the United States fell into the confusion into of role in Libya

According to the Libyan government news, the multinational force to continue the night 26 air strikes on Libya, in the quarter Dabi Ye Ai home and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in Sirte, 400 km on the road between the large number of benefits caused by military personnel and civilians were killed. Face anti-war voices, 27 in the United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates on ABC "This Week" interview program in the United States to justify military action against Libya. He said that while Obama has clearly requested the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to step down, but "to achieve regime change has never been part of military operations."

This unexpected statement shows once again that, in this military action against Libya, the United States as to what the status on the political, strategic and military action becomes a confused role.

In the field of U.S. foreign policy, if the Republicans the middle there is a "neo-conservative" ideology, then there are also within the Democratic Party liberal "hawks" branch. Libyan government in the present policy of Obama, the liberal "hawks" of the diplomatic ideas prevail. They believe that the U.S. government should have the choice to deal with world politics emerging international humanitarian crisis triggered by the current situation in the East and North Africa the same year a series of turbulent events with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, is also important geopolitical and strategic significance; for the Libyan national ongoing social and political turmoil, the U.S. government needs to intervene through military means at all.

However, the Libyan government's policy of Obama - in terms of policy orientation, objectives and methods and the development of areas - are faced with a series of confusion and stress. Policy orientation, the Obama administration to pursue an international multilateral (rather than unilateral) position, including the involvement of the United Nations adopted a resolution (and the Arab League and some Arab countries agreed to) set up in Libya, "no-fly zone." However, in terms of size and volume terms, this is common after the Cold War the United States and NATO to take a series of overseas military intervention in the process, access to military resources and the participating countries to join at least one. Entangled in the U.S. continue wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on Libya's military intervention in turn led by the NATO allies. In this case, in which the role of the United States to become very "fuzzy" and "embarrassing."

Policy goals, the U.S. government publicly claimed to set up in Libya, "no-fly zone" to protect civilians. Can be said that the limited policy objective has been achieved to some extent, but the Obama administration and its NATO allies chose to take military intervention against Libya, the United Nations resolution copy of the "responsibility to protect" principle is put to the test compliance . Justification for military action needs to be collected, but these reasons do not have to with the U.S. government and NATO military intervention in the real purpose of implementing consistent. "No-fly zone" quickly became NATO and U.S. ground forces against the Libyan Government an excuse. While the U.S. government does not propose to seek the surface of regime change in Libya, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to give up or ask the right place, but the real purpose of a military intervention is obviously to support and contribute to the Libyan anti-government forces, by providing more funds for its and equipment support, and ultimately weaken or subvert the Libyan regime.

Policy development in Libya, Obama met with members from both parties in Congress and domestic voters and constant pressure to severe criticism. Some lawmakers complained that Obama himself has made Libya's decision to take military intervention, but not with Congress prior to fully communicate and discuss, nor to the people at home to fully explain its reasons. U.S. Congress and the public do not want to see the U.S. being dragged into a conflict with another in the Muslim countries. They questioned the Obama administration and NATO military intervention in policy can bring about a positive humanitarian outcome. The possible political consequences of military intervention is to make Libya the long-term into a civil war, then there will be more people were massacred. They kept asking, in this military intervention against Libya, the U.S. government's practice of the legality and legitimacy? U.S. combat mission and role? United States Government is prepared to have an exit strategy? Faced with these realities and difficult issues, stress and Barack Obama in the U.S. Congress and the people must make a more specific answer.

0 Post a Comment: