Is the “No-Fly-Zone” in Libya the right thing for the U.S.?

   On Thursday the United Nations Security Council, at the urging of the League of Arab States (The Arab League), approved the establishment of a “No-Fly-Zone” over Libya in response to the civil war that has taken place in Libya.  The council not only approved a “No-Fly-Zone” over Libya, it also authorized the use of“all necessary measures” to establish and maintain the flying restrictions over Libya.  The United States is now in the position of engaging in a THIRD military conflict in an Arab nation.  This is a precarious position the United States is in.  Military action in Libya could have many terrible consequences.  Is the “No-Fly-Zone” in Libya the right thing for the U.S.?

   Rebel forces based in eastern Libya launched an attack against the Libyan government which has been ruled by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi since September 1969.  The rebel forces initially had made great progress to the point where the fall of Tripoli, Libya’s capitol city, was imminent.  After years of oppression and emboldened by the successful revolutions that led to regime changes in the neighboring countries of Tunisia and Egypt, Libyan rebels could smell victory in the air and was looking forward to a new government and a new way of life.  The capture of Tripoli was the last rung up the ladder to a new government.  At minimum, Muammar Gaddafi would be chased from Libya in disgrace or, if many in the rebel forces had their way, Gaddafi would be arrested and charged with war crimes and for crimes against humanity.  Tripoli had to fall.  Not so fast.

   Muammar Gaddafi had other ideas.  When someone has been in power of a government for nearly 42 years, has helped himself to billions of dollars of the national treasury, travels around the world with a cadre of female bodyguards and has a buxom Russian personal “assistant” who travels with him, that person would be more than just a little hesitant to give all that up.  Gaddafi vowed to DIE in Libya and to fight to “the last bullet”.  True to his word, Gaddafi ordered a counter attack against the rebels, using the Libyan air force and tank brigades to push back the rebel advances and recapture key cities.  The rebels, who were once so close, were now in retreat largely because they had run out of ammunition at a crucial juncture.  The rebels were also ill-equipped to fight an air force attack.  As his forces advanced, Gaddafi ordered the slaughter of thousands of Libyans ... rebels and civilians alike.  Gaddafi is no stranger to bloodshed and not adverse to murder.

   Gaddafi has been blamed for some of the most heinous acts of terrorism of this generation: the 1986 bombing of the La Belle Discotheque in Berlin; the bombing of UTA Flight 772 that killed all 181 people on board and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.  In that bombing, the 747 exploded in mid-air over Lockerbie, Scotland killing all 259 people on board and another 11 people on the ground.  Gaddafi enjoys killing and it is no secret that many western nations, especially the United States, would prefer that he were not around anymore. 

   His affinity for bloodshed is what led the U.N. Security Council to authorize the “No-Fly-Zone” over Libya.  Gaddafi has vowed to “kill all traitors” and to “show no mercy or compassion” in reclaiming Libya.  It doesn’t take much research to know those aren’t hollow threats.

   Personally, I don’t want ONE member of the United States armed forces put at risk in establishing this “No-Fly-Zone”.  It will take MILITARY action to establish the “No-Fly-Zone” because Libyan anti-aircraft weapons and aircraft will have to be destroyed.  There is no way around that.  Also, with the insertion of the language “all necessary measures”, the possibility of putting boots on the ground in Libya is a distinct possibility.  I am most definitely opposed to that move.  I’m not the only one opposed to putting American boots on the ground in Libya.  In an editorial in The Daily Beast, former Assistant Secretary of State Leslie Gelb asks why the 22 nations in the Arab League did not establish the “No-Fly-Zone” themselves.  (Let Libya’s Neighbors Fix It)  Good question.  Those nations would be more directly affected than the United States and their combined military and air forces greatly out numbers those of Libya’s.  Gelb goes on to speculate that the dirty work of taking Gaddafi out will be left up to the United States.  I share those same suspicions.  This is one mission that I hope the U.S. takes a secondary role in.

   One thing that most of those concerned can agree on: Gaddafi MUST go.  He can’t be allowed to remain power.  Should he be able to remain in power, it will have major ramifications in other countries facing possible revolutions in the Middle East.  Syria, Algeria and Iran have restless populations clamoring for change.  Should one or all face a revolt, those regimes will more than likely resort to genocide in order to remain in power.  Gaddafi HAS to go.

   The Arab League needs to take him out, not the United States.  The U.S. can ill-afford to engage in a THIRD conflict in an Arab nation.  Besides, the propped up regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq don’t exactly give the U.S. credibility in regime change and nation building.  This MUST be an Arab League operation.

   We have witnessed successful revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and a major reform of government in Jordan.  These revolts have been successful and have credibility because the West, ESPECIALLY the United States, has stayed out of them.  Let’s not get involved in this one.

   Is the “No-Fly-Zone” in Libya the right thing for the U.S.?

   No, it’s not.

 

Peace, peace in the Middle East!

Craig Riggins

Follow me on Twitter: @TheProdigal517

Facebook: Craig Riggins

Email: theprodigalreturns517@gmail.com