Similar to how the recession of 2007-08 contributed to a change of power and President Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 elections, economic instability has spurred revolutions in Egypt and Libya. Unfortunately, these revolutions may create a government more oppressive than the one against which rebels are currently fighting.
On Jan. 25, massive protests began in major cities across Egypt calling for President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation. Mubarak, bowing to public pressure, resigned on Feb. 11, and the Egyptian military has imposed martial law until elections are held.
While Egyptian protests have been relatively peaceful, Libya’s protests have transformed into an uprising against Moammar Gadhafi’s tyrannical regime. Although initially neutral, the United Nations decided to take action by imposing a no-fly zone in Libya on March 17.
On March 19, France sent over air forces to defend Benghazi, a major rebel stronghold. As of March 25, NATO has taken over operations in Libya in regard to maintaining a no-fly zone.
President Obama has also sent forces to Libya, but still has not clarified what his goals are for American military intervention. Though he states that his administration’s primary intent is to protect Libyan citizens and aid the rebels in a regime change, exactly what does that entail?
How can we be sure that a more humane government will replace Gadhafi’s? This revolution closely mirrors the Cuban Revolution during the 1950s. After Fidel Castro replaced Fulgencio Batista, he created a communist bureaucracy that is responsible for Cuba’s current economic woes.
Although nation-building seems like a noble political objective, it is impractical and never effective. For example, after eight years of military occupation and billions in aid, Iraq is still hardly stable.
Ironically, during the 2002 congressional vote on military action in Iraq, while Obama was an Illinois State Senator, he said, “I don’t oppose all wars … what I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”
Producing less than one percent of U.S. oil and harboring fewer terrorists than other Middle Eastern nations, Libya is not a viable American interest that warrants military intervention. Furthermore, if Obama’s goal is simply correcting human rights violations, why not target Saudi Arabia instead?
Instead of sending troops and claiming a “war for democracy,” Obama should sever all U.S. involvement in Libya and leave humanitarian aid to private organizations.
For more politics, read the March 8 article, Wisconsin ‘anti-union’ bill justified.
