Admonition of the Protestors of the Intervention in Libya

By Zach Foster

Part 1: The Libyan Civil War and the No Fly Zone ARE NOT Iraq and Afghanistan

There has been intense criticism of President Obama’s involvement of the United States military in the Libyan Civil War.  Fringe elements from both major sides of the political spectrum are up in rhetorical arms against the President, screaming about how the U.S. will get bogged down in another desert Vietnam.  They’re not wrong to criticize the President for the intervention, but they are wrong for justifying their criticisms with weak and faulty partisan-motivated rhetoric.  However, before the correct criticisms are expounded on, people need to understand how the operations in Libya differ from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the right, many ultraconservatives are taking a short break from still trying to disprove the President’s natural-born status in order to recycle the popular liberal arguments against the 2003 invasion of Iraq and reapply them to the 2011 intervention in Libya.  Many also revile him for being a Muslim whose only aim is to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.  A well-reasoned, intelligent, and balanced argument proving this theory has yet to be produced.

Strangely enough, many on the left are also using the same recycled 2003 arguments that the ultraconservatives are enjoying, though the latter seem to have forgotten their origins.  All over the political spectrum, people have themselves in a frenzy and are totally convinced of Libya’s imminence as a desert Vietnam.  At this point it is important for people to ask themselves: which of the two current American wars is a desert Vietnam?

Iraq could have been thought of as such several years ago, for between 2004 and 2007 the conflict did seem to be a quagmire with American troops caught between fighting sectarian militias in some city neighborhoods and Al Qaeda in others, with little or no progress appearing to be made.  That, however, changed significantly after the 2007 troop surge whereupon American troops.  Nowadays, American combat troops have been withdrawn and the involvement of American soldiers in combat operations is miniscule.  The Iraqi army and police are standing their ground against terrorism, which has dramatically shrunk in Iraq.

The only country undergoing nation building whose future is uncertain is Afghanistan.  Progress has been made and this month seven strategic areas are to be completely turned over to the Afghan military and police.  These steps toward stability would never have been possible under previous Afghan governments throughout the three-plus decades of civil war.

On the international stage, Vladimir Putin has harshly criticized the United Nations intervention as a Crusade in the Middle East.  This accusation immediately warrants several responses.  First and foremost, the Crusades were a series of religious wars between Christian and Muslim armies over control of Biblical cities and countries.  Libya was neither in the Bible nor the Koran, and no Christian armies—not even Western armies—have invaded Libya.  Second, let it not be forgotten that the United States military was not the first invading army in Afghanistan.  Who preceded the U.S.?  Ah, yes, it was the Soviet Union!  The same Soviet Union of which Mr. Putin—the accuser-in-chief—was head of the KGB who had troops in Afghanistan operating in conjunction with the Soviet Army.  While the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was a direct defensive response against the 9/11 attacks, orchestrated by Al Qaeda with the help of the Taliban, what was the defensive measure of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?  The current silence is broken only by crickets chirping.  The author of this article also just sneezed, and the sneezing cry almost sounded like “Chechnya!”

To another man’s credit, Dmitry Medvedev showed evidence of growing a spine by publicly and sharply criticizing Putin’s comments.  Well done Mr. Medvedev!

Continued in Part 2: The CORRECT reasons to criticize the intervention