ironic as the point of these attacks is to prevent further attacks on civilians. It's horrific that Quaddafi has now taken further action in the form of a "human shield" (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Human-shield-at-Gaddafi-fortress/765050/). He is surrounded by women and children, supposed volunteers who claim that they would die for him. This just points to his insanity as a leader. I'm not saying the US should remove him and control elections of who gets to be in power next, but I think protecting the civilians in this manner is the right thing to do.
-Alice Bebbington
I think it is the right move for the U.S. to intervene. First of all, the rebels were losing before this SC resolution passed. If the rebels lost, then it would have been difficult for other nations in the region to have the courage to stand up to their dictators again. And it would have made Egypt look like a freak accident.
Also, even if the U.S. has already spread its military forces too thin (I'm not saying that it is), we can't forget that this is a joint resolution. The U.S. isn't in it alone. There are other world powers such as UK and France.
It's seems like it's cliche for the U.S. to get involved, but I think it's the right thing to do morally. People say protecting civilians is the lamest excuse for the U.S. to try to be the international policeman, but I think it is a genuine effort at the same time. Why can't the U.S. do both?
Post a Comment