Why Did Obama Admit Military Action in Libya Has Defects?
On the 26th of this month, there was a very significant and attractive piece of news on every portal stating that Obama admitted that the military action in Libya has flaws and insisted that Gadhafi would step down. ChinaNews.com cited foreign sources on May 25 that U.S. President Obama admitted that NATO’s military intervention in Libya had “inherent limitations.” Meanwhile, he predicted that Gadhafi would step down eventually. According to the report, Obama was holding a press conference with British Prime Minister Cameron in London during his visit to the UK when he announced that if ground operations are excluded, air strikes will have some inherent limitations. He and Cameron appealed together that they should remain “patient” and “committed” in military intervention in Libya.
Why did Obama admit that military action in Libya has limitations? What exactly are these limitations? Why didn’t Obama clarify them? Honestly, I think that Obama’s public admission of the limitations reveals two insufficiencies and three limitations:
Obama’s admission of the limitations of military action in Libya revealed the lack of power of the West in attacking Libya. There were many controversies and disputes toward NATO’s military intervention in Libya, led by the U.S. A large number of experts and authorities from the Western countries that participated in the military intervention doubted and objected to the action. There were even voices from the U.S. Congress saying they would investigate the legality of Obama initiating this war. The anti-war voices were rising in Western countries; anti-war demonstrations also appeared. In Western countries that respect democratic values, facing the strong pressure from the opposition and reasonable doubts and objections, Obama had to admit the limitations of military action in Libya. He had no alternative and in doing so revealed the powerlessness of the West in striking Libya.
Obama’s admission of the limitations of military action in Libya also reflects the disappointment of the West in the Libyan opposition. The West originally thought that under the heavy air strikes, Libyan anti-government armed forces would destroy Gadhafi’s power with NATO’s strong assistance led by the U.S. and would soon win their freedom. Unexpectedly, the Libyan opposition was so useless that they couldn’t beat Gadhafi under the heavy air strikes of the West. The war entered a stalemate, making NATO very embarrassed. Because of this, Obama had to say that the military action in Libya would be a long-term, slow and steady progress, and he thought that Gadhafi would step down eventually. He also claimed that the Libyan opposition should take responsibility for expelling Gadhafi.
Initiating military intervention in other countries’ affairs is excused by the advocacy of human rights over sovereignty. The saying that human rights over sovereignty, human rights above all else, is the invention of former U.S. President George W. Bush. Applying this theory, NATO’s military force intervened in former Yugoslavia’s dispute and the U.S. even started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars ended the Republicans’ disastrous reign and helped Obama, who claimed he was for “change,” to get elected. However, things changed with the passage of time. What’s funny was that Obama’s campaign words that attacked the Republicans seemed to still linger in the ears of American voters; he himself applied the same “human rights over sovereignty” theory to the military attack in Libya. Under strong domestic pressure, the U.S. army has given up leadership authority and decreased the striking scale and power in the Libyan military intervention; this still couldn’t cover the paleness and unreasonableness of military intervention in other countries in the excuse of “human rights over sovereignty.”
The U.S. military intervention surpassed United Nations’ authorized scope. The original purpose of the no-fly zone in Libya passed by the UN was so simple and obvious: It was to protect Libyan civilians from the Libyan government’s air raid. It was executed in the same way that the U.S. army set up the no-fly zone in Iraq. It’s apparent that a no-fly zone means no flying airplanes in the area. However, the U.S.-led West took advantage of this resolution and deployed large-scale naval and air forces, assaulting Libya using military power. Since Obama knows clearly that the military intervention exceeded the UN’s authorization, he had to admit that the action was flawed.
Promoting the “universal value” of democratic freedom as the reason for exploiting oil resources, and if the West really initiated military intervention in Libya for “universal values,” then the world is full of places where Western military intervention is needed. For example, Uganda and Rwanda, where genocide happened several years ago and millions of civilians were killed — why didn’t Western armies interfere with them? Take the example of Somalia, which is near Libya; Somali pirates were so rampant that they seriously interfered with maritime security around the world, and Somalia plunged into a mess of anarchy. Even though Somalia was in an important strategic location and has been in unrest for years, just because of the lack of oil resources that Libya has, the U.S.-led West didn't interfere with it using any military power. To be honest, the lack of oil resources is the key factor in it!
Based on the factors mentioned above, Obama, who won his presidency by claiming that the U.S. needs to “change,” had to admit that the military action in Libya was flawed. Except that Obama forgot that as a leader, he bravely admitted the flaw; how embarrassing and difficult it would be for his followers to act after his admission?
Why did Obama admit that military action in Libya has limitations? What exactly are these limitations? Why didn’t Obama clarify them? Honestly, I think that Obama’s public admission of the limitations reveals two insufficiencies and three limitations:
Obama’s admission of the limitations of military action in Libya revealed the lack of power of the West in attacking Libya. There were many controversies and disputes toward NATO’s military intervention in Libya, led by the U.S. A large number of experts and authorities from the Western countries that participated in the military intervention doubted and objected to the action. There were even voices from the U.S. Congress saying they would investigate the legality of Obama initiating this war. The anti-war voices were rising in Western countries; anti-war demonstrations also appeared. In Western countries that respect democratic values, facing the strong pressure from the opposition and reasonable doubts and objections, Obama had to admit the limitations of military action in Libya. He had no alternative and in doing so revealed the powerlessness of the West in striking Libya.
Obama’s admission of the limitations of military action in Libya also reflects the disappointment of the West in the Libyan opposition. The West originally thought that under the heavy air strikes, Libyan anti-government armed forces would destroy Gadhafi’s power with NATO’s strong assistance led by the U.S. and would soon win their freedom. Unexpectedly, the Libyan opposition was so useless that they couldn’t beat Gadhafi under the heavy air strikes of the West. The war entered a stalemate, making NATO very embarrassed. Because of this, Obama had to say that the military action in Libya would be a long-term, slow and steady progress, and he thought that Gadhafi would step down eventually. He also claimed that the Libyan opposition should take responsibility for expelling Gadhafi.
Initiating military intervention in other countries’ affairs is excused by the advocacy of human rights over sovereignty. The saying that human rights over sovereignty, human rights above all else, is the invention of former U.S. President George W. Bush. Applying this theory, NATO’s military force intervened in former Yugoslavia’s dispute and the U.S. even started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars ended the Republicans’ disastrous reign and helped Obama, who claimed he was for “change,” to get elected. However, things changed with the passage of time. What’s funny was that Obama’s campaign words that attacked the Republicans seemed to still linger in the ears of American voters; he himself applied the same “human rights over sovereignty” theory to the military attack in Libya. Under strong domestic pressure, the U.S. army has given up leadership authority and decreased the striking scale and power in the Libyan military intervention; this still couldn’t cover the paleness and unreasonableness of military intervention in other countries in the excuse of “human rights over sovereignty.”
The U.S. military intervention surpassed United Nations’ authorized scope. The original purpose of the no-fly zone in Libya passed by the UN was so simple and obvious: It was to protect Libyan civilians from the Libyan government’s air raid. It was executed in the same way that the U.S. army set up the no-fly zone in Iraq. It’s apparent that a no-fly zone means no flying airplanes in the area. However, the U.S.-led West took advantage of this resolution and deployed large-scale naval and air forces, assaulting Libya using military power. Since Obama knows clearly that the military intervention exceeded the UN’s authorization, he had to admit that the action was flawed.
Promoting the “universal value” of democratic freedom as the reason for exploiting oil resources, and if the West really initiated military intervention in Libya for “universal values,” then the world is full of places where Western military intervention is needed. For example, Uganda and Rwanda, where genocide happened several years ago and millions of civilians were killed — why didn’t Western armies interfere with them? Take the example of Somalia, which is near Libya; Somali pirates were so rampant that they seriously interfered with maritime security around the world, and Somalia plunged into a mess of anarchy. Even though Somalia was in an important strategic location and has been in unrest for years, just because of the lack of oil resources that Libya has, the U.S.-led West didn't interfere with it using any military power. To be honest, the lack of oil resources is the key factor in it!
Based on the factors mentioned above, Obama, who won his presidency by claiming that the U.S. needs to “change,” had to admit that the military action in Libya was flawed. Except that Obama forgot that as a leader, he bravely admitted the flaw; how embarrassing and difficult it would be for his followers to act after his admission?
Previous article![]( "A Deep Abyss Gaping between Obama and Netanyahu")