Humanitarian Intervention And Military Action: Four Questions Regarding The War In Libya

Let no one pretend the United States was not dragged into this intervention. It is a purely humanitarian mission that Europe took the lead on, and that the US for that reason felt impelled to join. Once America was in, it became another American war. "The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S. once more to make up the difference," said U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Brussels on June 10, 2011. If that's the case, one has to wonder why Europe took the initial lead in the first place.

Though I don't necessarily disagree with the general idea that some form of force can be justified for solely humanitarian missions, there are four issues or questions that I have regarding this war in particular and that I think every American should be asking:

1. What about Congressional approval? Because there is not Congressional approval for an offensive action that has lasted months, it can therefore credibly be argued as utterly unconstitutional. That was Barack Obama's position before he became President. Then again, he ran as the anti-war candidate and opened up a new front while President, so that's not worth much now, is it?
2. Why has America not gotten involved in Syria? Or Iran in 2009? Yemen? Bahrain? Is the new rule for humanitarian intervention that basically you can go ahead and slaughter your own people, so long as you are quiet about it. Is the message that if you don't go announcing your plan to slaughter every opponent to the world like madman Moammar Gaddhafi then you'll be alright? Maybe we've discovered the "Obama Doctrine." Unless of course the actual "Obama doctrine" is that you don't use force unless first David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy think you should.
   
3. If we are going to use military force for humanitarian purposes, why not have it coincide with national security interests? Gaddhafi was no threat at all to the United States, he even abandoned his nuclear program as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq. Before this war with Libya, relations were actually becoming more normalized than previously. So when it comes to terror-sponsor Syria, or perhaps Iran which has a nuclear program and put down protests with force in 2009 after sham elections, why does America stand on the sidelines (or desire to be seen as not "meddling")? It's not an aversion to the use of force, because we attacked Libya. Is Libya really a more worthy target than Iran or Syria? Is it more pure to act when no U.S. interest is involved (like in Libya) than to act when humanitarian missions coincide with U.S. interests (as Bush believed was the case with Iraq/Afghanistan, and as would be far more the case with Iran/Syria)?
4. But perhaps most importantly, there is an authority in Benghazi and this is a civil war against Gaddhafi. If our purpose is humanitarian, and Gaddhafi was the humanitarian threat, why the hell is this loony dictator still in power after all this time if he's defying the world's superpower and her supposedly militarily advanced allies? Why has he not been toppled or killed and this civil war done with already? If you are going to deal with a humanitarian crises, why not deal with it? If you want to fight, why not go for a knockout and be done with it, and then pass the reins over to the fellows in Benghazi to take over? I don't see how it cannot be seen as very disgraceful that Gaddhafi is still in power as we speak.

Than again, maybe I should not have any questions. According to President Obama the action in Libya is not only not a war, but not even "hostilities." Well, I guess that settles that and answers all my questions. After all, bombing a foreign country for 11 weeks is simply not "hostility." Tweet