President Obama Addresses the Nation Concerning Action in Libya

Tonight at 7:30 pm President Obama addressed the nation in defend of the actions the US has taken in Libya. There has been much criticism of Obama, especially from the more conservative senators who either believe no military action should be taken or that we must act more directly. Obama, who in my opinion is playing the situation intelligently as it unfolds, has offered aid to NATO and the UN in support of the UNSC resolution 1973 which places a "no-fly zone" over Libya. This aims to protect the rebels from air strikes ordered by the Libyan leader Gaddafi. The best point of Obama's speech, was his emphasis on how this operation will be a limited engagement and he even said "to be blunt, this will not follow the same mistakes as were taken in Iraq." By acting with other international agencies, the US will be able to shift power over to them and not bear the entire burden of protection, and later reconstruction. Obama says this shift is already happening and US involvement is being directly transfered over to NATO starting on wednesday. To the skeptics of why we should be involved, Obama addressed that it is in line with our interests to support those attempting to gain rights and democracy that we already enjoy, but that we need not take over the situation. It is far less risky to US lives and pocketbooks to offer aid and support without taking over the entire situation.

These tumultuous events in Libya are fluid and will continue to change so it is important to stay informed  on these changes as they happen. That being said, I was impressed with Obama's directness about this mission and it's limited scope. I just hope it is effective and does stay as limited as we intend for it to be. A multilateral approach in this context is the only smart move and it is good to see others jumping in.

I hope to work out more of my own opinions on this situation as now, like most Americans with an interest in foreign affairs, I am overwhelmed and lost in trying to find my balance. This balance teeters between wanting to prevent a humanitarian crisis, but also not wanting to become too involved and risk our own military person's lives.

Blogging about Twitter...

So this week's assignment is to blog about Twitter, which I suppose gets into the idea of inter-media or co-promotion. So here it goes... (sorry Professor Webb)

I don't get the whole Twitter thing. Trust me, I have tried and aside from whatever stupid celebrity gossip may be on it, I do recognize the value it has for spreading valuable information lightning fast. It is a very important aspect of social media and as we have seen in the uprisings throughout the Middle East, Twitter has aided the organization of people in protests. This I do understand, but yet I have no desire to take part in it. However silly some may find this, I find Twitter slightly invasive on personal space if I were to join. The idea that I could report on anything that happened at anytime from anywhere and get an immediate response from people is astonishing and, for me, an added pressure and complication to life.

You know the peace of when your cell phone dies and there's nothing you can do about it? or (God forbid) someone turns their cell off, voluntarily?!? And that is only to avoid the world that has my cell phone number, what about a Twitter world where virtually anyone could respond. To me it feels like another way to be bombarded with information constantly, and unlike some, I need to set boundaries for when and what I am exposed to or I would truly go insane.

The quickness of it may be a blessing in some ways, but I have grown to curse what it means socially. It now allows people to immediately report and respond to what is happening around them taking no time for reflection to gather their thoughts and really decide how they feel about something before they just send it out into the world again. At least with blogging one must take a moment to compose a full thought or sentence, not simply 160 characters. Andy Carvin who re-tweets information offers a great service in filtering the relative information and hashtags but, like I've said before, although I recognize the value, I still have no desire to take part.

There you have it. sorry again Professor Webb, but my mind is open and I will keep trying to understand.

Queen Noor Writes for the Huffington Post

My mother sent me this article written by Queen Noor in the Huffington post, its really interesting and also shows how such a respected and active member of the Arab world, not to mention of Royalty, uses new media like twitter and writing online articles. Enjoy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/her-majesty-queen-noor/arab-women_b_832718.html

WooHoo Al Jazeera

In a blog by the Guardian UK writer Michael Tomasky, he cites how Hilary Clinton recently gave Al Jazeera praise for offering "real news," and exclaimed how the US is seriously losing the "information wars." She says that even if one does not agree with it, its 24 hour news cycle is not filled with commercials and fluff the way most American networks are. My hope is that this can help boost Al Jazeera's American audience and perhaps help it shed its title as the "Terrorist Network". The blog cites that the audience in America is already growing and hopefully soon providers will start offering Al Jazeera English (and Arabic perhaps) in the US. This is encouraging news and I commend Secretary Clinton for speaking on their behalf despite the opinion being outspoken to those who are less informed (which sadly is quite a lot of people in America when it comes to understanding Al Jazeera).

