I am left wondering about the unintended consequences and fallout caused by a rather sudden and drastic alteration in the United States'posture toward Israel. The human rights crimes that have long been perpetrated against the Palestinians are undeniable and unforgiveable, but its not so simple for the United States to suddenly change its relationship with a reliably allied state and culture. Reducing the American footprint in the entirety of the Muslim world, this includes Libya and a meaningful withdrawl from Iraq, is a realistic policy that this administration should be focused on. Israel is too great off an issue to be resolved by 2012 or even 2016.
Here's a question that seemingly is being swept under the rug (although I believe George Will raised it in his op-ed piece "On Libya"): Suppose that with our aid - whatever it ends up entailing - the opposition to Qaddafi wins, what then? Who are they? How friendly - or hostile - will they be to the United States?
It troubles me that the Obama administration has jumped on board with Western Europe (Other than the US, the Europeans are doing the rest of the heavy lifting for this "Global Coalition") to come to the aid of, well, whatever.
Who are we helping? Furthermore, if Qaddafi is embattled by elements of radical Fundamentalist Islam - possibly Al-Queda, What is the role of the Muslim Brotherhood?, other various groups - then why are we attacking an ally in that fight? No one is debating that the world would be a better place without Muammar Qaddafi, but why, all of the sudden, is it in our National interest to remove him? Mere months ago it was not.
There is a chance that whatever situation arises in Libya after the smoke has cleared could be more hideous than the Qaddafi regime? What if this moves Libya closer to the orbit of Iran? We don't know any the answer to any of these questions, and that makes Obama's policy even less well informed and more misguided than Bush's.
Perhaps a better, more fundamental question is: what, exactly, does the United States expect to accomplish in Libya?
from this basic question a great number of other questions, with some, rightfully, disturbing answers arise.
"Will imposing a no-fly zone actually stop Qaddafi's 'murderous' regime?" Lessons learned from American intervention in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s suggest, well, no, not necessarily. The Serbs proved quite capable of killing Bosnian muslims without air superiority.
"Are Qaddafi's actions actually 'murderous'?" We simply do not know. Frighteningly we know very little about the "embattled civilians" in Libya. Who are they? What are they fighting for? What would they do if given the sovereign power? There is a great possibility that radical Islamic fundamentalist groups have an influence in what is unfolding in Libya. We have no idea just HOW influential radical Islam is in this case. What role is Al-Queda potentially playing? Who knows. Is the Muslim Brotherhood involved? Maybe. Libya has provided an alarming number of bodies for the insurgency against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Qaddafi is currently fighting an insurgency that would seek to install Sharia Law and pursue anti-Western and anti-American policies, then the United States and NATO0 have engaged our ally in a multiple theatre war against radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, or atleast broken neutrality. Making this an illegal intervention.
"Who is the terrorist, Qaddafi or the insurgents?" If the rebels are fighting on behalf of the Libyan people why don't the rebels have a broader base of support? Furthermore, if Qaddafi is the terrorist then the American intervention being conducted from 15,000 ft. is quite morally dubious, its a cause worth fighting for but not worth dying for. More troubling, if the rebels are influenced by Islamic radicals then, according to American foriegn policy, we are aiding and abetting a terrorist insurgency.
"If Qaddafi falls, and the rebels are installed to sovereign power, what then? Is there a chance that the new regime could be even more hideous than the current regime?" Yes, there is. We don't know what to expect if the rebels win, which, practically speaking, casts a dubious light on President Obama and his policies. Is Obama deciding with the best interest of the United States in mind? No. He has acted without knowing what the United States possibly stands to gain.
"Is there a chance the United States could now be fighting, long term, a three front war in the Islamic world?" You bet.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
I am left wondering about the unintended consequences and fallout caused by a rather sudden and drastic alteration in the United States'posture toward Israel. The human rights crimes that have long been perpetrated against the Palestinians are undeniable and unforgiveable, but its not so simple for the United States to suddenly change its relationship with a reliably allied state and culture. Reducing the American footprint in the entirety of the Muslim world, this includes Libya and a meaningful withdrawl from Iraq, is a realistic policy that this administration should be focused on. Israel is too great off an issue to be resolved by 2012 or even 2016.
Here's a question that seemingly is being swept under the rug (although I believe George Will raised it in his op-ed piece "On Libya"): Suppose that with our aid - whatever it ends up entailing - the opposition to Qaddafi wins, what then? Who are they? How friendly - or hostile - will they be to the United States?
It troubles me that the Obama administration has jumped on board with Western Europe (Other than the US, the Europeans are doing the rest of the heavy lifting for this "Global Coalition") to come to the aid of, well, whatever.
Who are we helping? Furthermore, if Qaddafi is embattled by elements of radical Fundamentalist Islam - possibly Al-Queda, What is the role of the Muslim Brotherhood?, other various groups - then why are we attacking an ally in that fight? No one is debating that the world would be a better place without Muammar Qaddafi, but why, all of the sudden, is it in our National interest to remove him? Mere months ago it was not.
There is a chance that whatever situation arises in Libya after the smoke has cleared could be more hideous than the Qaddafi regime? What if this moves Libya closer to the orbit of Iran? We don't know any the answer to any of these questions, and that makes Obama's policy even less well informed and more misguided than Bush's.
Perhaps a better, more fundamental question is: what, exactly, does the United States expect to accomplish in Libya?
from this basic question a great number of other questions, with some, rightfully, disturbing answers arise.
"Will imposing a no-fly zone actually stop Qaddafi's 'murderous' regime?" Lessons learned from American intervention in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s suggest, well, no, not necessarily. The Serbs proved quite capable of killing Bosnian muslims without air superiority.
"Are Qaddafi's actions actually 'murderous'?" We simply do not know. Frighteningly we know very little about the "embattled civilians" in Libya. Who are they? What are they fighting for? What would they do if given the sovereign power? There is a great possibility that radical Islamic fundamentalist groups have an influence in what is unfolding in Libya. We have no idea just HOW influential radical Islam is in this case. What role is Al-Queda potentially playing? Who knows. Is the Muslim Brotherhood involved? Maybe. Libya has provided an alarming number of bodies for the insurgency against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Qaddafi is currently fighting an insurgency that would seek to install Sharia Law and pursue anti-Western and anti-American policies, then the United States and NATO0 have engaged our ally in a multiple theatre war against radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, or atleast broken neutrality. Making this an illegal intervention.
"Who is the terrorist, Qaddafi or the insurgents?" If the rebels are fighting on behalf of the Libyan people why don't the rebels have a broader base of support? Furthermore, if Qaddafi is the terrorist then the American intervention being conducted from 15,000 ft. is quite morally dubious, its a cause worth fighting for but not worth dying for. More troubling, if the rebels are influenced by Islamic radicals then, according to American foriegn policy, we are aiding and abetting a terrorist insurgency.
"If Qaddafi falls, and the rebels are installed to sovereign power, what then? Is there a chance that the new regime could be even more hideous than the current regime?" Yes, there is. We don't know what to expect if the rebels win, which, practically speaking, casts a dubious light on President Obama and his policies. Is Obama deciding with the best interest of the United States in mind? No. He has acted without knowing what the United States possibly stands to gain.
"Is there a chance the United States could now be fighting, long term, a three front war in the Islamic world?" You bet.