In my previous blog post regarding the situation in Libya, I stated unequivocally that I supported President Obama's decision to launch airstrikes against Muammar Gaddafi's forces in order to prevent them from slaughtering innocent civilians. However, I also said that I reserved the right to change my mind if the president failed to define the mission more clearly and set realistic, measurable, attainable goals for our military. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed in his attempt to do so, and as a result I am officially withdrawing my support from this initiative.
After a five-day jaunt to South America, one for which President Obama received a great deal of criticism, he finally addressed the nation two days ago on his policy in Libya. Amazingly enough, the address left Americans with more questions than answers, and it's beginning to look as though this entire operation could become a complete fiasco.
First of all, the president continues to contradict himself. Originally, he had said that Gaddafi "has to go," and that regime change was necessary in Libya. Then he reversed his position and stated that regime change was not necessarily our goal. He claims to have sent in our military to prevent a humanitarian crisis, namely a massacre of the Libyan rebels that would be carried out by Gaddafi's forces.
Clearly, the president believes that we have a moral obligation to be there. Several of our leaders in Washington echo that sentiment, and I cannot disagree with it either. But in order to ultimately prevent this from happening, don't we need to remove Gaddafi from power?
If unseating Gaddafi was our goal, then it would be crystal clear and one-hundred percent measurable. As it stands, we don't have an objective that we can fully assess. There's no question that our attacks have, for the time being, forced Gaddafi's thugs to retreat and helped the rebels make significant gains. That's all well and good, but does that mean we can now pull out? Of course it doesn't.
Once we pull back our airstrikes and stop supporting the rebels, Gaddafi's men will annihilate them. That is a fact that no one will dispute. So here is my question for President Obama. If we're there to prevent a humanitarian crisis but not to remove Gaddafi, how can we possibly know when we've achieved our goal? Isn't the threat of a merciless massacre omnipresent as long as this psychopath remains in power?
There are several other reasons to be very concerned. The costs of the operation are mounting, and that is hardly something that Americans want to see in this time of economic crisis. The latest figure is $550 million and counting.
Gaddafi remains defiant and continues to battle back. Earlier this morning, his troops forced rebels to retreat from the key oil port of Ras Lanouf. This makes it clear that he is not going to go quietly, and that as long as he's in power, he'll continue to press on. Does that in and of itself not show the president that regime change in Libya is necessary?
There has been talk of arming the rebels in the fight, but that too has its drawbacks. Arming someone is one thing. Training them in the use of arms is another. It would be great if it was as simple as dropping loads of weapons and ammunition, then wishing the rebels good luck in their fight for freedom. But it's not. We'd have to stay and train them, just as we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would mean a major commitment on our part in terms of time, money, and effort.
Then there's that nagging question about NATO assuming control of the operation. They were scheduled to do so earlier in the week, but then it was announced that they were not ready yet. This also causes Americans to lose patience, and leaves us asking the question, "Did we just allow ourselves to get roped in again?"
Through it all, I have to think that Gaddafi is emboldened by the president's statements. Put yourself in his position. If the leader of the United States was saying things like, "Regime change is not the goal in Libya," wouldn't that be comforting to you? I think my response would be something like, "Great! If they're not going to remove me by force, then I can just keep on fighting."
The president most recently stated that the international community has to ratchet up diplomatic and political pressure on Gaddafi to make him hand over his power. Well I've got news for President Obama. That's not going to happen.
Didn't our president hear Gaddafi when he gave rambling, incoherent speeches at the U.N. over the past couple of years? Was he not paying attention? The man is a lunatic. He is completely out of his mind. Gaddafi is not going to leave, so as uncomfortable as it may be for President Obama, he's going to have no choice but to force him to go.
If we are going to succeed in Libya, there can be only one goal: remove Gaddafi. I'll say it again: remove Gaddafi. Until the president comes to that realization, he is putting our country at risk of getting caught up in a quagmire from which there will be no escape. We'll spend lots of money, possibly lose American lives, and all for what? Get it straight, Mr. President. Go into Libya and do the job right. Make removing Gaddafi our goal, and do what has to be done to achieve it. Then we can put this behind us and move on. God knows we already have enough crises to deal with, both at home and abroad. Another long, drawn-out conflict is about the last thing America needs right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment