The recent military mission in Libya involving US service men and women has sparked debate and confusion among many Americans. While the mission’s overall humanitarian goals should be applauded, I believe the use of such force should be initiated only after ALL diplomatic options have been exhausted and there is evidence of an eminent threat to life and /or American interests.
The decision to bomb Libya has generated more questions than answers, including how the decision to enter Libya was deemed more urgent than similar scenarios in Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East. That said, the recent uprisings and civil unrest throughout the Middle East have drawn the attention of all who value free speech and liberty. The President’s decision to lead the initial efforts to establish a No Fly Zone over Libya and to lend covert support to the rebels has caused many to question not only what’s next, but whether picking sides in a civil war may eventually place American interests at an even greater risk in the future.
There have been numerous and mixed opinions regarding this issue from respondents here on Tanyafree.com. Personally, I am not convinced that the United States should be engaged in another front with troops already on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
While I must admit that I am in no way an expert in foreign affairs, IMHO, the United States should have abstained from the United Nations resolution that authorized the allied air strikes against the forces of Libya joining the ranks of China, Russia, Brazil, and Germany, India.
Isn’t it ironic that U.S. forces started bombing Libya on the same date that the war in Iraq began 8 years ago? An old adage comes to mind -
“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." Is that what we want?
Live Life with a Purpose!