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?
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment