3/25 Op-Ed: Libya and the UNSC

UN Security Council begun military intervention in Libya with an allied bombing campaign to end conflict between the leader, Muammar Qaddafi, and enraged citizens who want the nation's leader out of power. Some see the decision to intervene as justified and necessary, in light of the violently chaotic political and social climate in Libya. Others are shocked by the move to intervene and feel betrayed by a president who ran on a platform of change, who repeatedly promised to end the United States' involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still others disagree with the decision to begin a bombing campaign on the grounds that such an act cannot be financially justified. 

The history of violent political turmoil and upheaval in the Middle East would lead some to believe that military action is necessary. This position is further supported by the use of force on Qaddafi's part against his own people. Ideally, a unified show of force would get a message across to Qaddafi that the international community, which Libya cannot take on by itself, is not pleased. Ideally, it could work. But practically speaking, I reason that it would not, that military intervention will not work. Not for Libya, not for the United States, not for the world at large. 

If there is a lesson to be learned by past, less than successful, military interventions into the Middle East, it is that the decision to intervene with force should not be hastily made. The first question ought to be that of practicality. The mode of intervention must be tailored to the situation, the country, the people and the leader to as to ensure that it's purpose is achieved to the highest degree. In the case of intervention in Libya, the situation has been violently chaotic, the country and it's people charged and heated and the leader less than willing to listen to outside voices and warnings. It is fitting that intervention, at this stage, would have to command Qaddafi's attention so that he and his government would have to address the public outcries in a serious manner.  

Practically speaking, is a bombing campaign the proper mode of intervention? Sure, it is quick, noisy and gets a point across. But bombs are also highly destructive and non-specific, they do not hit specific targets but rather random striking areas. There is little to ensure that there will not be an alarming citizen casualty rate. And if many citizens die as a result, can that not be construed to make the campaign signify support for the government of Libya? Practically speaking, there a too many variables to justify a bombing campaign.

 Further, the decision cannot come from any false notion of the infallibility of the West and Western ideas. This notion dictates that the "developed" nations have a moral imperative to intervene in foreign affairs in order to bring democratic or industrialized ideals to that country. Because the fact  is, the West is not all knowing or all powerful. If the West is anything, really, it is just in debt. On the other hand, something must be done in Libya so that the government and the citizens can enter into a dialogue and sort out the current mess. 

For citizens of the United States, a people that voted for Barack Obama in particular, the decision to intervene in Libya is alarming. Seven years ago, the U.S. under President Bush, began what would become a drawn out conflict with an ambiguous purpose. Here again, under a new President who promised to refocus the nation's pocketbook on the economy instead of foreign affairs, the country finds itself in largely the same situation. President Obama would do well to remember that it is those campaign promises that got him elected, and that if he continues to go against those promises by engaging the country in yet another foreign struggle he not likely be re-elected come November 2014.

This is change, you say? No sir, I answer, this is more of the same.