"Certainly I empathize with the Libyan people who desire to live free; however, I am deeply concerned with President Obama's decision to intervene militarily in their civil war. Our country is currently facing a myriad of challenges, including working to complete our objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, protecting our cherished way of life from extremist terrorist networks, and struggling here at home to address a skyrocketing deficit that poses a tremendous threat to our national security. Now is not the time to take on new missions. The Libyans must decide their own fate and we should stop our military operations immediately."
Republican Ron Paul (R-TX), as expected, is also against the intervention. Among other statements, he has said:
"How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers' lives at risk."
"U.S. military operations in Libya," said Kucinich in a recent statement, "have cost us over $600 million thus far, with the first 10 days costing the U.S. approximately $55 million per day. This adds to the trillions we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars of choice facilitate false choices here at home in the name of fiscal responsibility."
It would be good to know what other congresspeople are saying about the same issue. Concrete action can be taken to support those who are against the NATO action, and to persuade those who have supported it that it is not the way to go. If you know your congressperson's or senator's stand on Libya, you are invited to comment here. This could be quite useful information. Or you may want to direct readers to a site where this information is available.
Among other critics of the NATO action against Libya have been, surprisingly, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the CFR. Haass, in one recent essay, claims that the NATO intervention is a war of choice. He says:
"Libya is a war of choice for two reasons. First, U.S. interests are decidedly less than vital. Libya accounts for only 2 percent of world oil production. The scale of the humanitarian crisis is not unique; indeed, this is not strictly speaking a humanitarian intervention. It is a decision to participate in Libya's civil war.
"It is a war of choice for a second reason: The United States and the world have other options besides military intervention. Civil wars tend to burn out and come to an end sooner barring significant foreign intervention. A range of tools, from economic sanctions to covert action, could weaken the regime, bolster the opposition or both."
He goes on to make a statement that may seem startling to many, seeing that it comes from the president of the CFR, often considered one of the mega-fortresses of the "establishment."
"What about asking young American men and women in uniform to put their lives at risk for interests that are less than vital? For outcomes that are less than sure to be an improvement over what now exists?"
These articulate voices will be muffled to the degree that they do not receive our immediate and continued support. Letting our views be known to media outlets such as local radio and TV stations, and newspapers, which as a matter of course, transmit their own propaganda or that of the Associated Press and National Public Radio unhesitatingly, will also help to bring some rationality and compassion to the debate on NATO's actions against Libya, and potentially save lives.
1
1
1
