The United States Senate unanimously passed a resolution supporting consideration of a no-fly zone over Libya, condemning the "gross and systematic violations of human rights" in the country.
I guess I dare to question a unanimous Senate resolution today. With Pat Buchanan, in his March 8, 2011, I think we need to think through this carefully. The obvious reason is that we are already fighting two wars in the area with highly questionable results. Do we want to add a third?
What would be the purpose of a no-fly zone? Supporters say that it would stop him from using his air force to attack to civilians, but he also has tanks. Pat points out that to establish a secure no-fly zone would require the bombing of radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries, missile sites, and airfields. It would require destroying the Libyan air force on the ground, to keep the skies secure for US pilots. He points out that all of this would be acts of war against a nation that has not attacked us. He then asks: where do we get the legal and moral right to do this? Congress has not declared war. Obama has no authority to attack Libya. Beyond that, neither the UN Securing Council nor NATO has taken this step.
One can understand the desire to "help" oppressed people. However, America has been down this road before. A no-fly zone could be the beginning of yet another long-term American involvement in a Muslim nation. I stress that American involvement in such nations has had dubious results thus far. America needs to be quite careful, I think, as it ponders any military action. The situation in Libya seems to have led a solid majority of the political class to be on the side of a no-fly zone. Yet, I think Pat has identified some quite cogent reasons for pulling back and taking careful look before we leap.
No comments:
Post a Comment