Libya, why it’s NOT a good idea to be there
The Arab world is in unrest mode. Libya has fallen apart and the dictator is on the run. He is attacking his people and butchering them to keep power. Someone needs to step in and help. Who? Who do you help? How? Why?
It’s easy to say the U.S. should help the rebels. It’s easy to say we need to get involved, but not at the forefront. The problem is, no matter how you get involved, it is war. We have a history of getting involved, leaving, and then the people we go in to help can’t stand us later.
Barack Obama and the coalition have agreed to help. How? A no fly zone? We will help against the rebels and figure out how to defer leadership to the British, French or someone else? What are the military objectives? What are the political objectives?
The political objective should be a stable and democratic Libya. To do that the Qadafi must be kicked out. That is hard to do, and not necessarily one of our objectives. The military is a tool and needs clear military objectives to support our political objectives. We are operating without a clear political objective and even less clear military objectives. That is a recipe for a bad meal.
Barack Obama is demonstrating a great ability to negotiate and work on statesmanship. He is also demonstrating a pitiful record on military use. The military objectives in Afghanistan are unclear under Obama. This means we’ll be there for years and not know what success looks like. The military objective in Iraq is get out soon. I used to agree with that, but Iraq has shifted from a failed state to a fragile state. We, unfortunately, need to stay for years until it is much more stable.
We may mean well in Libya, but it probably will not turn out well. Will we ever learn? I doubt it.
| This entry was posted by pmillard on March 23, 2011 at 6:57 pm, and is filed under Politics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |








about 2 years ago
It started out that the US was not going to lead. Two days later we’re talking about “not leading any more”. Obsurd. The chances of any good coming out of this pale in comparison to the potential downfall – war all over the middle east. Where do we stop? Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? Both are abusing their populace – oh, I guess it’s not to the mass slaughtering stage yet there.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
about 2 years ago
The French actually kicked this whole thing off by being the first nation to recognize the rebels in the east as the official government of Libya…for that I commend them.
Bug geeeze, looking back in history, the last time the french got involved in a nation’s civil war, they got their asses handed to them at Dien Bien Phu, and then we went in and screwed around for 20 years….yeah that’s right VIETNAM.
Who knows, maybe our intelligent leaders in D.C are figuring we need to get involved up front and try for a graceful exit so we don’t end up having to mop up the mess for 20 years like Vietnam.
And Ken, I refer you back to one of my other posts about my theory behind the reasons all this unrest is occuring, and why we pick and choose where to intervene.
Now the coalition can’t agree who takes over the leadership role from the U.S…hmmmm I sense we’re about to get it in the ass and end up stuck with the role.
Like or Dislike:
0
0