Following the trend of civil unrest across the Middle East during the past month, Libya is facing the possibility of a government upheaval as rebels clash with the long-time dictator Moammar Kadafi. Facing international pressure to relinquish his power, Kadafi has instead elected to stand firm against the recent uprising. The Obama administration has made it clear that "all options are on the table" to remove Kadafi, but states an unwillingness to impose a no-fly zone over the embroiled state. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that a no-fly zone would be a major effort that could be interpreted as an attack on the Arab state. However, many in Congress have embraced the prospect of a no-fly zone. Senator John Kerry called for American action to prevent Kadafi from bringing further harm to his people. Republicans have also endorsed the idea saying it gives the U.S. a way to "project power without getting engaged on the ground." President Obama is being criticized over the disconnect between what he says his administration supports and what actions he is willing to take to remove Kadafi.
This is an excellent opportunity for President Obama to take a definitive stance on a foreign issue. As Americans, we strive to live by the ideals of freedom and democracy. It is then hypocritical to ignore the plight of the Libyan people under Kadafi. As he kills his own countrymen, should we as Americans intervene? While there are many complicated questions to be answered such as setting the stage for further revolution across the Middle East, sending our servicemen off on another war, or protecting our supply of oil, President Obama needs to back up his strong words with strong actions. If he has allied himself to the Libyan public rather than Kadafi, it is time for President Obama to give the people American support. It is clear now that removing Kadafi from power will take more than negotiation and sanctions. The U.S. can at the very least threaten a no-fly zone to persuade Kadafi to step down. This is an important moment in President's Obama first term as he has to show his support for the masses rather than those entrenched in power.
This brings up an interesting argument. I can see both stances, and don't really know which side I advocate more. I agree with the fact that America, as a superpower, is expected to show support in times like these. However, I do not think we need to intervene with every foreign issue. With too much dependency on the Middle East for our oil supply, I do not think it is worth it to start another conflict.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting argument. As is the case in many political debates, I think it's true that leaders have to mirror what they say they support with their actual actions. This is clearly sometimes difficult. I look forward to seeing what will come of this situation.
ReplyDelete