President Obama has said that dictator Moammar Gadhafi "must go." But that means Gadhafi must go if the people, including the national military, want him to go. After all, Gadhafi's national military are also part of "the people."
In Egypt, the military was not against the people as seems to be the case in Libya--and they had a relationship with the US military. The question in Libya, then, is, If the fighters who are fighting the rebels are foreigners, on which side are the Libyan soldiers?
The no-fly zone provided by coalition forces gives Libyans--including the national military--a chance for freedom by forcing Gadhafi to either step down or leave the country. Obama's saying that Gadhafi "must go" simply means he must go if the people both want him to go and can compel him to do so with minimal outside help. Only rebel leaders know if the people have the manpower, will, resources and outside help necessary to ouster Gadhafi. If they don't, then the people must either die trying or go back to life as usual, hopeful that the uprising at least will bring about moderation in Gadhafi's rule.
Hence, contrary to the conclusions of various news analysts, Obama stating that Gadhafi "must go" does not mean that if the Libyan people cannot make this happen themselves, the United States and its allies will do it. The people must want it and be able to do it on the battle field, if not in the streets, now that they don't have to encounter Gadhafi's military airplanes and as many of his tanks. The rebels asked for the no-fly zone--and they got it. But that did not suggest unlimited additional help was being promised.
As is the case with Iraq, the allies are providing Libyans with a chance to win their freedom, but they are not committing to guaranteeing success.
Most of the reasoned debate that I have heard prior to the President's decision decision to along with coalition forces provide a no-fly zone in Libya involved what might happen if they did. There was no conclusion about whether we should or should not participate: There were reasons to do it and reasons not to. Hence, Obama was destined to be damned if he did and damned if he didn't, or as has turned out, damned if he didn't and damned if he did.
However, it is not surprising that the people who would allow Kaddafi to massacre his people are for the most part the same people who would allow fellow Americans to suffer the consequences of a bad economy, brought about by people who have managed to further enriched themselves by those consequences.
Republicans have taken every opportunity to deny as many middle-class workers, working poor and totally destitute Americans as possible from receiving government assistance of any kind during this period of hardship for them. Most of these Republicans leaders try to wrap themselves in the cloak of Christianity, and are supported by people who believe that Christianity is about what Jesus did and not about what He said we should be doing.
America's role in Libya is something Obama had to do, first, because it needed to be done; second, because the true nature of the American conscience made us want to do it, and, third, because being the leader--whether as an American or the American president--means taking the initiative to do the right thing, even when reluctant, and when it means leading from behind.
Questions are being raised about the kind of government and leadership that will replace disposed dictators in Muslim countries seeking freedom: Will the new government be friendly to the United States?
Well, why would not people we help liberate not be friendly to us? The efforts by the western countries to bring democracy and improved economies to the Middle East can actually soften Al Queda's animosity toward the us. One of its criticism has included our not equitably assisting in the economic development of the Middle East.
The actions of coalition forces seem to have turned the war around. Rebels are on the offense, and chances grow each day that Gadhafi's national forces might either join the rebels or refuse to fight. Some are questioning whether the coalition forces are exceeding the intent of the UN resolution authorizing the establishment of a no-fly zone when they also seek to protect towns other than the one threatened. But why do they assume that Kadhafi would not attack family of rebels in these other unprotected cities?
Given the pros and cons of America's becoming involved in Libya, the reasons to become engaged on this limited basis (including doing so without Congressional approval and sending a message to other dictators who might be thinking of killing dissenters) outweigh the reasons not to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment