March 28, 2011
Posted by on
I may have addressed this before, but at the risk of being repetitive, I have to question the rhyme or reason behind the US getting involved in Libya. Further, I have to look at it from a different view–if we are going in there to help with regime change, or prevent a leader from killing his own people, how do we decide which places to stick our noses in and which ones to ignore?
President Obama publicly rebuked Libya leader Mommar Quaddfi, saying that the US and its allies would get involved in Libya to stop the killng that was going on there. On the surface, such actions are noble. who doesn’t want to see an end to slaughter and bloodshed by a tyrannical dictator? But the issue is a complex one. If we are going to take this stance on Libya, why not on other countries? There have been hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur. The people in Iran tried to rise up and got squashed. There are numerous countries in the Middle East where the citizens are currently protesting their government.
Of the situations mentioned, there is no plan for intervention from the US or otherwise.
So the question becomes, under what grounds do we decide to jump in? Does the situation have to be 100% winnable? Only under NATO approval? Only when invited by the Arab League?
Someone somewhere needs to spell this out.