President Obama addressed the nation the other night about the “U.S. led operation in Libya.” Many Americans were duped by initial comments presented two weeks ago where the Administration led us to believe that the UN “No Fly Zone” was initiated by France, later signed on by the UK, and then enacted by the United States. We now know, because President Obama told us so, that this operation is in fact a U.S. led operation in Libya. Questions still need answers though as to why he chose Libya.
Media outlets exemplify civil unrest existing not only in Libya but also Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen–all initiated with Tunisia and Egypt. Anyone of these three remaining countries with civil unrest (besides Libya) could have encountered a similar “Operation Odyssey Dawn.” Only ten days after the horrific 9-11 atrocity, Joint Staff had a list of several countries needing to be war gamed inside the Pentagon for later military operations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
Iraq has already occurred with mixed results–outcomes still yet to be determined. Libya has just begun. When will military operations occur in the other nation states identified back in 2001?
Retired Generals Tom McInerney and Paul Vallely described in their book End Game: The Blue Print for Victory in the War on Terror a need to target key nation states engrossed in the web of terror such as Syria and Iran and quite possibly even Pakistan and Libya. Their book describes these four nations as key leaders engaged in supporting and even directing worldwide terrorism. While President Obama made a decision to conduct military operations in Libya, one of the four nations identified in End Game, he failed to articulate the reason; instead he continued with a rant of claims–“this is about humanitarianism and protecting innocent lives.” Is it?
President Obama obviously lacks worldwide understandings of humanitarian issues led by rogue regimes and opposition groups. Today, nation states such as Peru, Columbia, Georgia, Algeria, Senegal, the Philippines, and Indonesia face significant crises. Some are handling their situation better than others. Regrettably, those who cannot handle their internal situations encounter significant atrocities.
The Obama administration had written in November 2010 the Strategy to support the disarmament of the Lord’s Resistance Army. The LRA is nowhere near the Arabian Peninsula nor is it close to North African States engaged in civil unrest. LRA operates in Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, and the Sudan. Their operations have resulted in over 2,300 deaths, 3,000 abductions, and over 400,000 persons fleeing their homes since 2008. The numbers are significantly higher if taken into account all atrocities since their 1987 existence. Sadly, we have spent pennies on the dollar to disrupt or defeat the LRA in comparison to what we have already spent in Libya.
Central African nation states are not the only domains in the world facing austere civil unrest. Today, the Ivory Coast too faces similar tragedies. More than one million people have fled Ivory Coast fighting between incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo’s supporters and UN recognized President Alassane Ouattara’s rebels. Within a four month period, 400 to 800 persons have been killed.
The most alarming of worldwide nation states facing horrific humanitarian calamities is Myanmar.
Myanmar, often referred to as Burma, has been engaged in the world’s longest civil war and it continues today. President Obama stated in 2010 that “Burma’s elections were neither free nor fair and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections.” The war in Burma has created hundreds of thousands of refugees and produced similar numbers in deaths. Burma has worked extremely close with China and North Korea for nuclear weapon procurements. But still, we have done very little to assist the Burmese people.
There is no doubt that the United States cannot secure all persons living in this violent world. We have our own issues needing to be dealt with. Humanitarian operations must be specific to national security demands. Last night, President Obama failed to articulate why Libya was critical. He failed to acknowledge any other nation which faced or remains to face significant death and turmoil. And he failed to explain any strategic mission statement with a true task and purpose identifying any legitimate end state. He could have chosen more than ten nation states facing humanitarian turmoil yet he chose Libya. The question remains–Why?