LIBYA’S KADAFI FLY ZONE COMING TO AN END, OR SHOULD IT?

By

Joseph Chez

(3-22-11)

Our national moral values are currently being questioned:
For weeks freedom fighters in Libya have asked for help from the West, but more so, from the United States. And yet, the specter of granting democracy to those who for a lifetime have not experienced it, is overwhelming to conceive – so goes the discussion on American television, the West Wing of the White House, and in the halls of Congress. In fact, the reluctance for interference in the Arab civilian uprising is simply just, an abundance of diplomatic caution. The caveat of course, is that while it would be to the benefit of our nation to get rid of Kaddafi, in like circumstances, we would also have to give support to the social uprising in Bahrain or in Saudi Arabia – which of course, it would then be to our economic detriment and perhaps more pressure on Israel to truly make peace.

However, to no one’s surprise, the stink of oppressive regimes in the Middle East has been tolerated by western powers, if not whole-heartedly sustained by them. Furthermore, it should be noted that the world today, bears witness to historic events sweeping the Arab world. More specific, we’re seeing the Arab world waking up from a long standing stupor and subjugation from oppressive dictatorial control and or, desert kingdom’s paternal abuse. But, to the surprise of the West, Arab grass root awareness and desire, has inflamed the yearning for representative democracy. Thus, the entire Middle East is aflame with great expectations for freedom. So what is the West to do now?

For decades, the West has used its military and economic stronghold through out the Middle East under the pretext of spreading democracy, but how unlikely, the multitude of people in the Middle East have always known what is hypocrisy and what is convenient to the West. “Enough is enough, the dictators have got to go” has been the cry in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Iran, but not limited to, and now Libya.

Reluctantly, Western powers such as the UK, France, and the U.S. have been a little bit late in getting their feet wet in these grass-root uprisings. What? Oppose the local governance which supplies our oil? Go against those who keep the Israeli-Palestinian issue from public scorn? Or, better yet, jeopardize Arab monies from stuffing our national treasury, our banks, or our wallets?

Therefore, finding ourselves in a geo-political quandary, the political discussion in the U.S. has been a concoction of disarray and frankly, totally unexpected political posturing. On the one hand, democrats known for opposing war and intervention are divided on whether to help the Libyan anti-government forces. In fact, there has even been a call by a democratic congressman to suggest impeachment of the President. And on the other side of the political isle, the neo-con republicans are strongly criticizing the president for not having been more forceful on this issue and they would like a robust military response. Perhaps they would like to see another “shock and Awe” scenario in Libya or just may be, they see an opportunity to turn on a few Middle Eastern regimes of which are not friendly with the US or Israel.

Thus, considering the political mine fields present, president Obama has opted for a “modest contribution” and waited until the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution (Resolution 1973) which allowed for the intervention in Libya in order to protect civilians. As a consequence, the very next day, the French and the UK jumped in and began to impose a “NO fly zone” against Kaddafi’s beleaguered, but blood thirsty nonetheless, arm forces. The U.S. however, was in fact involved thereafter or during the initial phase, but its kinetics has been played down. But, as a result of our half-witted response, even one of our F-15 fighter jets went down due to mechanical or just plain battle fatigue.

However, despite our conflicting interest in the Middle East, the question should not be whether we should or should not intervene in Libya. What our country is facing this moment in history is a moral imperative; whether a tyrannical and madman dictator, Moammar Kaddafi, should be allowed to kill civilians in mass, simply to remain in power? The answer is simple; if our nation stands for freedom and adheres to its own principles, we must not dither when it concerns human rights, and democracy. To do otherwise, is to cave in to immoral diplomatic turpitude and hypocritical self- national-interest. So yes, get the fly-zone of gad-fly Kaddafi out of the lives of the Libyan people. The aforementioned notwithstanding, the moral imperative goes further; in like circumstances, we must apply our principles the same – including with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, but not limited to – Israel.

A troop surge for the war in Afghanistan is adding fuel to the fire, but allowing Georgia to supply troops has stupid written all over it.

By

Joseph Chez

The single most important issue concerning our involvement in a war in Afghanistan today is the planned increase of troops for that war, for it will determine the future exit strategy for the US and NATO member participants, or the way into the secret US war next door in Pakistan. That said, most experts would agree that the unknown elements of this war adds to a recipe for further conflict. What’s more frightening however, is that, as we have asked NATO to supply more troops for the (wishful) final face of the war, the US has accepted the participation of troops from a “wannabe” NATO member, Georgia, whose former status was that of a former Soviet republic, while today, Russia continues to consider such break-away republics as part of its “near abroad” (sphere of influence). Therefore, allowing for Georgia to supply a token number of troops (300+) for the Afghan war is in itself inconsequential, if it were not for the consequences which may provoke. At first hand, the offer of troops by the Georgian government may seem innocuous but in reality, there is a deliberate move by the president of that country, Mikheil Saakashvilli, to earn a pay back in return for its participation and thus, force the United States to support a future challenge against Russia on the issue of South Ossetia. A softer message is perhaps a nudge to NATO that it wants to be brought in from the cold – as a full fledged member of the alliance.

Further, it bears repeating that the former Soviet break-away republic of Georgia has been at odds with Russia since 1991 when Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union. However, exacerbating the strained relations between the two nations is the rise of Mikheil Saakashvili who started his political life as a young reformer but has since become a pain in the Russians’ buttocks.

Mikheil Saakashvili is American educated, having attended Columbia University and George Washington University. Moreover, Saakashvili was instrumental in the “Rose Revolution” which resulted in the bloodless coup in Georgia and inspired other populous movements through out other break-away former Soviet republics. In Addition, his love of the West has been further manifested by including young westerners in his government, but, further thumbing his nose at Russia, he has longingly courted the European Union and NATO for membership. In fact, he has become the darling for neo-cons in the US and it’s believed that the CIA nurtured his political career. Immediately after the bloodless coup, President George Bush traveled to Georgia to give his blessings even though, many European heads of state refrained from visiting Georgia out of respect for Russia’s “near abroad.”

In August 2008, in an attempt to recoup its own break-away northern province of South Ossetia, Georgia’s army began an incursion into the north but was forced to retreat once the Russian Army interfered militarily. In response, according to the Human Rights Watch, Georgian forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate artillery attacks on civilians in South Ossetia. In response, Russia’s army invaded Georgia creating a tenuous situation for major regional powers, including NATO and the United States. Thus, the military skirmish between Georgian forces and the Russian Army may have been a regional conflict, but Mikheil Saakashvili skillfully pitted the security interest of bigger fish, such as NATO and the United States against Russia. The West could only issue strong condemnations but fell short of substantive assistance to Georgia. Cowboy GW however suggested to send troops as part of a UN/NATO peace keeping force, but Russia stood its ground and reality hit. However, Mikheil Saakashvili continued to sound the alarm, but strongly condemned the West for not having stepped in militarily. Luckily, GW, the “decider”, he was “transitory” as he was about to leave office and by that time, much of the major hostilities subsided - the Russian Army withdrew from Georgia territory and receded back to South Ossetia. Yet, presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, both were quick to lend support to the Georgian people, lest they be thought of as soft on Russian aggression.

Today, Mikheil Saakashvili is considered by some as somewhat unpredictable, if not a loose cannon. Nonetheless, he considers himself to be the catalyst that will allow for Georgia to integrate into the European Union and ultimately, as a member of NATO. To emphasize his desire and determination, all public buildings in Tbilisi Georgia today fly the European Union flag next to the Georgia flag.

Currently, South Ossetia has acquired de facto recognition as a sovereign nation, even though; Russia is the only country to give its recognition. Yet, Saakashvili is hell-bent on recovering its disputed province to the north despite Russian forces which continue to operate in South Ossetia. Regrettably, continued hostilities persist at the border region and we can only suspect what cowboy Saakashvili may do in the future. One can only imagine that if Georgia were to become a member of NATO, would Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization be invoked by Mikheil in the event of further hostilities?

Bottom line, the question is not whether Georgia should not lend a helping hand to the cause in Afghanistan, but it should be asked, why is the United States accepting the offer of negligible number of Georgian troops when the risks of potential future entanglement with Russia is written on the wall. So is stupid is and stupid does?