beyond the bubble

One month has now passed since the United States and its European allies commenced a bombing campaign in Libya, designed to repel the forces of Colonel Gaddafi. Since the beginning of the intervention, the Allied nations have attempted to provide air and naval support to the rebel forces fighting against the dictatorial regime.

When confronted, many coalition political leaders are also quick to justify the legitimacy of their campaign. They readily cite the United Nations resolution that permitted the “humanitarian intervention” in the first place, and note that coalition is employing many of the resources provided by the NATO military system.

While it is easy to get caught up in such prophetic language and commend the early successes of the mission, one must be careful to consider the long-term prospects of such a mission.

In a lecture at Middlebury College March 24, Foreign Affairs editor Gideon Rose argued that the United States government is committing the same errors in Libya that presidents have been committing for generations. Comparing the current Libya intervention to the intervention in the Gulf War in 1990, the editor argued that the Obama administration has not appropriately considered the long-term implications of the initial bombing campaign.

Rather than considering what type of government would be desired, who would rule the country and how the military might function after the major combat ends, the United States government and their allies have instead allowed themselves to be controlled by the moral imperative of the attack against civilians by a corrupt ruler.

While it is difficult to fault a government for trying to save lives, such a failure to outline positive and realistic goals seems a gross miscalculation.

In that same line of thought, having a UN sanction will not prevent civilian casualties. While the transnational bodies approval gives this mission a greater level of credibility it will neither prevent the deaths of coalition forces, nor their Libyan brothers and sisters.

Finally, the editor noted that the Obama government has not adequately considered what type of regime they will be an acceptable substitution for the Gaddafi government. He illustrated that there are only two possible outcomes if Gaddafi is ousted. In the first outcome, the coalition forces will be forced to prop up a new democratic government and leader (greatly increasing the scope of the original humanitarian mission), or the country will descend into civil war, besought by regional factions seeking control.

In the world of international relations and humanitarian interventions it is easy to be a cynic. This is not my intention. I merely seek to provide a counterpoint to the pro-intervention rhetoric provided by the coalition governments. But let’s not be fooled. This is not a humanitarian intervention; the UN sanction will not prevent senseless deaths and the coalition forces must ready themselves for a prolonged involvement.