The U.S.’ Difficult “Libya No-Fly Zone” Problem
Published in Xinhua
(China) on 14 March 2011
by (link to original)
(China) on 14 March 2011
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Sharon Chiao.
Edited by Alex Brewer.
The League of Arab States came to an agreement on March 12th; they will request that the UN Security Council institutes a no-fly zone over Libya. The March 12th commentary on the United States’ New York Times website expresses the belief that the request by the League of Arab Nations is “an extremely rare invitation for Western military forces on Arab territory."
This increases the pressure on the Obama administration. At the same time it also “clears the way” for the United States and Europe to push for the UN Security Council to pass a similar resolution. The article claims that the Obama administration so far has a “reluctant attitude” towards intervening militarily, because the current situation suggests that this will be a “prolonged and complex” war.
U.S. National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon stated on the 11th that American government officials are using many channels to directly communicate with the Libyan rebels, to “provide assistance” and “understand their leadership structures and their intentions,” and “to hear from them… what their plans are, what their recommendations are.” Donilon said that in the coming week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with Libyan opposition leaders. America is also preparing to send diplomats to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Donilon also disclosed that plans to implement a no fly-zone will be discussed at NATO in the coming week. Regardless of which action is taken, Donilon stressed that the League of Arab States, Gulf Cooperation Council, surrounding countries and organizations need to provide actual support not just vocal support.
Whether the United States should intervene militarily in Libya or not has been a recent discussion point. The American media believes that in the world today, other than Russia, only Western countries have the military strength to implement a no-fly zone over Libya. On the 11th, U.S. President Obama said: “bottom line is that I have not taken any options off the table at this point,” but the decision to send out troops needs to be “well thought through”; those considering it have “got to balance costs versus benefits,” and the decision “needs to get global support.”
U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates has continually had an extremely cautious attitude towards sending troops to Libya, on the 10th, after meeting with NATO’s defense minister, Gates stressed that there needs to be “a demonstrable need, a sound legal basis and strong regional support,” before NATO takes action. He also pointed out that NATO should increase surveillance of Libya from the Mediterranean Sea, mainly through the repositioning of naval assets and not by increasing the number of naval ships already there.
On the 11th, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. forces stationed in Europe, Wesley Clark, published an article that clearly states that the Libya situation has yet to reach the threshold to prepare American forces to intervene. Clark counts in history, starting from the end of the Vietnam War, all of the U.S. military interventions in the past 30 plus years: “Some have succeeded, some were awful blunders”; “some worked in the short run, but not the longer term”; “others still hang in the balance, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Clark listed a few principles America should consider when carrying out military intervention, when the United States needs to “deploy its blood and treasure” in operations “far from home”: “Understand the national interests at stake, and decide if the result is worth the cost. Know your purpose and how the suggested military action will accomplish it… Get U.S. public support, obtain diplomatic and legal authority, and get allies engaged. Avoid U.S. and civilian casualties. Once you decided to it, get it over with.”
Clark believes that America does not import much oil from Libya, and that the humanitarian concerns in Libya are no worse than at other times when the United States stood by and did nothing. Libya also has not had any hostile actions toward the United States. However once U.S. troops enter Libya, the conflict will then be between the United States and Gadhafi. The United States would need to deploy ground troops, and then they must stay until the end. Not to mention American troops are already engaged in two expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clark says: “We should have learned these lessons from our long history of intervention. We don’t need Libya to offer us a refresher course in past mistakes.”
This increases the pressure on the Obama administration. At the same time it also “clears the way” for the United States and Europe to push for the UN Security Council to pass a similar resolution. The article claims that the Obama administration so far has a “reluctant attitude” towards intervening militarily, because the current situation suggests that this will be a “prolonged and complex” war.
U.S. National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon stated on the 11th that American government officials are using many channels to directly communicate with the Libyan rebels, to “provide assistance” and “understand their leadership structures and their intentions,” and “to hear from them… what their plans are, what their recommendations are.” Donilon said that in the coming week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with Libyan opposition leaders. America is also preparing to send diplomats to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Donilon also disclosed that plans to implement a no fly-zone will be discussed at NATO in the coming week. Regardless of which action is taken, Donilon stressed that the League of Arab States, Gulf Cooperation Council, surrounding countries and organizations need to provide actual support not just vocal support.
Whether the United States should intervene militarily in Libya or not has been a recent discussion point. The American media believes that in the world today, other than Russia, only Western countries have the military strength to implement a no-fly zone over Libya. On the 11th, U.S. President Obama said: “bottom line is that I have not taken any options off the table at this point,” but the decision to send out troops needs to be “well thought through”; those considering it have “got to balance costs versus benefits,” and the decision “needs to get global support.”
U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates has continually had an extremely cautious attitude towards sending troops to Libya, on the 10th, after meeting with NATO’s defense minister, Gates stressed that there needs to be “a demonstrable need, a sound legal basis and strong regional support,” before NATO takes action. He also pointed out that NATO should increase surveillance of Libya from the Mediterranean Sea, mainly through the repositioning of naval assets and not by increasing the number of naval ships already there.
On the 11th, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. forces stationed in Europe, Wesley Clark, published an article that clearly states that the Libya situation has yet to reach the threshold to prepare American forces to intervene. Clark counts in history, starting from the end of the Vietnam War, all of the U.S. military interventions in the past 30 plus years: “Some have succeeded, some were awful blunders”; “some worked in the short run, but not the longer term”; “others still hang in the balance, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Clark listed a few principles America should consider when carrying out military intervention, when the United States needs to “deploy its blood and treasure” in operations “far from home”: “Understand the national interests at stake, and decide if the result is worth the cost. Know your purpose and how the suggested military action will accomplish it… Get U.S. public support, obtain diplomatic and legal authority, and get allies engaged. Avoid U.S. and civilian casualties. Once you decided to it, get it over with.”
Clark believes that America does not import much oil from Libya, and that the humanitarian concerns in Libya are no worse than at other times when the United States stood by and did nothing. Libya also has not had any hostile actions toward the United States. However once U.S. troops enter Libya, the conflict will then be between the United States and Gadhafi. The United States would need to deploy ground troops, and then they must stay until the end. Not to mention American troops are already engaged in two expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clark says: “We should have learned these lessons from our long history of intervention. We don’t need Libya to offer us a refresher course in past mistakes.”
Previous article![]( "Wisconsin Upholds the LawThat Eliminates Union Rights")