|
In Libya, will we get it wrong again? |
|
|
|
|
Written by Byron Williams
|
|
Friday, 25 March 2011 |
 Now that the United Nations, led by the United States, Britain, and France, has called for a no-fly zone over portions of Libya if Moammar Gadhafi does not immediately cease military actions against rebels, the yet-to-be answered question remains: Then what?
President Barack Obama in his recent press conference failed in his attempt to link two irreconcilable outcomes in that he offered the U.S. could maintain limited involvement with no-fly zones and he wants Gadhafi out.
The no-fly zones implemented in the Balkans and Iraq would suggest a minimum 10-year commitment. In the case of the Balkans, the no-fly zone failed to eliminate Srebrenica genocide. To stop any massacre in Libya would also require ground forces. Is the president prepared for that possibility? If that were to occur, would that not mean the United States has in effect gone to war against Libya?
Moreover, no-fly zones have been proven to be ineffective at removing dictators. It would stand to reason that if indeed the goal is to remove Gadhafi from office, the actions taken by the U.N. fall short, thus returning us back the initial question posed, then what?
Given the United States air superiority, it is impossible to believe, as the president alluded, this will be a joint venture -- a coalition of the willing redux. Make no mistake: The United States will lead this effort. How will that sit with others in the region?
There have been reports that Saudi Arabia was not happy with how the president handled deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. This certainly can't aid relations with the Saudis, no matter how unpopular Gadhafi may be.
A no-fly zone is just enough to be involved, but not enough to shape the direction of the policy. The president wants us to believe we can maintain involvement with only our big toe in the water. The president took great pains to explain what the U.S. would not do, but that seems to contradict his desire to get rid of Gadhafi.
Two weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, "Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses ... and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down." Gates added, "It is a big operation in a big country."
Implementing a no-fly zone over Libya requires there is a rescue strategy for those who have been shot down. Search-and-rescue missions alone could intensify U.S. involvement.
The president maintains that Gadhafi remaining in power destabilizes the region. Gadhafi had led Libya since a military coup in 1969. Based on that history, which is more likely to destabilize the region, Gadhafi staying in power or the U.S. entering into its third war effort in the region, to once again remove a dictator, even if it is an unpopular one?
Speaking recently at West Point, Gates candidly told the audience: "Since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. We have never once gotten it right -- from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq, and more.''
With this stark history in mind, the president wishes to convince us that Libya is the exception to the rule. Was not a similar case made for every country on Gates' aforementioned list?
In spite of his words of coalition, the president's tone at the press conference struck a more unilateral chord. Haven't we already seen this movie? Doesn't history teach us that only Libyans can liberate Libya? But once again, the American people are being sold the notion of a simple, limited mission, ignoring that without warning it can quickly transform into to prolonged effort costing blood and treasure.
Should Gadhafi go? Yes. But that's the easy part of the dilemma that offers little debate outside of those close to Gadhafi. The United States appears again to be on the brink of leading a military effort for which it has no second act. Well, that's never stopped us before. Maybe the president can make one up as he goes along.
 |
|
 Post a Comment.
We want to hear what you think!
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality -- Dante
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
