Should the US Intervene in Libya? essay
Soon after Col. Moammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya began to be attacked by American, French and other countries air forces president Obama announced that his country would stop its participation in operations against units loyal to the desert dictator. Victor Davis Hanson, a historian and classicist at Hoover Institution, Stanford University criticizes American half-way policies toward Islamic terrorism and warns Americans against being as irresolute in Libya as they used to be in recent years toward other dictatorships.
He reminds that Americans failed to finish the war against Islamic terrorists in 1983. That year Hezbollah killed 241 American military personnel in Lebanon. Reagan’s administration refrained to make the second blow lest it might be followed with the fray. It is no wonder that ten years later American military servicemen were killed in Somalia. Although President Clinton ordered attacks in retaliation against both Sudan and Afghanistan, neither of them had any serious follow-up.
Furthermore present-day conflict is not the first time when America encounters Gaddafi’s dictatorships. In 1977 president of Egypt Sadat hit back at Libyan provocations and almost invaded this country Americans talked him out of war against Gaddafi. Nine years later President Reagan ordered missile strike against Libya aimed against Muammar Gaddafi himself. Nevertheless the latter escaped this attack being apparently warned before. Having stricken against Tripoli American leadership as usually gave up.
Victor Davis Hanson goes on that in order to retain power Gaddafi would not hesitate to kill or have killed thousands of people. He says that America can abstain from taking the course of action again and impose the burden of war against Gaddafi on European countries as President Obama proposes; yet in this case America would have to face unforeseen consequences. (Hanson)
Katrina vanden Heuvel, the Nation’s editor and publisher also does not cherish any kind feelings for Libyan dictatorship. This notwithstanding she strongly objects to American intervention in Libyan civil war. Furthermore she is not as vague on the point as above mentioned university professor is. She does not make suggestions but states precisely that United States should by no means invade the notorious North African dictatorship. She argues that America should encourage “uprisings to take their own course if we really want to play a productive role in the future of the region”. (Gosztola) What we can witness at the moment in Libya is not a democracy movement. She maintains that popular movements in Near and Middle East are nothing else but “outpourings” of the peoples sick and tired of being oppressed by their dictatorships.
The Nation editor believes that American interference in the struggles in Libya would inevitably fuel terrorism because Gaddafi as any other dictator always interacts with his citizens through his security forces or militaries. With newly opening societies, social and economic developments would be critical so United States have an opportunity to maintain “civic governance” in that region.
Vanden Heuvel maintains that what America ought not to do is intervene in Libyan affairs. She says she wishes United Nations had more capacities to put an end to bloodshed and violence in Libya as well as in other places like that. However if the US dare get involved unilaterally in that country it would inevitably destabilize the situation. Furthermore it may even hinder the forces opposing to Gaddafi and ready to oust him themselves
