|
Speak Out
How involved should the U.S. be with the conflict in Libya?
Over the weekend, the U.S. military led an international coalition in a series of airstrikes in Libya, which has been torn apart by a citizen uprising since mid-February.
Inspired and emboldened by Egypt’s successful revolt against President Hosni Mubarak, the Libyan people are seeking to bring democracy within their borders as well. A rebellion was staged last month against Moammar Gadhafi, the country’s controversial leader who seized power in a military coup 42 years ago. The international community got involved last week with the declaration of a no-fly zone over the country, followed by the airstrikes led by the United States and joined by British and French forces.
The United Nations Security Council is reluctant to officially take sides in the conflict. When it authorized the attacks, the reasons given were to protect Libya’s civilians and stop Gadhafi from assaulting his own people. Two days before the airstrikes, President Barack Obama called on Gadhafi to pull back his troops from the rebel-controlled cities and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. “Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya,” Obama said.
Critics say that the goal of this intervention is vague and unclear. While Obama has in the past called on Gadhafi to step down, the attacks are not intended to bring him down; U.S. officials told reporters at the Pentagon that he was not on their target list. There’s also the stated goal of protecting the Libyan public. Gadhafi has claimed on television that the attacks already have caused “thousands” of civilian deaths, although allied officials deny this.
There are also uncertainties about the timeline. Officials from the U.S. military and the United Nations have spoken about the operation in terms of “days, not weeks” and promised that it would not evolve into a ground war. But Gadhafi promises a “long, drawn-out” war, and questions have arisen about whether the coalition has a long-term strategy.
In a statement, Speaker of the House John Boehner said, “Before any further military commitments are made, the administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”
Others worry about stretching our military thin by getting involved in Libya – 100,000 ground troops are deployed in Afghanistan, and 50,000 remain in Iraq. A third war could strain an already-strained military, they say. Obama has pledged that no ground troops will be sent to Libya.
But supporters balk at this mission being discussed in terms of war.
“The goal … is not to get rid of Gadhafi, and that is not what the U.N. licensed. And I would not call it going to war,” said Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on “Meet the Press.” “This is a very limited operation that is geared to save lives, and it was specifically targeted on a humanitarian basis.”
What do you think?
How involved should the U.S. be with the conflict in Libya? Should its troops be deployed when they’re already in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or are the humanitarian goals of the mission more important? Do you think the mission will last only a few days, as leaders hope? What should be the long-term strategy if the rebellion is a stalemate? Join the discussion!
|
Join the Discussion
|
|
Related News
|
Related Resources
|
Share
|
|