The United States is fighting another war–of unknown scope and length–in Libya. At a time of budget-cutting fever on Capitol Hill, the war represents a potential lifeline for the Pentagon. If you believe the Libya operation justifies current U.S. military spending levels–or even an increase–think again.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and now Libya. In the last decade the U.S. military has fought Muslims across the Middle East (Iraq and Libya) and South Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan) for a number of reasons: national security, protection of vital interests such as oil supply, and humanitarian crises. Though our recent foray into Libya can be considered more nuanced than our earlier interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, our poorly defined words and actions have called into question our intent, with a mistrust of U.S. policy becoming a worldwide issue. In Libya, the U.S. lead role in the military intervention has proven that its advertised intentions and actions clash with reality on the ground.
Coming to terms with NATO’s intervention in the Libyan civil war is a little like wresting a grizzly bear: big, hairy, and likely to make one pretty uncomfortable no matter where you grab a hold of it. Is it a humanitarian endeavor? A grab for oil resources? Or an election ploy by French President Nicolas Sarkozy?
In the second part of our strategic dialogue on the Libya War, Robert Naiman and Ian Williams respond to their initial essays. You can read the original essays here: Naiman’s anti-intervention essay Surprise War for Regime Change in Libya is the Wrong Path and Ian Williams’ pro-intervention essay Armchair Anti-Imperialists and Libya.
The Obama administration set a bad precedent by launching a surprise war for regime change in Libya without congressional authorization or informed public debate, in violation of the letter and spirit of the War Powers Resolution enacted by Congress in 1973.
It is a particularly pernicious form of cultural imperialism for comfortable Western leftists to disregard what the actual Tunisians, Libyans, Kosovars, or Bosnians themselves have asked for – intervention to stop “their” rulers killing them. This setting aside of the wishes of people threatened with massacre in favor of Western armchair anti-imperialism is all the more remarkable coming from the left, which once swore by internationalism.
Two decades after Gulf War Syndrome reared its ugly head, depleted uranium is still being used by the U.S. military.
Even if Gaddafi is provided exile, U.S. and NATO airstrikes on Libya could still lead to our extended presence there.
If attacking Libya’s forces leads to the deposal of Gaddafi, who has previously backed down to Western pressure, other states will question the point of cooperating with the West.
The United States comprises the better part of NATO.