Keywords and Terms: Military Intervention; American Allies; Libya; Internal Strife; Skeptical Americans Public; Massacre; Moammar Kadaffi; Zinga-Zinga.
While engaging in a civil war may not be the essence of the United States intervention in Libya, Obama’s constructive and forceful argument for intervention gives a new definition for being sympathetic to the course of democratically yearning people of the world, especially in the Arab world. The statements of the President, no matter what fence you sit on, shows a President actively engaged in positioning the country properly in the upcoming changes in the Arab world and probably the whole of middle east. The blog tonight looks at the president's argument for intervention; and the quick withdrawal of leadership of the intervention in Libya.
Libyans and probably secretly, many leaders in the Arab world, subscribes to the leadership role taken by the United States in this instance in the Arab world. A few political observers in the Arab world, probably wished the US could have done the same in some of the more despotic countries of the region, a few of which are currently having faint echoes of progressive democratic group inkling. The fact that the intervention is circumspect, both by liberals and conservatives, would probably convince any observer of the politics of Obama’s Administration, that it is accomplishing the objectives it has set for itself since the November 2010 election results: Go Centrist!
The conservatives are concerned that the President's action came a little too late and liberals found the action probably unacceptable in light of the fact that the country is already engaged in two foreign wars. Be as it may, the nature of the current intervention does not represent the determinism of the White House for all countries that may be yearning for political freedom; as you may deduce from this administration’s action with respect to Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria. Instead, the current Whitehouse believes that its intervention in Libya remains a compassionate action to save thousands of lives that might have been lost, with Kaddafi’s promise to root out oppositions, ‘Zinga-Zinga’!
While the President overwhelmingly subscribes to the view that it is our responsibility as a nation to protect helpless Libyan citizens, very few people believe that a threat to our national interest was evident in his choice. Indeed, many Americans internalized close to a universal belief that the American military and or might, was being stretched too thin with a third intervention in less than two decades. Maybe the President’s comment: "In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners," convinces the skeptics that this intervention wasn’t going to be a one-man show and was necessary on humanitarian grounds; or wouldn’t be for too long or too costly for the nation to bear.
Given that the current intervention sought an international coalition of the willing, who are willing to take on the responsibility of leading the war, as the US shuddered the burden of being the prime leader, no one in the skeptical group completely believes or buys into the President’s assertion that the country has an important strategic interest in preventing Kaddafi from overturning those who oppose him. While the President made somewhat of a convincing case for intervention, the better news from the administration probably came from Secretary Gates comments to CBS’ Bob Schieffer on the face the nation program, last Sunday: "I think the military mission has gone quite well...I think we have been successful a lot. You know, there was never any doubt in my mind that we could quickly establish the no-fly zone, and suppress [Qaddafi's] air defenses." Coupled with the following from Secretary of State Clinton: "we've already seen quite significant progress on the ground;” one can believe that our voyeurism in Libya is temporary. In other words, we are done with our immediate assignment and we are getting out in a jiffy!
Many in the Arab world may subscribe to the notion that the conflict in Libya has the tendency of spreading beyond the country’s border, however, very few of them share the conviction that clamping down on Libyan’s oppositions by Kaddafi will endanger democracy movement in neighboring countries as Egypt and Tunisia. With progressive forces fanning democracy across the Arab world, just as the manhandling of the conflict in Libya by Kaddaffi may spread to other country, so also can the wave of complete conviction in breaking the chains of oppressions and abuses spread across the Arab world. In fact the latter assertion is already taking place, whether other despotic Arab leaders know it or not. The reality is that some leaders in the Arab world are so brutal and more disposed to doing the same thing Kadaffi is accused of, and probably are presently doing same discretely. A few of them are more worried about the political implication of America’s intervention in terms of their own long term survival, with the wave of democratic forces upheaval within their border, the repeated regime changes that has deluged the Arabian world, and the uncomfortable theater of political instability that is now developing with many Muslim countries. The Arab nations are geopolitical different as is well known and the progress already made in the democratic movements in the Arab world, with changes in Tunisia and Egypt being somewhat unique and germane to each of the country because of the geopolitical arrangement within the borders of each country, the coming changes and the US administration’s reaction to each, is a toss up. Indeed, change is already in the Arab world and no one out there can actually say what to expect with the roaring change and clamor for democratic principles in many of these nations.
If the President’s outlined doctrine for intervention in a situation where there is a repressive regime is to hold, the question that ought to be addressed then is, why haven’t we done the same in China, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe, North Korea and a host other countries known for repressive regimes? The truth is there is no general agreement regarding why we intervened in Libya, even within the Democratic Party membership. Some critics of the President’s failure to quickly act or ‘slow to act’ choice before intervening in Libya may want to stress the inequality in his doctrine of intervention. Different treatment of nations regarding when to intervene or when not to intervene, when there is a likelihood of a repressive regime in power, exhibits the follies in the intervention doctrine as espoused by the President tonight.
Even though the President believes that a failure to act in Libya would carry a far greater price for America, objective assessment of the action taken so far with respect to Libya, differs from what happened with similar upheaval in China, Bahrain, Jordon and Yemen. Because of our failure to act in a nation like Yemen, a country where Al Qaddai is known to flourish, even though we believe in the lukewarm approach of their leader in the so called war against terrorism in that country and the recent action from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with respect to what was going on within the borders of Bahrain, calls to question our conviction in the President’s doctrine of intervention.
When the upheaval began in Yemen, we had the opportunity to intervene and actually root out any of the clowns/clans and madrasses in that country known to be propagating hatred for America and the west. We had the opportunity to clandestinely cleanse that country of people known to want to kill us, who populate that country. Tyrannical and despotic leaders are still in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, North Korean, Zimbabwe and many more. Women, who cannot drive or go out singularly in Saudi Arabia, will tell you their repressive regime ought to be questioned and so far, we have refrained from doing that while going after Libya. In fact, it could be argued that the only reason why we have not taken similar action in Bahrain, a country where a minority group leads a majority group, is because of our understanding of the differences in the geopolitical power tussle in many Arab nations. Repressive regimes still exist in the Arab world and we know many of them, Saudi Arabia, being number one. Our intervention in Libya does not justify intervening in those countries; however, justifying intervention in Libya with the premise that the cost could be higher, hardly holds much water.
As of today, the United States has taken the extraordinary step to halt the aggression of Col Kaddafi on his own people. President Obama said the US and its allies faced a choice between taking military action and letting the despot massacre civilians in an act that could have stained the conscience of the world. Apprehensive political observers however, reject the discriminatory doctrinal principle advanced for justifying the intervention because we know other despotic countries exist in the Arab world, and elsewhere as we speak, and our doctrine has not been invoked regarding their administration of their nation's affairs; or, clamping down on democratic progressive forces within their border. Moreover, evidence reveals that because of the delayed intervention or the ill-defined purpose of our intervention, our doctrinal strategy at this time, may suffer a setback, if the rebellion in Libya could not take over Libya from Kaddafi. The President has effectively said that the US wants Kaddafi out. If we are unable to achieve this, then our nation’s reputation is on the line. If the rebellion cannot overcome the power of Kaddaffi, there is no way we will not have to commit ground troups in Libya to accomplish the President’s pronouncement of wanting Kaddafi out. Anything less, will be an affront to our integrity as the leading nation in the world!
NB:
Despite my criticisms, I defer to the President on this one because of the articulation of his presentation. He believes in his arguments and presented them in a more aggressive fashion than in the past. The speech was well delivered and carried an allure that is a departure from earlier speeches of the President. Mr. Obama, you are worthy of that office and I enjoyed your presentation!
No comments:
Post a Comment