Edited by Nathan Ladd
Western Corridor: America’s “Libyan Nightmare” Has Begun
International coalition forces have begun attacking Libya, everyday spending at least a $100 million. The expense of fighting in two battle fields, Iraq and Afghanistan, is already causing the U.S. Defense Department to be very nervous.
The air strike will “add insult to injury”; there is nothing the Pentagon can do but appeal to an anti-war Congress for additional funds. No wonder U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates openly stated that within a few days military action against Libya will be significantly reduced. A more concerning matter is if the airstrike cannot get rid of Gadhafi, Washington’s international and domestic situation will become even more difficult. If Gadhafi is “decapitated,” Libya will definitely sink into a time of continual civil war. From the United States’ point of view, regardless of how things turn out, attacking Libya is a “nightmare.”
Because of oil the United States has previously wanted to “fix” Libya and Iran; but due to the complex situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could not pull themselves out of either place; thus they dare not act rashly. The wave of anti-government protest that is spreading through the Middle East and North Africa is like a plague, but the problem now is how to clean up the mess and who will pay to rebuild after the war is over. To deal with Gadhafi, international coalition forces need to send at least 10 thousand soldiers. It is meaningless if only a no-fly zone is implemented, but no ground troops enter Libya. It cannot be guaranteed that by supporting the anti-Gadhafi troops this mob can live up to the United States’ expectations. America’s “Libyan nightmare” has just begun.
The United States has spent a large amount of wealth on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, causing them to experience a once in a century economic crisis. Even now the unemployment rate is still high and not dropping, bringing great hardships on the people. The Obama administration promised that after 16 months in power they would pull troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, but because the situation has not been great, it has not been safe to leave.
Compared to 2003, when the United States attacked Iraq, today’s Washington has already lost that “emboldened” attitude. It allowed France to lead the attack and be the pioneer; allowed the U.K.’s Special Forces to be cannon fodder, while American forces are instead hiding in submarines and firing cruise missiles from warships. Being reminded of the past, we cannot compare American troops now to how they used to be. Libya brings America more nightmares, but not "cheaper oil."
America is Once Again Opening Up the Wave of Anti-War Feelings
The United States' attack of Libya has already received strong dissatisfaction and criticism from within the United States. On March 19, a large group of Americans staged an anti-war protest in front of the White House, shouting that the American government should quickly bring home troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They held up large signs and shouted anti-war slogans, requesting the U.S. government to use the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan on saving Americans suffering from the pains of the economic downturn.
Demonstrators are strongly opposed to U.S. troops participating in military acts against Libya, and they are hoping to avoid another heart-wrenching situation like in Iraq. Injured veterans from the Iraq war also asked government officials the following: If Obama said that our obligations in the Iraq War are over, then why are American soldiers stationed in Iraq still dying?
Officials on Capitol Hill also strongly criticize the Obama administration for rashly taking military action against Libya; they believe that there was not sufficient discussions about this war — one which could possibly bring apocalyptic devastation. Dealing with strong anti-war shouts, Obama hastily came to the defense of his actions. Then, using ambiguous language, he sent a letter to leaders of Congress saying that the “nature,” “duration” and “scope” of all U.S. military actions towards Libya are “limited.”
These actions are being implemented to carry out the U.N.’s resolution. They are mainly directed towards attacking Libya’s air defense, command and control systems and even Libya’s military, so that a no-fly zone can be created. This letter was also written to reassure the people that the United States will not deploy ground troops into Libya. This shows that the White House is already scared that this will lead to another giant disaster.
Civilian Causalities Cause Strong Dissatisfaction
Because in 2001 anti-Taliban forces helped the United States attack Afghanistan, they quickly took down the Taliban government, like a hot knife cutting through butter. The difference between this situation and the Afghanistan situation is that Libya’s anti-government forces are not organized into a well-established group. They may be unable to complete the task given them by America, the responsibility to overthrow Gadhafi.
According to U.S., U.K. and French estimates, after implementing large scale airstrikes over Libya, they believe that even more civilians will stand up and take down the Gadhafi government. However, the outcome could potentially be the opposite, due to a large number of civilian causalities from the international coalition forces’ air strikes; this may cause the people to be greatly dissatisfied and could increase the number of people in the anti-coalition forces. According to western media reports on the topic of continual airstrikes, even the Libyan rebel government is against the international coalition forces harming civilians’ lives for too long.
