|
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 03:35 PM by Tiggeroshii
Upon the news of a popular uprising in Libya, the world became glued to their newspapers and televisions at the prospect that there will be another peaceful movement ousting another autocratic government. Revolutionaries began to peacefully control cities across half the nation, and thousand of protesters surrounded Kadafi's compound with unified calls for him to step down. Our hopes were high that the people would get what they wanted and a transition towards a more democratic government would be made. However these hopes quickly died as Kadafi's defiance led to more brutal crackdowns on the streets, where he began to indiscriminately murder protesters with his military. Those soldiers who defied orders to kill, were themselves murdered, execution style in the streets. While this brutal crackdown led to the defection of top government cabinet members and military officers, and a unified rebellion was built; the peaceful movement began to die as Kadafi pledged to go "house to house" and kill "traitors" in their homes.
As time passed, Kadafi proved true with his promise and began to push towards those cities that were occupied by the opposition. This push proved successful, as he took back most major oil towns and neared the "rebel stronghold" of Benghazi. While there were calls for intervention by some in the international community prior to the takeover of these cities; most of them fell on deaf ears. But when Kadafi promised "no mercy" before entering Benghazi, many were convinced something needed to be done and a no fly zone began to be enforced. Recently, there has been a mixture of good and bad news since the intervention began. While the air strikes have prevented the advancement by Kadafi forces on certain cities including Benghazi -likely sparing a substantial number of lives, there have been reports of foul play by both sides. Ill treatment of black Africans have been reported as the suspicions of foreign mercenaries rises. Kadafi's compound has been targeted by air strikes -clearly a violation of the rules of engagement. Some criticism of such actions have been taken to account however, as British forces recently called off an attack that would undoubtedly cost civilian lives.
The engagement by both sides in the situation: calls for and against the intervention are however, necessary in assuring the forces involved do not abuse their roles as this must remain a solely humanitarian mission. I believe that the use of forces is, and should always be treated as a controversial action no matter the case involved. That it must never be unanimous -as that is a sign of abused demagoguery, that it must always be protested. Mixed feelings on the subject can assure that -no matter how necessary an action may be, it will be followed through responsibly and with restraint. The United States obviously does not have the best reputation in recent years in conducting any type of military action. But hopefully with the sharp engagement of all those for and against it -in maintaining that everything from constitutionality to what kind of force is used;this nation can prove that it is capable of using force when necessary, with restraint, and in moderation.
As this is the largest UN sponsored action since the Korean War, we must prove that we are actually capable of doing things within the authority of an international body without fucking everything up.
|