Sometimes I feel like a kindergarten teacher…”Ok, class…class…now pay attention, what happened the last time the Americans bombed Libya and Gaddafi into submission?”
I will tell you what happened. He made a fool of the world. He “gave up” the conflict…surrendered. Class? Can you say “self-preservation”? He even fooled the world enough to eventually allow more open world trade with Libya as he regained his political and military strength. As he gained strength, he also carried out numerous terrorist campaigns throughout the world through direct involvement, arms shipments, and financing. These involvements actually escalated after being bombed into a supposed submission.
This No-Fly zone over Libya is truly indecisive. France seems to be the aggressor, or at least the most voraciously concerned. Is this because they used to occupy Libya? Hmm, don’t know. The United States doesn’t want another Iraq. It also seems as though the NATO nations involved are not fighting as much for the rebels or the people of Libya as much as they are against Gaddafi’s government forces.
I do not condone war of any kind. War kills people. Rips apart families. Rips apart nations. In the case of Libya, obviously Gaddafi has been the aggressor against his own people. So, what is the world to do if we are to apply a plan that war is not good? A consensus was reached by NATO nations that they would be able to use whatever military force necessary to enforce the no-fly zone and protect the Libyan people who are being attacked by forces loyal to Gaddafi. Does this minimize fatalities? I don’t think so. I think it prolongs involvement. Does this ensure that Gaddafi will not go back to his historical ways? It should be obvious that it will not. Does this allow the rebels to become instantly militarily viable to “win” the revolt themselves? Hmmm, how many years will that take? What are the chances that France will be drawn into a long-standing war? Right now…I think very good. How do you stop an aggressor like Col. Gaddafi? Shall we wave the peace flag at him and hope he stops slaughtering his own people? Maybe, we can beg him to stop. Maybe, we can bomb him into submission again so he stops his activity. This way he can just go back to his terrorist ways instead of all out war against his own people.
Ok…enough of the questions. What are we to do about this?
Aggressors will always present themselves. Hopefully, most will be relegated to the school yard fist fight instead of leading the military force of an entire country. To stop the action of an aggressor, there must a be swift and decisive…full strength response. They must know that this is not the way to act in a civilized world. To date, Gaddafi has not learned this lesson. You see…this goes way past letting the Libyan people solve their own issues. Gaddafi is taking part in a whole sale slaughter of a specific demographic within his own country.
NATO needs to stop “pussy-footing” around acting stern with Gaddafi on one hand and nervously looking at public opinion polls in the other. It should have been a quick, hard response in the aim to remove Gaddafi from power and bring him to trial.
Do we really need to ask the question why I say this?
It is to stop the killing. Stop the world from seeing this as allowable behavior from any group, country, or leader. This would make the other benevolent forces out there think twice about acting in the same fashion as NATO may just have to enforce the same on them (as they are supposed to be doing in the first place).
This leads me to a direct concern about how this conflict is unfolding. I am questioning how NATO decided to act in Libya. The political powers in NATO know the history. They know the region. They know the current activity of revolts region wide. They know that a portion of the rebels that we fight to save are some of the most voracious anti-American and anti-western demographics. They know that the current action will not remove Gaddafi. They know that it will most likely thrust them into a long, drawn out war. Why did they decide this plan of action. Was it only to ensure total world approval of the action? Was it to ensure that Gaddafi could eventually be brought up in front of an international war crimes court? Is there an economic benefit to be had from a long-term conflict?All things to consider.
Do they believe that a rebel success helped along by European hands will ensure a more favorable oil market between Libya and Europe in the years to come? Interesting that nobody has brought this up. France is the second largest exporter of oil from Libya behind Italy (who is also involved). Is this a story of “two birds with one stone”? Was this the opportunity that European and Western NATO nations were looking for? Were they waiting for Gaddafi to go back to his war like ways in order to have an excuse to go to war and…”just take care of the oil situation while we are there”.
It is time for the world to admit to this cycle of stupidity…speak up…and set things straight.It is obvious what is going on now and has been for many years. Stop with listening to the countless listings of disinformation and see in to the truth. We are about to head into another cycle in Libya, if we d not do something now.
——– Erik Sudberg