Steffi Badanes and Audrey Piehl
Reporters
President Barack Obama officially declared America’s involvement in the conflict in Libya in his presidential address on Monday night, March 28th. So where does this go from here? We discuss the arguments of taking baby steps as opposed to diving right in the center of the conflict.
Steffi: “Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.” -Barack Obama in presidential address on Libya
Under the Bush administration, we were threatened with the idea that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. So we attacked with full force, resulting in hundreds of thousands of lives lost, those of Iraqis and of Americans, not to mention the millions of dollars wasted (which make up part of the large pile that is our federal budget deficit). Now we are under the Obama administration, receiving word that Moammar Gaddafi has bombed his own country and refuses to step down from power.
Now the rules of the Obama Doctrine are coming into play. I think we are taking a much wiser approach to handling this situation. We are currently working with the coalition of allies, together as one, to save the state of Libya and its fellow citizens. What would be wrong would be to take the Republican-cow-boy-President-Bush approach which would be invading at full force, with the only goal of making sure America stands on every other country to be the best of the best. This isn’t a competition about who can be the strongest or most intimidating country. That’s not what our country is about. This is about saving lives and the well being of a great nation.
Although it is a civil war that we can’t get too wrapped up in, we cannot sit back and watch innocent lives get blown up under their leader’s command. We will intervene to a certain extent, without need of regime changes similar to the Iraq war, which was one of Bush’s greatest mistakes. So if it didn’t work then, obviously we are not taking that same approach today. We are intervening to prevent massacres. That is the Obama Doctrine.
Audrey: On March 19th, NATO bombed Libya. This was a move much anticipated all around the world; would the United States intervene in a precarious and evil foreign dictatorship…again? But of course we did. Because that is what America promises the world, amongst other things. We promise a response to intense corruption and violence, and assistance for a struggling population.
It’s difficult to ignore such horrific savagery, especially when it has been so widely publicized in the wake of the Egypt revolution. But a few bombings are not going to make much of a difference. If anything it will merely “stir the pot” and give Gaddafi a mild panic attack. Of course a “panic attack” could easily turn into further massacres and more unrest. Gaddafi isn’t just going to peacefully step down. It will take more force, and more lives, and more turbulence for the Libyan people.
It’s impossible to predict the future in such an unstable time, but there seem to be 3 ways intervening could possibly go: 1. Gadaffi will be forced out of office by his people or foreign military action, 2. Tribal leaders will begin fighting for power as Gadaffi’s reign descends into utter chaos, and we will try to implement a democracy and appropriate leader, or 3. Libya will come out shining as a unified and optimistic country. But none of these scenarios are black and white. They could easily ooze together into one big power vacuum, and like I said before, it’s impossible to predict the future.
Now we simply wait as our politicians calculate the next move, and Gaddafi continues to plague the headlines and appear on the SNL creation, Duh! Winning, with Charlie Sheen. Oh, the world we live in.
