Recently in Libya, Gaddafi has begun an attack on the nation's uprising through increasingly violent measures such as bombing raids. The protesters have been calling for help from the international community, citing Gaddafi's resources (billions of dollars, military support, hired mercenaries, etc.) as a potentially insurmountable obstacle for democratic change. The question is: should the US get involved?
A no-fly zone would entail disabling their air defense (so they can't shoot down our planes) and establishing a security presence in the region. This would mean spreading our military thin (since we're already in two wars), increased military spending, and the potential repercussions of involvement in such a volatile affair. On the other hand, can we sit back and ignore the situation while Libyans are being slaughtered?
The US helped establish a no-fly zone over Iraq after the Persian Gulf War and it was in effect for over a decade, costing our country billions of dollars. I could see something similar (although not as lengthy or costly) happening here.
I say put pressure on the Arab League and African Union to provide support. Why does the US have to get involved in this? Instead of a military presence, do some sneaky-sneaky, behind-the-scene moves.
The US has become that meathead friend who gets involved in every bar fight no matter who is involved. When your cousin's neighbors babysitter is catching beef, you do have the right to sit that one out.
We should stay out. Another war on top of the two we're already dealing with and all the domestic issues we're still dealing with is a bit much.
ReplyDeleteWars should be results driven. What's the end result there? Provide some stability, get them primed up for an election, some dude wins, a few people get pissed and claim the election is rigged and then...more fighting.
Let George Clooney or some other smug Hollywood jackass cry about the civil unjustices that are going on in that part of the world. It's sad and unfortunate, but we just spread too thin.