Sending in Helo Gunships not Going to Solve This One

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Apr 4, 2011 at 19:03

We find ourselves in a conundrum: seeing a challenge to seeking a peaceful solution for a people seemingly desirous of freedom; and the alleged leadership of the free world not able to provide a sense that there is a common goal in providing that freedom. Libya indeed presents complicated challenges in light of the fact the Libyans are only one part of a conga line on the road to unrest in the Middle East. The synchronicity of it all is as thick as the cordite filled air seen on the world media.

With Iraq still in the immediate rear view mirror and Afghani targets filling the HUD's of Air resources giving support to the forces on the ground, costing the United States billions, there should be no wonder that engaging in yet another 'police action' does not present itself as a very intelligent option to expend yet more American resources when it is more than well known we are not really wanted there except by a very few. In this one instance of trying to ply American good intentions, a really good diplomatic solution backed by the military resolve of more invested nations than America should have been the answer.

Complicating this is that one of the more invested nations, Germany, was found lacking creditability, possibly for good reason, but which proved problematic in any event. Then there is the questionable intentions of other powers to the north.

Another sequence of circumstances circumferential to the Libyan situation presents itself as potentially underlining the reasons for the political feint, to which the rest of the world may not be aware, being unnoticed for the cause of political criticism on all sides. Were this just about Libya, then the questioning of motives for going in or not going in could be debated for the purportedly simple reasons the United Stated formed the coalition to intervene in Iraq. Such is not the case.

The unrest in the other Arabesque nations are not merely coincidental, but are connected in a way not easily seen by the western world. And before anyone characterizes again about these indigenous peoples and the denizens amongst them clamoring to get regime change as a motive for instilling and installing democracy, think again. Egypt's chance for democracy is neutralized by the military, and seems likely to remain so for the duration. Small wonder, for Mubarak enjoyed his stay only as a former military apparatchik; his successors are not familiar with democratization and are understandably reluctant to let democracy crowd them out.

Qaddafi has seen the handwriting on the wall, and does not have the same type of 'goodwill' gestures accorded to Mubarak, since Mubarak did not have complicity in downing a civilian passenger airliner. Qaddafi has good reason to hold on for as long as he can. While there is little reason to say that Qaddafi has a good strategy, his tactical prowess remains intact. He did not hold onto power this long for no reason.

But let there be consideration of why Libya has been targeted for intervention when so many other places are just as exposed for the lack of a peaceful solution. Libya is isolated tactically, and little interference can be expected from any 'allies' Qaddafi might have. After all, he bought the intentions of much of the forces fighting for him. If there was a real way to keep his forces at bay, how is it that fighting still goes on when there is limited chances of getting a payday for the mercenaries and others owing allegiance to Qaddafi?. Definitively, he HAS to win.

Conversely, the subliminal undertones of a regime change in Libya can be understood if more information about the true intentions of a replacement government could be discerned. In other similar interventions, there was at least a semblance of a nucleic government ready to move in similar fashion to the fall of the Soviet Union. In the other areas of unrest in the Middle East, what replacement proposals for new government are being offered that one might point to and at least say that Iraq is a model?

No such offering is easily seen in the game plan by the American Administrative Executive, but the push to force the ejection of Qaddafi by forces now being 'supported' by American resources is in motion, leaving to speculation what the final result might be. What remains to be seen is the hint of coordination in the background as the potential to upset Qaddafi has a more distinctive undertone of a regime change of a different sort flying a green flag of solidarity.

And as always, with everything else going on, it is evidently 'on' again in Israel: and one cannot help but speculate that 'that' connection is the one still to be on the lookout for. And former President Bush did America no favors by insisting Israel continue to barter away land for peace. It did not pan out while he was president, nor will it for any successor, especially the current one.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".