America's Involvement in Libya, and why it Makes Little Sense

This Friday will mark the 90th day U.S. forces under NATO's command have been engaged in military action against Muammar Gadhafi's regime in Libya, and that could create some problems for the Obama administration. According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President of the United Sates can only commit U.S. armed forces to a particular conflict for 90 days, unless he seeks permission from Congress to either authorize military force or to formally declare a war. As of today, President Obama has yet to seek out Congressional approval, and Speaker of the House John Boehner has made his displeasure clear. This afternoon he sent the president a letter that basically said 'Seek out Congressional Approval or face the consequences'. Those consequences could include an impeachment trial, since Boehner feels that the president has violated U.S. law. Setting all legal issues aside, plus the fact that Boehner probably wouldn't be so frustrated with the president if he was a Republican, I am left to wonder if our involvement has been 90 days too many. What tangible accomplishments have we achieved? And how, if at all, has the conflict in Libya affected our national security?

The Libyan Civil War began soon after the revolution in Egypt wrapped up. Protesters, unhappy with Gadhafi's government, took to the streets, demanding immediate change and political reform. Gadhafi, an egocentric and narcissistic despot, wasn't having any of it, and ordered his military to quickly quash the unrest violently. As a result, hundreds of protesters ended up being killed in the streets. However, Gadhafi's violent crackdown did not succeed. In fact, it ended up completely backfiring against him. The relatively peaceful uprising soon became an armed rebellion that divided the country against each other. The ragtag opposition that was opposed to Gadhafi's tyrannical reign made the city of Benghazi their capital, and those who wished to remain loyal to Gadhafi made Tripoli their capital. For the next month, a tug of war ensued for control of the entire nation. The rebel forces would gain ground, and Gadhafi's forces would quickly wrestle it back. In the days leading up to NATO's intervention, Gadhafi's forces began merciless bombardments against rebel cities, and were quickly closing in on what would be the victory clinching annihilation of Benghazi. In an attempt to limit civilian casualties, NATO agreed to establish a no-fly zone over Libya so that Gadhafi's aerial assaults would cease. The French struck first, but is has been the U.S. that has done the heavy lifting, firing hundreds of cruise missiles and engaging in numerous airstrikes.

If our involvement had stopped there, I might have been OK with it. Gadhafi's indiscriminate bombardments were in fact killing a countless amount of innocents, so engaging in a neutral, humanitarian effort would have be an acceptable and noble effort. Nevertheless, our efforts have gone farther than that, and I'm not sure if we know what we are getting into. We have gone from establishing a no-fly zone to protect civilians to going all-in for the rebel forces. It's not that surprising that we would align ourselves against Gadhafi. The Libyan leader helped organize several terrorist acts against the United States in the 1980's, including the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, an attack that left 189 Americans dead. What is surprising, though, is the fact that we have aligned ourselves with a group of individuals that we know very little about. Many of them are undoubtedly seeking to establish a democratic, more lenient government. According to the National Transitional Council, the governmental body representing the rebel cause, two of their goals are to write a new constitution and form a new government that will both be approved of by the Libyan people.

However, because of the loosely knit nature of the rebels, there is a strong chance that some of them do not believe in the democratic principles being promoted by the National Transitional Council. In fact, there is mounting evidence that Al Qadea has influence over some aspects of the rebellion. In a March article in the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a rebel commander, admitted that Al Qadea has been playing a role in the rebellion. According to him, he has recruited Al Qadea fighters from Iraq and Afghanistan, who he describes as good Muslims fighting against foreign invaders. Government officials in the African nation of Chad also stated that they had evidence that Al Qaeda was taking advantage of joining the rebel cause by smuggling sophisticated weapons out of the country, such as surface to air missiles.

The overall complexion of the rebel movement is very unclear, and yet the White House, along with several other prominent officials, seems comfortable in assuming that the rebels want to create a government similar to that of our own. They continually say that this is a humanitarian mission, but the facts say otherwise. On April 20th, the U.S. gave the rebel forces $25 million in aid. Sen. John McCain visited with rebel leaders on April 22nd and called them "my heroes". NATO's airstrikes, which originally were meant to neutralize Libya's air force, have evolved into precise chopper attacks on Gadhafi fighters, along with airstrikes targeting the Libyan leader himself. All of this support for a group of people that may come back to haunt us 10 or 20 years down the road.

The current situation in the Middle East is a complex one. With instability and rebellion spreading like wildfire, some military action may be necessary in order to protect the nation. For example, I believe that the drone strikes that we have been carrying out in Yemen are appropriate. Al Qadea in the Arabian Peninsula, which is based in Yemen, has become Al Qaeda's most powerful franchise. Instability in Yemen could empower Al Qaeda, and give them a safe haven similar to the one they had in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. Targeting them, along with their leader Anwar al-Awlaki, should be a top priority. Libya, however, is a completely different scenario completely. America should always support people fighting for freedom. That does not mean, though, they we should always give military support to them. In situations such as this, it is much better to take a hands off approach. We should have learned from our involvement with the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Many of the people we assisted later became members of Al Qaeda's first incarnation. We could be making the same mistake in Libya today. So, with the 90 day mark fast approaching, I must ask the President: Isn't it about time we wrapped up our role in the Libyan conflict?

The answer, to me, seems self explanatory.