The most disturbing aspect of the US led coalition forces now in Libya is the UN is now deciding which should be the winning side in a civil war. In more recent years, Qaddafi has been leaning more toward joining the western nations, despite his record of human rights violations (could this have something to do with President Reagan ordering a cruise missile fired at Qaddafi’s palace?). As an American we could at least count on him for the most part as a reasonable ally, if he is ousted, what will the successor be like? Now that the US has led the coalition to get rid of him, even if he stays in power, he is unlikely to be a reasonable ally.
The UN resolution supported protecting civilians and a no-fly zone, and Obama did not want to get involved unless the Arab League supported the effort, which they did. The coalition is not just enforcing a no-fly zone, but actually going after Qaddafi forces, the Arab League has withdrawn their support, on the grounds that Muslims are getting killed. The UN countries that abstained from the resolution, Russia and China are using it as a lever against the west and probably selling arms to Libya (Qaddafi certainly has the funds to pay for them).
There certainly is no guarantee that the rebels are pro-democracy, in fact I have heard everything from them being a coalition if pro-democracy groups to Al Qaeda remnants. The pentagon believes this later. Arab nations have no history of democracy, despite the world’s best hopes. Egypt, even though they have ousted Mubarak, is still under the rule of the military council, who have proclaimed a reasonable cooling off period before the new President they select gets elected.
The UN has been rather flaky in the past, supporting terrorists and dictators, and now they are to decide who is good and bad? Who is to decide who is an ally of the US? Who would the UN have supported in the American war of Independence or the US civil war?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
