As it becomes clearer that Gaddafi’s regime is using massacre as a means of asserting control – including the widespread use of air power against the rebels – the question arises: do we have a duty to intervene? Or are we to sit by and be gravely concerned and do nothing?
It is a tricky situation – any US action may be used by Gaddafi to generate “rally ’round the flag” feelings among his people. On the other hand, if we do nothing, more people will die. Taking out Libya’s air force would not be that difficult an operation and such an attack could probably be mounted within 24 hours of “go” from the President. A show of force like that, crippling a great deal of Gaddafi’s ability to strike his own people, might convince the balance of the Libyan army to opt for the rebels – Gaddafi goes, violence ends…no US troops on the ground so we’re not responsible for rebuilding, Libyans can start to sort things out for themselves.
This does not mean we’ll get a pro-US government in Libya. In fact, its just as likely we’ll get an anti-US government which will turn facts around 180 and use our attacks as a means of generating hatred of us. But the thing here is that people are dying – a brutal tyrant is massacring his people and we can make a strong move to get him to stop. The question is, should we?
My view is that we should – when we have the power to strike at evil, we must strike at it. Doing the right thing is usually a hard choice – and most of the time when you really set out to do the right thing, you’re going to get absolutely nothing directly out of it for yourself (longer term, of course, consistently doing the right thing is the only healthy way to live). Most of the time, we shy away from such clear cut actions as “bad man, vulnerable, lets take him out”. And the state of the world reflects our long term unwillingness to use our power in such a manner.
But, maybe its time we changed?
Blogs For Victory 