President Barack Obama's change in attitude about the war in Libya, apparently not in line with the nature of the president. New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, even to compare a president who never dijulukinya Spock, because "the way the mind and attitude like Planet Vulcan", with George W. Bush.
"Both of them start a war with his own choice with a more informed decision-making process characterized impulsive and react, instead of discipline and violence," wrote Dowd.
But, comparing it's probably more unfair to Bush, given Bush spent more than a year to plan the invasion of Iraq, but Obama's decision to attack Libya is only done in a matter of days. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had to say, "We've never done anything like this before."
But, although there is a perception that emotional factors encourage the creation of the Libyan war zones, it seems there is a rationale that is indisputable, if not the actual doctrine, which supports Obama's prime war.
Most of the counselors came from a woman who reportedly persuaded Obama to take action against Muammar Gaddafi. Perhaps the greatest effect is Samantha Power. As a journalist and academic who wrote about the genocide in the Balkans and Rwanda, Power is a defender of the concept of humanitarian intervention, a concept, which never dikecamnya in writing at Time, which he called was "turned off for a generation" by the Bush invasion of Iraq. Now, with his position as National Security Council senior aide to Obama, Power worked to rehabilitate the cruelty of humanity. Power seems quite successful.
As stressed in a speech at the Nobel Peace Award 2009, Obama said, "I believe that violence can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as happened in the Balkans or in other places affected by war. Silence will damage our conscience and could lead to interventions much more expensive later. That's why all the countries responsible must admit that the military is given a clear mandate could have a role to keep the peace. "
In Libya, the people with such vision as found such a vehicle to deliver that vision. At Gaddafi, the United States get the figure of an enemy that not only the bloody hands of Americans, but also the blood of his own people.
From the standpoint of a pure real politics, Gaddafi also gave the enemy for the U.S. figure who, unlike Saddam Hussein, not much beloved by the various Arab countries, especially its leaders. That explains why military intervention this time truly multilateral, not like in Iraq.
Then, there's something else. There is no chance for the U.S. to intervene militarily in such unrest in Bahrain, Yemen, or Syria. In these locations, the U.S. relies on the cooperation of the leaders of repressive or fear of military force. But, in an isolated Libya, there is no such difficulties. Therefore, the situation is viewed as being the ideal that American shows are on the right side of history.
However, there are still echoes in Iraq. The most worrying is the lack of response to the investigation at the time. When troops approached Baghdad in March 2003, Maj. Gen. David Petraeus said, "Tell me how this all ends." The problem is, nobody knows what happened next, let alone Obama, if Gaddafi will stay in power.
After Bush, Obama's foreign policy projections, in part, reposition the U.S. as a protector, not the attacker. Therefore, the purpose of Obama in Libya has never actively use weapons to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi. The purpose of American military involvement must be to protect civilians. When it seems it will happen, Obama act.
No comments:
Post a Comment