Why Libya will not be the next U.S. War

22 03 2011

After the end of the Cold War the U.S. is the only strongman in the world with ready military and navy assets to make a quick intervention into Libya.  One can argue, however, that an intervention does not make for a war, and that the U.S. will not regard it as such.  This argument will mostly be correct.

Despite emotional forces of the U.S. electorate to bring democracy to Libya, the U.S. continues to be non-committal in the diplomatic community.  This inter-mediation approach has been puzzling European diplomats.  The U.S. has apparently chosen to use an ‘intermediary approach.’   Slate magazine further discusses why Obama’s reluctance to intervene is his most important tactical asset.

While letting other countries use its military assets, the U.S. will leave decision-making on the impact of the action to the United Nations, Arab League, U.K, and France.  Opponents have also been consulted: Germany and Russia.

In the U.S., those who choose to call this intervention a war in response to ‘public call/ emotionalism’ Obama presidency will be scoring positive points for averting a humanitarian disaster.  Others will consider this intervention a negative for reasons of U.S. financial downturns.  Herewith, we examine both points, and best case scenarios that may end up being beneficial to 2012 Obama presidency run.

To the first point, as a young nation, U.S. electorate can become emotional very quickly, while lacking a sense of historical perspective.  This can be a powerful force for a country in overcoming adversities, in general.  For the first time, in a very long time, the U.S. presidency may be working out of the source of balance, maturity and diplomatic integration, as opposed to solely out of emotionalism, supporting George Friedman’s statement that: “The emotionalism of the moment exhausts itself rapidly.”   While emotional U.S. electorate may want an intervention, they may dispute spending money on a full blown war.

To the second point, the financial crisis presents an enormous problem for staging another war for the United States.   The prediction of the author is that in light of financial difficulties, the intervention which may run at exorbitant amounts of dollars per day, the United States may pay for it with the financial contribution from the Arab League money.  Incidentally, today is the 66th birthday of the Arab League.

As such, both points may positively affect the Obama presidency run in 2012.  Let us not forget however, that U.S. cannot be perceived as being in war with Arab Muslims.   This intervention will create further fragmentation in the Middle East, but it may end up benefiting the overall U.S. strategy because as long as Muslim region continues to fight among themselves, the U.S. strategic interests will be met.

Let us hope that while letting other countries make decisions on impact, while using the U.S.’s military assets, the U.S. is not putting itself into position of becoming a ‘paid mercenary.’  In the next blog we may examine pros and cons of such a strategy.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: