The Operation in Libya Drives Obama To a Standstill

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his anti-war stance.  Even so, during his term, Barack Obama has sent more troops into Afghanistan, still deployed   troops in Iraq, and we have begun bombing Libya.

During the 2008 Presidential race, Barack Obama listed his three reasons for the U.S. to enter a war.  The three reasons included that the country who the U.S. was at war with would pose an “imminent threat”, the war would “protect American interests”, and the U.S. would have a “plan to succeed and exit”.

Do these three reasons justify our air-strikes on Libya?  While President Obama promises that the US action on Libya will last days and not weeks, how can he be so sure.

Should we have gotten involved in Libya?  According to the White House, Gaddafi was a threat to the people of Libya and if the US had not intervened, genocide against the rebels could have taken place. Should the US be the country to police this situation?  We could potentially be involved in a situation like Iraq where we will not be able to leave once the conflict is over.

If this situation is handled quickly, then Obama would have made a good move.  However, if we end up there for too long and there are US casualties, Obama could hold a valid comparison to his predecessor.

Did the Nobel Peace Prize committee make the right decision in 2009?

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment


Essential SSL