It seems tapping into AJE's already 50 million Arab viewers and working with them is a huge benefit to the US in terms of being able to respond to rumors. It's amazing people are opposed to this!
Like the saying goes, and I apply it here to news and media, though it may not be a fair or fine game, its good to have a seat at the table. Or something like that, don't quote me directly.

Glenn Beck says "You have the Secretary of State of the United States of America saying you cannot get real news here in America," he said. "You can only get it from Al Jazeera and everybody knows it. This is insanity." Sadly, he has a large influence as well :(

Blog: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/mar/07/usa-hillaryclinton

Libya, continued.

It is now thought that the revolts in Libya have claimed over 1000 lives, probably far more. As the rebels become more and more active in taking cities, the government has continued its draconian stance on the protests, resulting in the continued bombing and killing of protestors. The US has still not officially called for implementing a "no fly zone" over Libya for reasons explained as, unrealistic to put into action and too much involvement in an internal conflict. Although this would not be actively joining the fight with our persons, any kind of sanctions and limitations such as a no fly zone, would be perceived as very aggressive from an foreign policy standpoint. As we discussed in my US foreign policy class today, there are accounts of US weapons being supplied to the Egyptian protestors which are in turn be provided to the Libyan rebels. There has also been some active Egyptian support on the ground in Libya, and most of those officials were US trained. In that sense, the US has indirectly aided the movement, but is that enough?

I do not presume to understand all the intricacies in terms of policy decisions, and I certainly don't support putting troops on the ground for two reasons I will go into bellow, but I do believe something should be done as it seems only words have been coming out of the white house and State Department as of late. They urge "regime adjustments" in the greater Middle East area, and although Obama has called for Gadhafi to leave, nothing is being done to back up that statement. People are dying, but I guess that is the sad reality of every form of revolts or revolution if it can be termed that already (unfortunately the public is fractured on the issue of support as far as I understand).

Why we shouldn't put in ground troops:
Two reasons:

Reason one: This is a great time for the people of Libya to see that they can create real change in their country and it must come from within. The international concern should be aimed at the human rights violations in place, in which case it would be NATO or the UN that should take action. Sadly this either will not happen, or will happen too slowly.

Reason two: As harsh as it sounds, we cannot afford it, but in more ways than one. There is of course the economic and loss of American lives to be concerned with, but also, our image in the ME cannot afford how that action might be misconstrued. Fidel Castro, who is close with Gadhafi, has already issued statements praising the government on "pushing out their colonial masters and becoming an independent nation apart from the west" (found at a Latin America blog site: http://latinamerica.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2011/02/25/latin-america-speaks-to-libya-a-contradiction-of-policy/). An invasion by the US could be perceived as an attempt to control the country in some form of "neo-colonialism". Given the support we need from our ME allies, we cannot afford to have that image. Plus that would make us responsible for the aftermath of taking down the Gadhafi regime.

So what do we do? We can't do nothing, but we have to play it smart. This is not just for our interests and benefit, but also for those of the people of Libya who need to do this on their own for the most part, or at least without the west. I really don't know what that means we should do. I personally support economic sanctions and a no fly zone as a way of showing the government that we will withdraw all support for them because of these heinous acts. It makes them an outlaw of the international community and I would urge other nations to do the same. The UN has not been sought after for aid as of yet by the people of Libya, but if they ask, that would be the best case scenario. If the UN is able to accomplish anything at all that is.

I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this, because I am torn between the humanitarian in me that says "they need help" and the studier of political science that says "we cannot become involved too much." How do we play it smart?