Blogs » Politcs Plus » Why Libya?

Subscribe


Image

For those are you who hoped to hear the new Obama Doctrine; you were disappointed after hearing President Obama's speech last night. The skeptics were not persuaded, the confused remained confused but I came away with a better understanding but not yet convinced that attacking Libya was the right thing to do. NBC's war correspondent Richard Engel, said that the air strikes from France came at the 11th hour because, if they had come 12 hours later, Gaddafi would have demolished a city of 700,000 people with air strikes and door-to door ethnic cleansing. I agreed with the president's humanitarian reasons, but I think he is being too coy by not admitting that this military intervention is taking sides in a civil war. This is a war, no matter how you package it. This is our third war in a Muslim country; a war that we cannot economically sustain or convince our battle fatigued citizens, and that it is in our vital interest to engage.

This past Sunday, I must've heard at least 12 different views from former generals', journalists, pundits, politicians and the so called experts on what the president should have done and what he should do going forward. Tom Ricks, New York Times war correspondent, gave a unique perspective by saying that the coalition evened the playing field with their air strikes. I'll go a step further with this football analogy... NATO forces have taken out Gadhafi's first and second string quarterbacks, two starting wide receivers, three interior linemen, and now it's a matter of a ground game. The rebels would not have been where they are without our air support, but when they got to Gaddafi's home town of Sirte,they were turned back by fully armed civilians loyal to Gaddafi. This is further evidence of an east- west civil war. I thought it was funny that Jon King of CNN asked Wesley Clark if we were going to bomb the city of Sirte. Wesley Clarke had a puzzled look on his face, as if to say “why are you even asking a stupid question like that." He said that the rebels would have to negotiate with the town folk because we're not going to engage in indiscriminate bombing against civilians. What message would that send to the already suspect Arab world? The pundits asked the familiar questions such as the exit strategy, departure date, costs, and goals but Hillary Clinton, and Robert Gates answered the questions appropriately by saying that the no- fly zone was a success and regime change was not part of the U.N. resolution, but it would be welcomed.They could not possibly know the answer to the other questions. Sometimes ."I don't know" is the appropriate answer.

If the president is to be believed (I do); we will not escalate our present role in the Libyan civil war, but I realize deploring AC-130 gunships and A10 tank busters, into the Libyan conflict is not for humanitarian reasons. This morning I heard Pat Buchanan and Tom Brokaw agree that we have never seen a time when the president's plate is overflowing as much as it is today. This morning all of the Syrian cabinet walked out and the nuclear situation in Japan is still brewing. The president said that we cannot afford to be fully engulfed in the Libyan crisis, so we will turn it over to NATO forces as early as Wednesday. I agree with those that say that we are NATO, but I can hope that our leaders can convince other nations that we have to take a secondary role because our plate is full. I liked the fact that the president understands that regime change will take years, money, and boots on the ground, so this limited action might just be the right course of action. He does not want another Iraq and he said as much. To answer John Boehner's question "what is a success?" I would have to say it prevented a massacre and gave the rebels the opportunity to take back their country and dispose Gaddafi. That may be the Obama Doctrine, to finally step back and take a secondary role, showing leadership by convincing others to take more of a major step in the" Arab Spring" arising. After all, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are closer to Europe then they are to the United States. We won't admit it but even though Libya only provides 2% of the world's oil, much of it to China, Russia. And Italy, that's 2% that the other OPEC countries don't have to provide and charge accordingly.

I'm convinced that an overflow of refugees from Libya would have hindered the Egyptian situation, Gaddafi needed to be stopped from massacring his own people, so humanitarian aid and enforcement of a no- fly zone was necessary. I'm pretty sure that NATO could have provided all of the above, but I'm also convinced that it's in our nature to be part of that mission like that; usually we're leading. I think that we can agree that only the United States can provide the military assets for the successful enforcement of a no- fly zone. As I've said before “We have the receipts and expertise."

For now it is a wait and see,so anyone's opinion is just that.