Is President Barack Obama's decision to bomb Libya a justified one? I doubt it.
First, the United States does not have the right to intervene in someone else's domestic problem. Libyan President Moammar Khadaffy is being ousted by his own people. Khadaffy is trying to resist rebels from ousting him. Clearly, this issue does not concern the international community. It is a domestic power struggle.
On the issue of humanitarian concern, the United Nations did enough in releasing a resolution calling for a ceasefire on both sides. This resolution, however, does not permit the United States and its Western allies to just bomb Libya and destroy the entire country. If, at all, the best thing they would have done is send a humanitarian mission aimed at rescuing civilians caught in the crossfires. Or bomb some strategic defense sites, not the entire country.
The decision to bomb Libya is at best a diversionary tactic meant to hide the real fact of Obama's failure to rescue an ailing US economy. The US economy continues to lag behind other economies. Joblessness remains double figures, and the only possible escape route is an international one.
Obama's neo-imperialist tactic actually overshadows that of the Bush years. There was minimal disagreement between and among allies, a far cry from the one initiated by Bush when he attacked Iraq. When Obama ordered the strike at Libya, he did so without getting any flak from any ally, be it in the West or in the East. Russia and China, two strong allies of Libya, remained in the sidelines.
And the reason is simple...
War is an industry, a trillion dollar industry. Fact is, for every war that the US and its allies take, the aftermath is always the same---an improved economic performance for their countries. Stock markets rise whenever there is war. Thousands of jobs are created when there is war. Local industries become alive when the military prepares for war.
Even in the aftermath of a war or a conflict, there is still that term called "reconstruction." Reconstruction simply means the entry of several US contractors all waiting in the wings to rebuild those destroyed by Tomahawks. That will again create thousands of jobs.
Reconstruction also means the takeover of oil resources. Imagine that.
Even at the cost of killing other people, even at the cost of damaging the very futures of children of Libya, Obama will try to do everything possible to honor a campaign promise: more wars, and more jobs. :-)
During the Bush years, the President and the media jointly spent a lot of time focusing on terror. We were constantly being set up as if at any moment we might be attacked again. That had two impacts – some people solidified their support for the President, believing that all the actions he was taking were necessary to protect us; others thought he was manipulating the public, thus solidifying the anti-war protests. Obama has not chosen that approach.
ReplyDelete@atlanta. what approach? Yes, Obama did not use terror as a reason now; he uses the local terror argument this time, portraying a small civil war as some sort of a genocide play.
ReplyDelete