While many of you were enjoying your spring breaks in Cancun or Puerto Rico, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was passed on March 17, issuing a no−fly zone over Libya. Within days of the resolution's passing, Libya was struck from the air by foreign powers.
Having always been uneasy about the idea of a nation intervening in the domestic affairs of another, I was vehemently against the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. In this case, however, with Libyan leader Col. Muammar el−Qaddafi reportedly killing scores of his citizens brutally, I found myself slightly less perturbed by the intervention.
Libya was a no−win situation for the United States; intervention would have led to comparisons to Iraq and Vietnam, while standing idle would have led to comparisons to genocides in Rwanda and Sudan. Criticism would have come either way.
Moving forward, one can only continue to somewhat support the intervention if clear steps are taken to make sure that Libya does not turn into another Iraq. Many have already expressed concern that the United States or other allied powers might occupy Libya after toppling the Qaddafi government.
For his part, President Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to depict the intervention as far different from Iraq. Not only did Obama shy away from Bush's unilateralist approach, but he actually let other nations, like France and the United Kingdom, take the lead. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron pushed for the U.N. Security Council Resolution and the no−fly zone, which many in Obama's administration, such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, were initially wary of.
Furthermore, once Resolution 1973 passed, France was the first nation to launch attacks into Libya, well before the United States.
While military support from members of the League of Arab States has been sparse, the League's request on March 12 for the U.N. Security Council to issue a no−fly zone was an important geopolitical development that gave greater credence to the eventual resolution.
Obama's rhetoric has also shown that he is making a concerted effort to paint the intervention as a multilateral endeavor. In a March 26 radio address, Obama said, "This is now a broad, international effort. Our allies and partners are enforcing the no−fly zone over Libya and the arms embargo at sea. … This is how the international community should work: more nations, not just the United States, bearing the responsibility and cost of upholding peace and security."
Additionally, over the weekend, the members of NATO agreed that the alliance will take over Libyan operations under the command of Canadian Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard.
Letting the intervention take shape in this manner was a shrewd, tactical move by Obama, making it difficult for anyone to say down the line that this was a U.S., or even a U.S.−led, operation.
However, despite all his political maneuvering, Libya could still end up an Iraq−like mess that is inextricably linked to Obama in the history books. There have already been claims — not just from the Qaddafi government — that the air strikes of the allied forces have killed civilians and that the allies have worked closely with the rebels. If true, these developments are troubling because they go beyond the scope of Resolution 1973's mandate.
Time will tell where the Libyan intervention will go. The murky nature of the intervention and the definitions of terms within international law such as "no−fly zone" have made Obama's task tricky. Nevertheless, Obama has done well to this point to intervene with substantial foreign support and without seeming overly bellicose. In order to keep the integrity of that image alive, it is important he makes sure that the terms of the resolution are upheld and that foreign activity in Libya does not evolve into anything more than a humanitarian intervention.
--
