Last month, The Collegian wrote an editorial which argued this: “Stay out of these Arab conflicts. Quit meddling in faraway lands with people we don’t understand. Build our fortifications here at home.
Let the sheiks, imams, monarchs, ayatollahs, Islamists, indeed all Arabs figure out their governments for themselves.”
Apparently members of the Obama Administration don’t pick up this semi-daily.
On March 19, following the United Nations Security Council’s vote authorizing military action, forces led by the United States began a bombing campaign against the Libyan government in an effort to help the opposition forces.
America’s third war in the Middle East has begun.
What good can come from this?
The “no-fly zone” will not stop Col. Gaddafi in his efforts to suppress the rebellion within his country. He will simply roll in the tanks. What will Western nations do then? They will be forced to send in ground troops of their own. Then a full-scale war will be on our hands.
Say Gaddafi is deposed and a new government may be set up ”” will we stick around to ensure that the government that is produced is a pro-West one? If we leave the Libyan government solely to the Libyans, the result may be a worse government than the regime that it is replacing. If we stay, for how long? How will we make sure it doesn’t turn into Iraq 2.0?
A policy that results in this many questions cannot be a wise policy.
On top of all this, Obama’s action is brazenly unconstitutional, even by his own standards. In 2007, Obama said, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
There is no actual or imminent threat to the nation. So how can the president unilaterally decide to attack Libya?
The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war. Of course, this particular constitutional provision has not been followed since World War II, but since then presidents, other than Harry Truman in Korea, have at the very least allowed Congress to vote on giving the president authorization to use force.
In this case there was no such vote of authorization. Obama merely issued a notification, telling the Congress that he was bombing Libya.
This policy is a supreme act of folly, illegal under U.S. law and unjust according to any sense of a just war. It has little chance of ultimate success and, in practice, will be very difficult to carry out.
It is the height of hubris, and makes even less sense than the invasion of Iraq did.
America has no vital interest at stake. We don’t know who in Libya is good or bad. We don’t have a defined end goal in mind. This is the low point of the Obama presidency.
The Collegian’s advice still stands. To stay out of Arabian conflicts would be a wise course of action. The plan currently being undertaken by the United States is not.
Anonymous • Mar 25, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I support the idea of tackling issues like this, I just wouldn’t recommend reaching so many generic and simplistic conclusions, usually done because a writer knows nothing of what he is talking about. Neither you or any posters on this site are foreign policy experts, and we usually avoid making this an issue by refraining from writing as if one does. In style, you write authoritatively, but it clashes with the substance that is generic, and seemingly does not follow from its premises.
You cite premises — “no fly zone”, and America’s bombing — that signify the third war has begun. Then you follow this statement with a hypothetical that you envision that would lead to ground troops in Libya. Make up your mind. Does bombing or ground troops signify the beginning of war. Many presidents in the past give permission for certain aerial attacks. Clinton did this a lot, and it is not considered war as you put it. You do not need authorization from congress to approve some isolated aerial attacks on a target.
And you don’t cite what criterion (if any) is used to determine when America should mind their own business and when they shouldn’t. This would be helpful to readers in understanding your position, and would also help you by leading the reader to believe you have a position that passes some standard of logical consistency. Logical error: “UN supports military action…”; “Obama unilaterally bombs Libya.” Only if America decides to go to war (not the fake kind like you are talking about) does Obama need congress.
You also don’t acknowledge that force is supported widely from many nations, and use buzz words and phrases to demonize the white house’s policies, based on your assumption that a full-fledged war is occuring. If you suspect that’ s where it will inevitably lead, then fine, state that; but don’t speak as if America (all of a sudden) is this tyrant nation led by a tyrant leader who ignores war protocol because of this!!! Your lack of expertise on the matter is palpable. Be intellectually honest — and humble — by reorganizing facts and assumptions to support conclusions that make logical sense in your head, because on paper they are not consistent.
And what qualifies a “grave or imminent threat?; and what qualifies a “vital interest at stake?”; these needed attention to make your column more digestible.
It would have been insightful to focus on the pros/cons and ramifications of intervening in foreign conflicts, but this is one of the many things left out.
Anna Jacobsen • Mar 25, 2011 at 12:39 am
Good thing NATO is taking over, right?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/126676/20110325/nato-libya-united-states-no-fly-zone.htm
Anna Jacobsen • Mar 25, 2011 at 12:39 am
Good thing NATO is taking over, right?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/126676/20110325/nato-libya-united-states-no-fly-zone.htm
Anonymous • Mar 23, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Seems like another fairy-land college newspaper with another teddy bear view of life. Sure, let’s allow a dictator that murdered U.S. citizens in the Lockerbie bombing fire artillery into the homes of Libyan citizens that protest his rule. Let’s allow that madman, who, the Collegian obviously needs to be reminded, murdered U.S. citizens in the Lockerbie bombing, declare war on all shipping in the Mediterranean. Let’s just let Quadafi, who murdered U.S. citizens, threaten to murder more by joining al-Qaeda. There is a singular lunacy to the idea that the U.S. should not intervene in Libya, especially considering the Arab states are in support of U.S. participation. Go back to sleep, Collegian, I’m sure you have a party to get to later on. Leave the heavy lifting to the adults.