The Story
To the Shores of Tripoli
On March 28th President Barack Obama addressed the nation regarding recent developments in Libya. In this long overdue speech, Obama attempted to persuade an apprehensive American public, weary of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that United States military action in Libya is justified.
Obama, who had recently returned from a five-day jaunt through Latin America, chose to address the country from the National Defense University at Fort McNair, eschewing the Oval Office and the perception of war that a speech from behind the Resolute Desk evokes.
Critics from both parties have questioned the intervention against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, whose official title, ironically enough, is Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya. Letting the Libyan people suffer â€"a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world†was â€"not in our national interest,†according to Obama.
If the United States has intervened in Libya in order to stop such a massacre, then why has military force not been used in places such as Sudan or the Ivory Coast? The United States needs to show some level of consistency when it comes to humanitarian crises.
Obama recognized in his book, The Audacity of Hope, that the United States needs â€"a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands†when dealing with military interventions. â€"Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?†pondered Obama.
President Obama is now having his words put to the test. As a candidate, one can easily prophecy instances where troops should or should not be used, but reality has a way of sobering even the most hopeful of leaders.
In one of the more confusing parts of his speech, Obama addressed the question of whether the United States should attempt to remove Qaddafi from power. While he stated that â€"broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake,†he remarked two sections later that the United States will â€"work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power.†While I struggle to see any difference between those two actions, I applaud Obama’s artful duplicity on the subject and his ability to obfuscate his true position on the matter.
Regardless of where Obama stands on the rule of Qaddafi, I support his opposition to the introduction of ground troops to the conflict. Obama rightfully stated, â€"We went down that road in Iraq... That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.†The use of ground troops would be an incredible lapse in judgment on Obama’s part, not to mention political suicide for a man whose campaign for the Presidency was based in no small part on his opposition to the Iraq War from its start.
I also agree with Obama that the United States has a â€"responsibility to act†in certain situations. Under what circumstances that responsibility must be fulfilled is where I begin to grapple with my own conscience.
The United States of America has a unique capacity to project power and influence global affairs. As the strongest nation on Earth, the US will often be called upon to rectify the world’s problems and defend the destitute and downtrodden.
Yet, should US troops die in defense of another nation’s people? Should a country whose military is stretched to the point of breaking commit resources to yet another conflict? Should the US spend money that it doesn’t have, thereby increasing its already mastodonic debt?
Maybe I’m an idealist, but I think that the answer to those questions is sometimes â€"yes.†There are extreme circumstances in which nations must be called upon to defend the humanity of persons who they may not know or even like. While the United States cannot be expected to solve every global crisis or police every ruthless dictator, there are times when this country must step forward and defend the values it was founded upon.
Is Libya such a scenario that calls upon the fundamental decency of the world? Must the United States intervene on behalf of the Libyan people? I have neither the information nor the intellectual capacity to render judgment on those questions. But in the end, do our leaders? What qualifies President Obama to determine the best course of action to take? Does winning 270 electoral votes automatically endow someone with the wisdom to make such decisions?
Our Commander-in-Chief and his aides must proceed with extreme caution in regard to Libya, understanding the gravity of the situation and knowing that their decisions affect the lives of thousands of people. I can only hope that President Obama navigates this tempestuous sea of conflict safely and with the utmost vigilance.
Sean Sweeney is a staff columnist for the DSJ. His views do not necessarily represent those of the entire staff.