After 40 years of dictatorship in Libya, Quadafi was killed by his resistance fighters in his hometown of Surt. Many were skeptical of the reports including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but those doubts have been destroyed and his death has been confirmed. Officials state that Qadafi died of severe wounds after he was capture while trying to escape a NATO led assault on Surt. Videos have sprung up around the world showing Qadafi being dragged by fighters after he was captured and of resistance fighters celebrating around his dead body. With Qadafi finally eliminated from power, Libya’s new government will now be able to begin rebuilding the country and bring an end the violence and corruption. After years of totalitarianism, nine months of intense battle across the country, and the death of thousands, Libya has good reason to celebrate.
Resistance fighters have been battling against Qadafi’s reign since February of 2011. Qadafi forces seemed to have the upper hand, but after American and European began air strikes on March 19, the resistance began taking control. Qadafi has been wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity since June 27. Along with being responsible for the torture and prosecution of thousands of Libyans, Qadafi was also known for several other violent acts of terrorism around the globe including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 that killed 270.
Now that Qadafi had been eliminated, what role should the US play in Libya’s rebuilding? Or should the US simply withdraw now since the main conflict is over?
7 comments:
I think that now that Qadafi has been killed, that the U.S. should offer to assist in rebuilding Lybia. If the U.S. simply barged in and helped (as it has been prone to do) that would lead to strained tensions and resentment in a part of the world where the U.S. isn't exactly popular. However, if the U.S. simply left, that could also lead to resentment. If the U.S. simply offered and they accepted all would be fine. If the rebels refused and then needed it later on, no one could really blame the U.S.
Let's enjoy the existence of Libya a symbol of democracy while it lasts. Historically, the removal of an autocrat does increase chances of democratization. However, any lasting social or political change that could occur will be derived from the economic structure of Libya. Average socioeconomic status is a good indicator of democratization. Luckily for Libyan citizens, they're relatively wealthy. If Libya were ever to attain self-rule, its chance is now. Only time will tell if surrounding nations (hopefully Tunisia and Egypt) will help spread democracy.
In any regard, even if Qaddafi's death does little in the sense of social change, the confusion regarding his successor is bound to weaken his regime.
It so sad news
http://www.corporateimageoflondon.co.uk
I really enjoyed the multiple spellings of Gaddafi.
On a serious note, I agree with the first two posters, the removal of the Gaddafi from power (and life) has given Libya a chance to rebuild their government with democracy involved. Because of the chaos and confusion currently in Libya, the strongest force will take the throne (figuratively speaking), be it a dictator or a democratic leader. I believe that the US should not be an overt presence in the rebuilding of Libya because many might feel that the future president (or the like) will just be an American puppet. However, as the U.S. has done in the past, it can influence outcomes in the background and hopefully achieve an acceptable outcome to both the Libyans and Americans.
To be honest, I think that it might be better if the U.S Left and let Libya rebuild itself. Historically, we have done a very poor job in nation building when it comes to the Middle East. I know Libya is not part of the Middle East, but I am pointing out that we could potentially have a similar situation on our hands. What we should probably do is offer our help and let Libya decide for itself. On the upside, currently Libya loves Obama because of his help in their struggle, but I don't know if they love him enough to say "yeah sure, come rebuild our country for us!" If they do say that, then we should assist them. If the tell us to get out.... the we should get out immediately.
I agree with Clothing Blog's point, but I would have to elaborate and ask why the US should have anything invested in Libya. Although they have oil, reason enough for America to "help" rebuild Libya, it is not in our best interest to invest time and money in a solution that very well could be against the will of the Libyan people. We have poverty, debt, protests and strife right now on American soil. Let's deal with those problems before we travel halfway across the world and force the Utopian vision of democracy upon Libya.
I agree with Jacob and Sophia. I think that it is important to keep Libya as an ally and believe that offering our help is the best way to preserve our relationship. However, we have plenty of domestic problems that should come before helping Libya on our priority list. Spending more money on foreign aid will cause people to become even more angry. We already have a huge debt and insufficient amount of money to fund entitlement programs. We should fix our own problems before we deal with others'.
Post a Comment