No U.S. Military Action Warranted in Libya - Essay Example

No U.S. Military Action Warranted in Libya Last week U.S. Senator and recent Presidential candidate John McCain was asked what actions he would support in Libya. He criticized President Obama saying his response was slow and that if he had taken action earlier many Libyan rebels would still be alive. McCain went on to call for a ‘coalition of the willing’ to go in immediately and enforce a “no-fly zone.” Obama recklessly stated that “Qaddafi must go” which indeed has become the consensus among most nations but is it responsible for a world leader to make that statement? Qaddafi has been accused of violating human rights for decades and using the military to quell the rebel advancements. Therefore Obama’s bold rhetoric seems justified and responsible by many. However, George W. Bush remains accused of war crimes, violating human rights and illegally invading a country but if another nation’s leader was to say “Bush must go” most of those same people would not take it seriously. The U.S. has lost all credibility regarding military interventions especially in Arab countries. This gung-ho, tough-guy talk from our political leaders is empty, hypocritical and counter-productive. If the UN, with the blessing of the Arab League, thinks it proper to take action, that’s much more acceptable than the U.S. taking what is essentially unilateral aggressive action, again. This is not a video game. Enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, a country larger than the State of Alaska, (“Basic Facts,” 2011) is not as easy as many politicians, pundits and armchair warriors must be thinking it is. That’s a lot of air space to cover 24 hours per day seven days per week over unfamiliar territory. It’s anyone’s guess how much manpower and how many planes it would take to successfully keep the Libyan Air Force (LAF) on the ground. Some suggest the LAF pilots wouldn’t dare want to engage the U.S. with its vastly superior military. Others would remind them that it’s the U.S. has been fighting a loose-knit group of tribesmen in Afghanistan for about a decade. These same tribesmen that pushed the Russian Army back across its own border in the 1980’s. Most all people tend to protect their homeland and would willingly give their lives in that honorable pursuit. The Libyans are no different. Its pilots would almost certainly put up a fight as would others loyal to Qaddafi. Would Libyans change their minds about rebelling when they see their own planes being shot down by a country well-known in the Arab world for its imperialistic tendencies? A no-fly zone would require U.S. and other soldiers who are mostly European, or ‘westerners,’ to occupy Libyan cities, ‘boots on the ground.’ “We had a no-fly zone over Iraq. It did not prevent Saddam Hussein from bombing his civilians and it did not get him out of office. We had a no-fly zone over Serbia: it still took 78 days of bombing to get Milosevic out of office. It did not get him out of Kosovo until we put troops on the ground with our allies,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. “I really want people to understand what we are looking at.” (“Clinton,” 2011) Is this what these saber rattlers are wanting and will U.S. citizens allow yet another invasion of an Arab country? Labeling the action as a ‘enforcing a no-fly zone’ gives the appearance the military is acting more in the role of a security guard. If politicians and others called it an ‘invasion force,’ which is a term closer to the reality of the situation, the idea would not be as widely accepted. Even if one thinks the U.S. should be involved militarily common knowledge suggests such an action is likely unsustainable. Senator John Kerry, presidential candidate in 2004, said this week the UN should consider bombing Libyan airports and runways. This tactic is intended to limit the use of already limited resources and the time of ‘western’ involvement. This is a more cautious and considered approach yet the image of U.S. warplanes bombing a country would be highly inflammatory to the people of the region including Libyans. It’s hard to imagine the mission being that simple, bomb a few targets in a sovereign nation then head back home for brunch? What about humanitarian aid and building back what was broken” Certainly the military would be on the ground in some capacity, at least in a supportive role. It doesn’t take much imagination to envision a greater conflict occurring beyond a sterile, quick and easy runway strike. US defense secretary Robert Gates cautioned that an attack on Libya could “drag his country into another conflict.” (Kerry urges,” 2011). Fanatical resentment against the U.S. among people of predominantly Muslin nations is of grave concern now and would only escalate further in the event of an invasion. Not only would the American public not support another long military engagement, the people of that region of the world would not want one U.S. soldier to put his boots on the ground for the time it takes to use the latrine. The U.S. never had a welcome to wear out in that region but if it had, it’s been worn out for a long time, to say the very least. During the past 20 years the U.S. pushed for UN support of economic sanctions against Iraq and Iran though it sold weapons to both countries in the 1980’s. Iraq and Iran were two of the three countries President Bush referred to as ‘the axis of evil.’ The U.S. has built multiple military bases on Muslim Holy lands, invaded Iraq twice, occupied Afghanistan for the past decade and have supported what was widely acknowledged to be brutal dictatorships in several countries. It supported these regimes politically, militarily and economically without shame for decades. “The US has a proven track record of empowering and sustaining dictators all over the world, using them for internal and regional leverage.” (Foote, 2011) All this and more would be plenty enough reason for the Muslim world to denounce America and they do as is witnessed by the familiar chants of ‘death to America’ and burning the Stars and Stripes in the streets. But there’s more. The long standing relationship the U.S. has with Israel may be the most contentious aspect of Muslim resentment of U.S. governmental policy. The country of Israel was forcefully carved out of Palestinian beach-front property following WWII. The well documented problems between the Jews and Muslims in this region have persisted for more than 60 years. The U.S. is Israel’s closest ally therefore an enemy of those who believe that action and subsequent Israeli aggressive tactics are justified. The social movement for democracies to replace monarchy or totalitarian rule is spreading throughout North Africa and the Middle East. The U.S. has been intertwined with many of these nations and their oppressive regimes for many decades. The Egyptian military, which demonstrated enormous restraint and sound judgment during the crisis in during the uprising, is meshed with the US military. The U.S. has first priority in the very strategic Suez Canal. The U.S. Fifth Fleet occupies an enormous base in Bahrain and used a Saudi Arabian air base to launch attacks against Iraq. All of these nations have and continue to repress its people. Saudi Arabia has been called a “police state masquerading as a theocracy.” (Roberts, 2011) Throughout the past decade the U.S. has been understandably viewed by the Arab/Muslim world as an imperialistic aggressor nation tied to and control of autocratic rulers. Additional involvement of any nature in yet another oil rich nation would only lead to a deepening hatred of the U.S. by people who need no further motivation. Winning hearts and minds in this case reminds of another cliché, absence makes the heart grow fonder. The intentions of the U.S., whether purely humanitarian or otherwise, have little bearing on the perceptions of Arabs and therefore their negative reaction to it. According to Sara Akbar, chief executive of Kuwait Energy, “The people on the ground will say 'oh, this is just the U.S. interfering again.’” (Hargreaves, 2011) If American politicians are concerned about another terrorist attack orchestrated by Muslim extremists then they should reconsider their bold rhetoric and reckless actions. People may be endangered if the U.S. takes no action but how many will die from future attacks, wars and continued misunderstanding between the cultures? President Obama and the U.S. face a classic no-win situation. The first instinct of the American people is to rush in and help those wanting to build a democracy, that’s what America stands for and willing to help others obtain. That’s the knee-jerk response which is, as experience tells us, likely the wrong response especially regarding a very complex situation such as this. Is it legally or morally right to invade a sovereign nation even when it targets its own people? That argument can be made. It is sound. Go help defenseless people who want only to live free in a democratic society. It is just a coincidence Libya has oil? Many other instances of greater atrocities have occurred while the world, including the U.S. watched and did little or nothing, The Sudan genocide comes to mind. Right now people of the Ivory Coast are battling their government. Not hearing a lot of saber rattling towards that country or much news coverage either. Saudi Arabia is an oppressive regime and is suppressing, by force, demonstrations in that country tied to what is being referred to as the ‘Facebook Rebellions’ or ‘Islamic Awakening’ taking place throughout that region. Unlike Qaddafi in Libya the Saudi Kingdom has close diplomatic ties with the U.S. as does Bahrain where similar demonstrations are occurring. No saber rattling there either. There is little to gain and much to lose by the U.S. involving itself in the Arab regions, yet again. Its military resources are spent as is its ability to pay for another prolonged conflict which is very likely the reality of any action no matter how simple the words to describe it may be. Works Cited “Basic facts about the country of Libya” Newsvine.com February 25, 2011 March 13, 2011 “Clinton warns against unilateral U.S. move on Libya” Reuters March 10, 2011 March 13, 2011 Foote, Dr. Paul Sheldon “US Builds up Then Usurps Dictators” Press TV March 01, 2011 March 13, 2011 < http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167685.html> Hargreaves, Steve “Mideast revolution will spread, violence won't - oil exec.” CNN Money March 8, 2011 “Kerry urges Libya no-fly zone plan.” Al Jazeera March 7, 2011. March 13, 2011 < http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/201136235322910617.html> Roberts, Sue Lloyd “Saudi Arabia show of force stifles 'day of rage' protests” BBC Newsnight March 11, 2011 March 14, 2011 Read More