While the majority of the country was enthralled with the NCAA men's basketball tournament, something significant happened in our nation's history; President Barack Obama launched Operation Odyssey Dawn. Where that name came from, I will never know, but March 19 marked the start of the U. S. military operation in Libya as part of a coalition enforcing the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Though the United States has since passed the proverbial torch to the UN and now only serves a support role in the operation, I can't help but wonder why President Obama felt the need to enter this country into yet another battle that isn't even ours to fight. While there has been much criticism over the president's lack of consulting with Congress before deploying the Air Force, Marines and Navy, I feel that he failed to adequately inform the public of what his ultimate intentions were. It was like one minute, we were sitting idly by, letting things unfold, and the next, we were right in the thick of it.
I understand that, at times, the president can be put under pressure and has to act on instincts (take 9/11, for example), but the problems in Libya have been ongoing, meaning that this was likely not a surprise attack, but rather an anticipated next step as the situation in Libya worsened. I think it would have been nice to know that there was a distinct possibility that our nation was going to take a very active role in the fight against Moammar Gadhafi. All along, the Obama administration portrayed the United States' involvement as supportive. If naming the operation, having a U.S. commander in charge of said operation and providing the majority of the firepower is supportive, then the definition clearly needs to be changed.
Either way, I wholeheartedly disagree with the decision President Obama made to deploy troops, mostly because it's not our fight. I know that it's important for the United States, as a superpower and member of the United Nations, to make our presence known and uphold resolutions and beliefs of the Security Council, but I truly feel that we could have sat this one out. No, I am not opposed to war and I'm not opposed to helping out other countries in need, but there comes a point when you're overextended. For starters, close to 150,000 soldiers are still on active duty in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Wisconsin soldier, Spc. Justin Ross of Green Bay, was killed just this past weekend serving this country. Why do we need to send more military personnel to risk their lives for something that truly isn't our problem to begin with?
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against the military. I have several close friends who serve or have served this country and both my parents enlisted when they were 18. I guess I just don't understand why the United States has to be involved, to some extent or another, in every conflict that arises. We're like that snoopy next door neighbor who always has her nose in everyone's business. I guess the point I'm trying to make in this ongoing diatribe is that, maybe, for once, it would serve the United States better to simply have a truly supportive role in events like these. Letting other nations take the first step to handle and overcome these obstacles is what makes them grow stronger and become more independent. Yes, we have relied on a lot of these particular countries to help us during the numerous wars that have taken place, but I just don't feel as though it's our place to intervene whenever something goes awry.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
No comments:
Post a Comment