Since the uprisings in the Middle East and the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis have pushed the problems of the American worker and the U.S. economy off the news, I feel compelled as someone who was deeply involved in the Iraq War to stake out my position on the actions in Libya.
As I watched a ruthless and probably unbalanced leader using his military and mercenaries against his own people, my heart went out to the people of Libya. I believe that caring people everywhere should support an international effort to stop the bloodletting. I believe that President Obama has acted wisely in authorizing the current campaign of enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya.
President Obama followed a deliberative process of considering the views of his military, Secretary Gates and Head of the Joint Chiefs Mullen, who were not in favor and his civilian leaders, notably Secretary of State Clinton, who were in favor. He waited until the United Nations acted and most importantly the Arab League supported action against Qaddafi. He selected a strategy which is designed to minimize both our military casualties and Libyan civilian casualties, and he is deferring leadership (at least on paper) to the Europeans. He has made it clear that we will not commit ground forces and will not create another quagmire. This strategy is of course not perfect and not guaranteed to succeed. But in this imperfect world it is the best course of action under the very difficult circumstances.
It can be argued that no-fly zones have not been perfect solutions in the past because of civilian casualties in Iraq and the inability to stop ground-based atrocities in Bosnia. However, at least for the moment, we have stopped what appeared to be the eminent annihilation of the Libyan resistance.
Some question why Libya and not Bahrain or Yemen and cite cynical reasons such as Libyan oil or friendly dictators vs unfriendly dictators. The real reason is much simpler: the world opinion is raised against Libya at the moment and we must act in concert with the rest of the world.
Others question if this is truly a humanitarian effort and isn't at least in part an opportunistic move to put a whole lot of oil into more friendly hands. I cannot fully disagree with this sentiment but I also argue that the U.S. and Europe have a legitimate right to defend their interests.
All this is not to say that a commitment of this magnitude should not be debated at the highest levels. Unfortunately, the sort of non-partisan debate which would best serve our country has not been forthcoming. The many Republicans who are running unannounced candidacies to replace Obama are for the most part criticizing Obama the person without presenting ideas or solutions. The Democrats can usually be counted on for a healthy debate on policy within their own ranks and Representative Dennis Kucinich has acted in that tradition in questioning the President's skirting of Congress in making his decision. However, Kucinich has made a serious mistake in bringing up impeachment. This suggestion is concerning and takes time away from what could and should be a serious policy debate.
In this very uncertain time, we are fortunate to have a leader who has the patience to consider all alternatives, the credibility to build international support and the confidence to assert his policy.
One wishes for an appropriate and speedy exit for Gaddafi saving us from him fulfilling his prophetic threat of fighting to his death.
Written in collaboration with Frank Suttell and advice from Phyllis Bennis
For more information about my work as a progressive activist go here.
Follow Dal LaMagna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DalLaMagna
I have not heard anyone state that Obama's action is designed to minimize civilian casualties. His drone policy in Pakistan certainly does not.
It is unclear to me why I should care if the Libyan resistance is crushed, as I haven't a clue who these people are or what they stand for---and neither do you.
"World opinion" is not raised against Libya as China, India and Russia's Putin have condemned the US attack.
I want to repeat that: China and India (and Russia). That, to me, represents "world opinion".
I agree that the US and Europe have a right to defend their interests. (a) It is far from clear that attacking Libya is in US interests---it certainly wouldn't be if there were another terrorist attack. (b) Libya has a right to defend its interests: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Kucinich's suggestion is "ridiculous" because you disagree with it, I guess. In fact, we should not be discussing impeachment. We should be discussing Obama's arrest.
1. Why is it Obama not consulting? The Arab League asked for a NFZ, why not call out the Arab League for not consulting with Obama?
2. Minimize civilian casualties?...You think putting a radar station next to a housing project makes you a saint? If that's really the question, who's doing a better job limiting civilian casualties, Obama or Gaddafi...take your time on that one....
3. "I haven't a clue who these people are or what they stand for---and neither do you..."
---hmmm, they seem to want to throw off a tyrannical dictator...a guy who k.ills his own people (16K as of last week, on St. Patty's Day he desecrated more life than all of Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Tunisia for the last three months combined)...he's a person who has culpability in US terr.orism...I'm sorry if you're not up to speed on this yet...
4. "China, India and Russia's Putin have condemned the US attack"...
...that's fabulous, do you always mimic opinions from China, India and Russia as your own?...what does Rwanda have to say about it...
Obama's arrest?
not so fast...better consult opinion in Russia, India, and China about their notion of executive privilege...mind you also, according to them, thousands would have died yesterday...great side to be on...
"...the eminent annihilation ..."
So you saw this first hand, or did you glean it from the western media?