Trust White House in Libyan intervention

Most of us are aware that things have not been so peachy in Libya recently. Last Monday, our president laid a case, albeit a brief one, for American action in this nation.
There is a terrible and frightening regime in Libya. The United States has recently been involved with airstrikes to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. Apart from this, the United States plans to sanction Libya, freeze its bank accounts, cut off the arms trade with its government and provide aid to the insurgents. Still, many questions have arisen regarding our role in that part of the world.
Our president recognized the brutality of Gadhafi’s regime and the potential that the conflict could turn into a much larger bloodbath. The United States has long prided itself as the leader of the free world and a standard-bearer of justice.
Some have questioned the delay in response from the United States in Libya. Perhaps it was a bit longer than one would hope for, but the president and his administration displayed the judiciousness that once eluded a recent president. He waited for the passage of the U.N. resolution, as well as firm support from NATO and the Arab League. Conflicts erupt all throughout the world, but the United States cannot conceivably intervene in all of them. We need to be more thoughtful of which ones we pick. Otherwise, we might end up with a quagmire like Iraq. The White House determined that Libya was important enough and that it could reasonably support the rebels.
It is true that we do not have a clearcut policy in Libya. However, our president has made it clear that the United States will rely on the aid of other nations and will soon give up its role as the primary organizer. We are not in Libya to stay. We need to trust our White House. It has already shown it understands the mistakes of our past and seeks to rectify them.

Gaurav Dhiman is a junior majoring in political science and biology. He may be contacted at gdhiman@themiamihurricane.com.

April 3, 2011


Gaurav Dhiman

ONE COMMENT ON THIS POST To “Trust White House in Libyan intervention”

  1. I think we should learn from Iraq to not place our unconditional trust in any President’s case for the use of military force.
    Unlike in Iraq where Bush referred to certain specious evidence that duped many into believing Saddam had WMD, Obama has not cited any evidence that supports his humanitarian pretext for war.
    Just because it took Obama a while to support international operations in Libya, it does not mean that he was judicious. We find out from the NYT that CIA operatives were deployed to gather information about the basic objectives of the revolutionaries after we had already acted.
    I think you incorrectly characterize this as an American effort that later received multilateral support. We followed France and Britain, it wasn’t the other way around.
    You are correct in maintaining that the US cannot conceivably intervene in every conflict. We must intervene only in certain contexts. A context in which we do not understand the true character of a fledgling rebellion, there’s a dearth of intelligence of events on the ground, and we have no clear exit strategy does not seem like an attractive context to me. I have heard no justification for why taxpayer dollars are better spent in Libya than Sierra Leone or the United States.
    I think in this situation and in many other examples, this White House has only repeated the mistakes of its predecessor.

TMH Twitter
About Us

The Miami Hurricane is the student newspaper of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. The newspaper is edited and produced by undergraduate students at UM and is published in print every Tuesday.