UNSC/Libya Op-Ed Story

On March 17th, 2011, the United Nations Security Council took into effect resolution 1973, authorizing all members of the nation to intervene, defend and guard the citizens of Libya from Colonel Mummar el-Qaddafi’s almost month-long barrage of attacks. Originally proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom, it also demanded for the international community as a whole to implement a “no-fly zone” over Libya, and also that “all means necessary” should be enforced in order to protect the civilians of Libya.

All of Benghazi rejoiced, as according to The New York Post several hours later the Libyan government released a statement that it would “call an immediate ceasefire and the stoppage of all military operations,” against the rebels who wished to exile Qaddafi from his reign. This was extremely shocking, as it was a complete 360 degree shift from their utterly noncompliant stance mere weeks ago.

Just two days later European and American militaries launched missile attacks on Qaddafi’s forces in the sky and sea, but then refocused their energy on obtaining control on his ground forces. That in turn caused Libyans to allege that innocent civilians had been murdered by these troops, which European nations vehemently discarded.

I question whether America is truly prepared, or frankly needs to be involved in yet another war with a Middle Eastern/Muslim country. It has been well over a decade since the attacks of September 11th, but for some reason we are still heavily embroiled in the “war on terror” in both of Afghanistan and Iraq - Isn’t that enough? I adamantly agree with the officials in Britain, France, and the United states who suggest that the forces behind the Arab League should be involved, so it doesn’t perpetuate the idea that America is always on the forefront of these attacks in the Middle East/Africa.

I do not by any means believe that Libya should receive any less support or attention from America, on what is becoming a common onslaught of horrific, violent, and escalating politic and social international tensions in recent months. On the contrary, I think America could play a vital role in the reemergence of a more stable society for Libyans – but it needs to be in conjunction with other United Nations Members. As the New York Times suggests, one of the best decisions would be to put into place an international peacekeeping force, which I think is beyond brilliant, and a healthy non-violent alternative to more and more military force, which inevitably creates a never-ending cycle of brutality.

President Obama has come under fire for not putting enough emphasis and urgency into the situation in Libya, with The New York Times shrewdly declaring him a “reluctant warrior.” I also find it odd and disconcerting as both an American citizen and a Muslim that it took him well over six days to even issue some kind of response. I also found it interesting yet very doubtful when White House spokesman Jay Carney stated that this would not be a war on Libya, just “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” Frankly, to me, that sounds like political/P.R. mumbo-jumbo – a way to keep in with Obama’s strategy to remain a relaxed pragmatist, in an effort to not alarm citizens.

Just three years after being proclaimed as the “King of Kings of Africa,” Colonel Mummar el-Qaddafi has now openly said to his own citizens that “we will come by house by house, room by room. It’s over…We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity,” – I think it’s about time to be alarmed.