My heart is with the Libyan rebels. Perhaps it is because of American history. We revolted against a tyrant, as well, although our nemesis, King George, was not nearly as bad as Khadaffy. Old Georgie wasn't even in the same league. In fact, the British were rather nice compared to Khadaffy & Sons, who remind one more of Hitler and the Nazis. I am repelled by reports of torture. I think it is a crime against humanity to commit such acts.
The U.S. is already bogged down in two foreign wars that drain our funds without giving anything back. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan do not seem grateful for our intervention. The Arab world tends to blame the U.S. for every ill under the Sun. They blame us when we do intervene, and blame us even when we don't, as in the Libyan conflict. I don't know that it is fair to expect the U.S. to shoulder yet another burden, that of liberating Libya. The Arab nations are closer to Libya than we are. They are the same religion and have at least a similar culture. If Libya is anyone's responsibility, it's theirs.
However, if the U.S. chose to involve itself, despite our ailing economy, I must admit, I'd be pleased if we could pull it off with minimal involvement and minimal loss of life. If removing Khadaffy only required six months' time, then I'd be all for it. I'm uncertain. I don't really know that much about the situation.
I'm for intervening in Libya, even with ground troops, if it resulted in a speedy resolution and the installation of a Western-style republic. That does seem unlikely, given Libya's history and culture. So I defer to our leader, Obama. Perhaps he knows best. I still have faith in Obama and will indeed vote for him in 2012, if he offers us the chance. His is a most difficult job at this particular juncture in history. We are lucky to have him.
No comments:
Post a Comment