So now, President Obama has his own war, not one that he inherited. One that raises a lot of questions – and not just about Libya.
First, it appears that, unlike the Iraq invasion, this one actually is mandated by UN resolution. Though not everyone agrees.
The Arab League says the coalition is providing cover for rebel troops. So does, predictably, the Libyan government. Both argue that this exceeds the UN authorization – which primarily establishes an enforceable no-fly zone.
Yet, one would be hard-pressed to not see the justification in bombing military vehicles closing in on cities held by rebels. As the former Libyan ambassador to the United States said, the “cover” provided by U.S. and other warplanes saved thousands of Libyan lives.
Still, the Republican Party is miffed because the action took place with no congressional consultations or authorization.
The president is getting squeezed a bit from some in his own party as well. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) argues the military action, absent congressional approval, is an impeachable offense.
Republicans are asking, too, about the end game. What exactly is the objective?
Is it merely to enforce a no-fly zone? Is it to assist the rebel troops on the ground? Is it to remove Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi from power?
If it is the later, and some of Obama’s comments suggest that it is, the U.S. has set itself up for the possibility of failure. One can declare that a mission to keep Gaddafi’s warplanes grounded has already succeeded. But only time will tell if Gaddafi ultimately survives. And if he does, then why did the U.S. get involved?
Of course, the United States government insists that Gaddafi isn’t the target – even though his presidential compound was pounded Sunday night by U.S.-fired missiles.
If this is a humanitarian effort, to prevent a leader from turning against his own people, does this signal a new U.S. policy? Because, as we have seen, heads of state and government are slaughtering their own people elsewhere as well.
Hardly anyone is focusing any longer, for example, on the carnage in the Ivory Coast.
What about Yemen? Do we look the other way simply because the alternative might be a government that is reticent to partner with the United States in thwarting al Qaeda in that nation?
Bahrain provides an interesting contradiction as well. The United States is on record as opposing using force against demonstrators. But then, there’s the little issue of a U.S. Naval fleet based there. We wouldn’t want to upset the apple cart too much.
Even when it happens in a country where it’s easier to vilify the leadership – problems are presented. Best case-in-point: Iran. No one in the Obama administration I’m sure is seriously advocating an invasion there.
The attacks on citizens by their own governments in these nations and others is pretty horrific, reprehensible and worthy of condemnation. But whether they warrant outside military intervention is another question altogether.
Perhaps the ultimate outcome of the Libyan action will help define future U.S. policy toward other governments that turn their might on their own.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Julie Morse
Ande Bliss
Barbara Joanne
Marilyn Sands
Susie Lindau
RomanticPoetess
Salon.com
Comments
But we'd rather invent politically partisan 'answers' than really look for the actual answers......
Every situation MUST be used as a vehicle to attack them "evil others" of 'Merikan politics.
.
"No Fly and No More! is what I say and you should too!
the hypocrisy in any american foreign action is the result of more than 100 years of simple imperialism, tolerated by the american electorate and often inspired by american business or financial interests. before you throw up your hands in moral dismay, remember this is sop.
why is america in libya: when any action involves an american politician, ask "will this help get him re-elected? will this benefit his sponsors? applying this test, we can guess that watching thousands of rebels being rounded up and murdered is a negative electoral value. but he does have to hand off quickly, before american lives and money also become 'a bad look' on the 6 o'clock news.
people who bring up lack of congressional approval are being a bit selective, the imperial presidency has found it advisable to act in a crisis. compared with past crimes, this has been a relatively moral and legal act.
The GOP will jump on him for any possible reason, Kucinich is running against him, he is doing little more than his Republican predecessors did with defiance rather than honest portrayal, and yet he still gets banged for it. I don't get it. Do you really want another Republican govt. in the next election?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/20/us-strikes-libya-michael-moore-says-obama-should-return-nobel-peace-p
Excerpted from comment section of article above:
"The spin is starting in earnest at CNN. According to Peter Bergan's revisionist history, here's why the attack on Libya is so darn good compared to the evil Bush's attack on Iraq:
•George W. Bush's ineffectual attempts to gather international support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. ( guess 3 dozen countries don't count).
•There was no U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the use of military force against Hussein. (let's just ignore UN resolution 1441 for a while, ok, along with Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284?).
•The Bush administration's largely unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq. (let's ignore the fact that the UN unanimously authorized it -- and the US Congress approved it. Note that 5 UN members abstained on the Libya vote).
•The Iraq War was widely viewed as illegitimate by Muslim countries (Syria was on the UN security council at the time and voted for resolution 1441 -- and did I mention that it passed unanimously by a 15-0 vote?)
•Gadhafi is widely reviled in the Arab world (but Hussein was widely beloved?)"