The air strike will “add insult to injury”; there is nothing the Pentagon can do but appeal to an anti-war Congress for additional funds. No wonder U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates openly stated that within a few days military action against Libya will be significantly reduced. A more concerning matter is if the airstrike cannot get rid of Gadhafi, Washington’s international and domestic situation will become even more difficult. If Gadhafi is “decapitated,” Libya will definitely sink into a time of continual civil war. From the United States’ point of view, regardless of how things turn out, attacking Libya is a “nightmare.”
Because of oil the United States has previously wanted to “fix” Libya and Iran; but due to the complex situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could not pull themselves out of either place; thus they dare not act rashly. The wave of anti-government protest that is spreading through the Middle East and North Africa is like a plague, but the problem now is how to clean up the mess and who will pay to rebuild after the war is over. To deal with Gadhafi, international coalition forces need to send at least 10 thousand soldiers. It is meaningless if only a no-fly zone is implemented, but no ground troops enter Libya. It cannot be guaranteed that by supporting the anti-Gadhafi troops this mob can live up to the United States’ expectations. America’s “Libyan nightmare” has just begun.
The United States has spent a large amount of wealth on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, causing them to experience a once in a century economic crisis. Even now the unemployment rate is still high and not dropping, bringing great hardships on the people. The Obama administration promised that after 16 months in power they would pull troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, but because the situation has not been great, it has not been safe to leave.
Compared to 2003, when the United States attacked Iraq, today’s Washington has already lost that “emboldened” attitude. It allowed France to lead the attack and be the pioneer; allowed the U.K.’s Special Forces to be cannon fodder, while American forces are instead hiding in submarines and firing cruise missiles from warships. Being reminded of the past, we cannot compare American troops now to how they used to be. Libya brings America more nightmares, but not "cheaper oil."
America is Once Again Opening Up the Wave of Anti-War Feelings
The United States' attack of Libya has already received strong dissatisfaction and criticism from within the United States. On March 19, a large group of Americans staged an anti-war protest in front of the White House, shouting that the American government should quickly bring home troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They held up large signs and shouted anti-war slogans, requesting the U.S. government to use the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan on saving Americans suffering from the pains of the economic downturn.
Demonstrators are strongly opposed to U.S. troops participating in military acts against Libya, and they are hoping to avoid another heart-wrenching situation like in Iraq. Injured veterans from the Iraq war also asked government officials the following: If Obama said that our obligations in the Iraq War are over, then why are American soldiers stationed in Iraq still dying?
Officials on Capitol Hill also strongly criticize the Obama administration for rashly taking military action against Libya; they believe that there was not sufficient discussions about this war — one which could possibly bring apocalyptic devastation. Dealing with strong anti-war shouts, Obama hastily came to the defense of his actions. Then, using ambiguous language, he sent a letter to leaders of Congress saying that the “nature,” “duration” and “scope” of all U.S. military actions towards Libya are “limited.”
These actions are being implemented to carry out the U.N.’s resolution. They are mainly directed towards attacking Libya’s air defense, command and control systems and even Libya’s military, so that a no-fly zone can be created. This letter was also written to reassure the people that the United States will not deploy ground troops into Libya. This shows that the White House is already scared that this will lead to another giant disaster.
Civilian Causalities Cause Strong Dissatisfaction
Because in 2001 anti-Taliban forces helped the United States attack Afghanistan, they quickly took down the Taliban government, like a hot knife cutting through butter. The difference between this situation and the Afghanistan situation is that Libya’s anti-government forces are not organized into a well-established group. They may be unable to complete the task given them by America, the responsibility to overthrow Gadhafi.
According to U.S., U.K. and French estimates, after implementing large scale airstrikes over Libya, they believe that even more civilians will stand up and take down the Gadhafi government. However, the outcome could potentially be the opposite, due to a large number of civilian causalities from the international coalition forces’ air strikes; this may cause the people to be greatly dissatisfied and could increase the number of people in the anti-coalition forces. According to western media reports on the topic of continual airstrikes, even the Libyan rebel government is against the international coalition forces harming civilians’ lives for too long.