Allied attack: too risky a mission
Weeks ago, I wrote an opinion piece concerning Libya and its prominence as an international issue. Furthermore, I indicted my peers who bury their heads in the proverbial sand. If you don't wish to recognize and take responsibility for the obvious truth that our culture is indolent and clueless, you probably never will.
For a majority of people in America, politics equates to something that's vastly tiresome. Cynical and uninformed, it's not at all uncommon to run into your average Tom, Dick or Harry who not only aren't registered voters, but who probably don't even know when Election Day is.Well, to those of you who think your vote—or rather your voice—has no consequence in this world, that very thinking has serious consequences; effects that reach out far beyond your insular existence.
Colonel Muammar El Kadafi, whom President Reagan referred to as "the mad dog of the Middle East," has for 42 uninterrupted years served his country as president, thief and slaughterer of his own people. He has ruled with insolence and reckless disregard for international rule of law. That is, until now.
But while you may be thinking that it's a good and perfectly noble pursuit for the United States, France, Britain, and 12 other NATO and Arab League countries to enforce a United Nations approved no-fly zone, this decision is deeply perplexing.
On the one hand, the moral obligation to save lives from a murderous butcher seems obvious. But on that basis, wouldn't the Iraq War be completely justified? Saddam Hussein was just as bad, if not worse than Kadafi could have ever aspired to be.
Plus, as long as we're saving lives from dictators who have lost all legitimacy to rule, why are we turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen? It is not only hypocritical, but also profoundly immoral for us to demand that the rule of law be upheld in countries we view as being ruled by enemies, but to defer those very values in countries where we find our friends.
Casting all moral obligations and concerns aside, one cannot help but notice how uncertain this skirmish's outcome can be. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates,"There are any number of possible outcomes here, and no one is in a position to predict them." While President Obama has promised not to deliver any of our troops to Libyan soil, it's unrealistic to make that sort of a promise when Gates himself acknowledges just how uncertain this Libyan attack is.
It is foolish for our Commander–in-Chief to lead our resources and, potentially our military, into yet another Muslim conflict. If our job was to help establish and enforce a no-fly zone, then we've done our job, and it's now time to relinquish the job to NATO or the Arab League. We need to focus on rebuilding our own country, not helping a rag tag group of rebels build their own, and especially by force. We armed the Afghanis in the 80's fighting for independence from Soviet conquest, and look how that turned out.
By remaining mostly silent, the American public allows our elected officials to run free-reign into foolishness, injudicious half-baked endeavors. While our intentions may seem purely humanitarian, nearly all of our military missions are based around the premise of us being world police. We need to get out of Libya sooner rather than later, before we let another Iraq or Afghanistan happen.
It's just something we cannot afford.