Attached is a recent article from Time Magazine, which highlights the precarious situation in Libya,and the fact that Gadhafi seems to be holding his ground. The question many are asking now is what to do next? The answer is one of both interests and morality.
In terms of interests, it is in US and Western interests to see Gadhafi ousted. Allowing him to remain in Libya (or a part thereof) will be a bill outstanding that will have to be paid sooner or later, not unsimilar to what happened in Iraq when Saddam was kept in power in 1991. The cost and risk of keeping him will by far exceed the benefit to everyone involved and will only postpone the inevitable. If one looks at the potential risk of a single terrorist attack that he might help finance or perpetrate and the high possibility of it happening given how erratic his behavior, it would not be hard to justify his ousting. For those preaching splitting Libya with him allowed to keep the Western part, none of the above risks would be mitigated. As long as gadhafi has at his disposal state resources- no matter what the size of the resulting state or statelet state- he will pose a risk to the international community as well as his neighboring countries as he has done in the past.
This brings us to the issue of morality. Some are talking of stifling embargo with no fly zones so as to avoid outright invasion. Interestingly, few point to the fact that the deaths amounting from the embargo placed on Iraq in the 1990's exceeded by THREE FOLDS the deaths of the entire Second Iraqi War (500,000 for the first by some estimates versus 150,000 for the latter). The embargo deaths were primarily due to malnutrition of which children proved to be the victims. If the same policy is applied in Libya, would it not mean that we are punishing the entire population of Libya for the sins of a madman? And would this not be morally reprehensible? Of course, others are talking of invasion and "boots on the ground".
While it is true that invasion should not be top on the list, if indeed Gadhafi cannot be coerced to leave his country in peace, then there may be no other choice but to forcefully invade and oust him. Many are weary of this option having seen the calamities resulting from the Second Iraqi War. What other option is there since he continues his military bombardments and attacks on his people in Ajdabiya, Misrata, and elsewhere?
Having gotten involved in cases like Rwanda, Bosnia, Liberia, and East Timor ... there seems no logical reason why it should not contemplate doing it in the case of Libya.
Attached Article:Libya: Despite Airstrikes, Gadhafi forces Ougun Rebels
Time Magazine
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110323/wl_time/08599206091700
In terms of interests, it is in US and Western interests to see Gadhafi ousted. Allowing him to remain in Libya (or a part thereof) will be a bill outstanding that will have to be paid sooner or later, not unsimilar to what happened in Iraq when Saddam was kept in power in 1991. The cost and risk of keeping him will by far exceed the benefit to everyone involved and will only postpone the inevitable. If one looks at the potential risk of a single terrorist attack that he might help finance or perpetrate and the high possibility of it happening given how erratic his behavior, it would not be hard to justify his ousting. For those preaching splitting Libya with him allowed to keep the Western part, none of the above risks would be mitigated. As long as gadhafi has at his disposal state resources- no matter what the size of the resulting state or statelet state- he will pose a risk to the international community as well as his neighboring countries as he has done in the past.
This brings us to the issue of morality. Some are talking of stifling embargo with no fly zones so as to avoid outright invasion. Interestingly, few point to the fact that the deaths amounting from the embargo placed on Iraq in the 1990's exceeded by THREE FOLDS the deaths of the entire Second Iraqi War (500,000 for the first by some estimates versus 150,000 for the latter). The embargo deaths were primarily due to malnutrition of which children proved to be the victims. If the same policy is applied in Libya, would it not mean that we are punishing the entire population of Libya for the sins of a madman? And would this not be morally reprehensible? Of course, others are talking of invasion and "boots on the ground".
While it is true that invasion should not be top on the list, if indeed Gadhafi cannot be coerced to leave his country in peace, then there may be no other choice but to forcefully invade and oust him. Many are weary of this option having seen the calamities resulting from the Second Iraqi War. What other option is there since he continues his military bombardments and attacks on his people in Ajdabiya, Misrata, and elsewhere?
Having gotten involved in cases like Rwanda, Bosnia, Liberia, and East Timor ... there seems no logical reason why it should not contemplate doing it in the case of Libya.
Attached Article:Libya: Despite Airstrikes, Gadhafi forces Ougun Rebels
Time Magazine
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110323/wl_time/08599206091700
No comments:
Post a Comment