Good evening. As you may or may not have noticed (I only happened to by a coincidence), President Obama gave an address to the nation today about his rationale behind the U.S. intervention in Libya. Among other things, he said American command of the mission would be handed over from the U.S.A. to NATO as a whole on Wednesday. He also discussed potential concerns from the opposition to the intervention. I’m not going to repeat all his arguments verbatim, as that would bore me and probably all of you. However, I will say that provided things keep going the way they’re going, I’m with the president on this one. Like many (obviously not all, but I’d put money on it being a majority) of you, I think the Iraq intervention was a wreck and I’m generally opposed to the notion of the United States policing the world, especially selectively. How can these two things coexist? Let’s take a look.
Other than the fact that the nation of Libya is physically not the nation of Iraq, there are a few more important points that clarify the differences between the two actions. Firstly, the Libya intervention was not a unilateral action. The action received UN backing, which is a major step forward in the legitimacy of any action like this one. Acting in tandem with other countries through makes the mission less about Americans throwing their weight around, a practice the Middle East has seen much too much of already, and more about stopping a dictator who has attacked his own people. Not only is that better PR, it’s the way it should be, too. This isn’t about Americans securing another country so we can extend our oil-sucking tendrils that much deeper into less developed nations. When leaders step out of line and begin committing crimes, there should be an effective international response. Proving the UN’s worth by doing so in Libya would be a major step to it fulfilling its intended peacekeeping role. The Arab League also asked for intervention, which I think is a crucial factor to keeping this mission legitimate. Since they asked for our aid, it would be much more implausible for other countries to react in anger, and even if they did, we could legitimately point out that they asked for our assistance in the first place. Cooperating with the Arab League, of course, also bolsters relations with its member countries when the peacekeeping mission works well, and that’s only a good thing for any and all areas of U.S. policy in the area, whether it’s pushing for peace or trying to promote democracy.
There are a couple of other important reasons why Libya will not become another Iraq. Number one, Obama has not, and doesn’t seem to be willing to, put troops on the ground. This is an immensely good strategic decision for two reasons. Once you put troops on the ground, it’s awfully hard to get them back out (coughIraqandAfghanistancough), whereas if you stick to an air campaign, eventually you just run out of worthwhile things to bomb. Should we ever need to get out of Libya, we can just drive our aircraft carriers home and boom! That’s the end of the action, and it takes a lot less political pressure to do so. You can’t do that with troops, for obvious reasons. Sticking to what the UN and Arab League asked for ensures our goals stay legitimate and make sure the rebels, while thankful, handle their own war. Speaking of the rebels, they are the second and most important reason why Libya is much more legitimate of an intervention. Both Hussein and Qaddafi, by any stretch of the imagination, would be considered “very bad dictators.” As bad as Hussein was, however, there was no major democratic movement trying to put him out of power that he brutally suppressed, and even high-ranking Bush administration officials didn’t pretend that there was. In Iraq, no one asked for our help, and in all likelihood, they would have been more than fine without it. In Libya, that is certainly not the case.
Well, there’s my two cents on the Libyan intervention. What do you think about it? Back me up or prove me wrong. Muhahaha.
---
* Clicking on the title will take you to an NPR article that summarizes Obama’s speech.
** Embarrassing Side Note: You have no idea how many times I almost typed “Lybia” while writing this post.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have to agree with your point regarding troops Brendon. Having another "Viet-Nam" will just be another burden on the shoulders of America. Plus at this point, I don't think our government can pay for another war, which is probably why we launched 114 tomahawks and just basically left after that. I also want to point out that another difference is that we aren't bringing warfare to a nation this time since they're already in a civil war. We're just assisting one side. So if we ever were to invade, at least we would get more public support than we did in Iraq. I hope our leaders make the wise decision not to.
I mostly agree with all you've said here, except for the coughing part about Afghanistan. After 9/11, everyone, even a large majority of Congress and Americans, supported war in Afghanistan. So I believe we should stop "hating" on the war in Afghanistan (the Iraq war is another situation).
Why can't we just fly our planes and bomb them all into oblivion? From what I have read is that the geography of where the Taliban are hiding is mostly hills, mountains, and caves. We have tried bombing them, but they end up just hiding in caves. So to find them, we have to send in ground troops to go into these caves.
Post a Comment