Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Libya: What Is NATO’s Goal?

Libya: What Is NATO’s Goal?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

What is the international community’s strategy in Libya?

First the U.S. and it’s allies France, Britain, and to a lesser degree Arab League countries launched military strikes to secure a no-fly zone over Libya, all under a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Then the United States backs off it’s leadership role and transfers it’s powers to NATO. All the while the Libyan rebels, or should they more accurately be called freedom fighters, are being outgunned by Gaddafi’s professionally trained army.

Once again it appears that the world has gone in with guns blazing, but after a short period of time, their interest wanes, and those whom they were tasked to protect are left to fend for themselves.

If the goal of the international community is to depose Col. Gaddafi, then that should be stated clearly and the goal should be achieved using all military means at their disposal. Unfortunately, the goal of this action is not very clear, some may even say muddled. At a news conference in the Chilean capital Santiago, President Obama said the military objective in Libya is to guard civilians from attacks, not to oust Gaddafi from power.

Clearly the U.S. government would like to see Gaddafi removed from power after his 40+ year reign, but politically our President can’t come out and say it. Gaddafi has been a thorn in the side of the international community for may years. Libya’s role in the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing all 259 passengers on board is well documented.. According to Mustafa Mohamed Abdel-Jalil, the former Libyan Justice Minister: Colonel Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie attack. “I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie,” Mustafa Abdel-Jalil was quoted as saying in an interview with Expressen.

Today  it is being reported that the rebels are losing ground to Gaddafi’s forces in and around the town of Ajdabiya. There are claims of street fighting between the forces and the rebels appear to be on the retreat. Reporters speaking with rebels on the ground have voiced anger toward NATO and the international community. They feel that they are not getting the support that they need to take the fight to Gaddafi’s army.

Can we blame them? The international community and NATO must make their goals completely clear. Once this is done they must use all means at their disposal, including military ones, to achieve these goals.

The United States has now taken a backseat in this conflict, but I question whether we should have. Although we certainly won’t win any popularity contests in the region, with clearly defined goals it could be argued that we are the most capable of achieving them.

I have become increasingly concerned that bowing to constant international opinion has weakened our status in the world. It seems that regardless of what actions we take or what sides we support around the world we will be vilified by someone. If that is the case, then we should pursue what we feel as a country is morally right and put less emphasis on international public opinion.

Let us do what is right for the people of Libya and put an end to reign of Col. Gaddafi if that is the path that has been chosen. While we wait, more innocent men, women and children continue to die.

About Dominic DiFrancesco

  • Cannonshop

    I think it has nothing to do with Khaddafi, Qaddaffi, or however you want to anglicize his arabic name, nor does it have anything to do with the Rebels.

    The Goal-as it was when Clinton would shoot missiles into arabic-speaking-nations, is distraction and playing to an audience.

    THAT is why there is no clear objective in our getting involved, and no commitment once the U.S. GOT involved.

    Making war (or war-like gestures, specifically ones that kill people) without a valid strategic objective that CAN be achieved by doing so, SHOULD be a crime.

    see, you’re wasting lives if you open military actions without SOME kind of objective that those actions can achieve.

    Luckily for the occupant of the white-house, it’s not.

    This oontrasts with the actions of the previous inhabitant-whether you agree or disagree with Afghanistan and Iraq, overthrow of the Hussein Regime in the style of Manny Noriega, and the overturning and destruction of the Taliban regime are both goals that can be achieved militarily with the forces deployed (the Talibs are now scattered factions fighting each other as much as the coalition, and Saddam got strung up.)

    the actions there were valid because (given the resources applied) they were ACHIEVABLE.

    the Libyan mission, given the lack of a strategic objective, is NOT achievable, therefore it is not a valid operation. (nevermind legalities-the WH is right in that they did not require congressional sanction before acting, based on precedent under the current war-powers-act.)