Silent War in Libya causes international confusion, discontent

Today marks the fifth day of military aggression against the pro-Gadhafi forces in Libya both on the parts of pro-democratic rebels and their western-backing, though it also marks the fifth day of what has been a relatively unknown affair.

President Obama’s reasoning for entering into the conflict has so far been limited to, “protecting innocent civilians within Libya,” which has been criticized by domestic and foreign officials alike. Fox News pundit John Bolton has contended that this objective is “more ambiguous than flatly endorsing regime change.”

President Obama, who has taken a heavy load of the criticism surrounding Operation Odyssey Dawn, a NATO controlled military movement, has defended his decision to mobilize United States sea and aircraft in Libya by stating that the United States military is acting only for the purposes of a “humanitarian mission,” though even this has come under fire.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum deprecated the Obama administration’s policy regarding Libya, suggesting that President Obama’s decision reduces the U.S. to being, “the military for the U.N.,” according to the Pittsburgh newspaper The Post-Gazette.

“He [President Obama] seems disinterested, detached, ambivalent, indecisive, and waiting for the international community to take the lead,” Santorum said at political dinner. “[He wants] to do what they want to do, and he’ll go along and execute their plan.”

Santorum goes on to say that President Obama has a tendency to “flip-flop,” siding with revolutionaries when the United States is allied with the regime and siding with tyrants when the revolutionaries are in dire need of assistance.

President Obama is not the only world leader under fire, however. In fact, many voices from around the world are chorusing their disapproval of NATO’s actions.

Five members of the United Nations Security Council have even openly condemned the Libya air strikes. German, Brazilian, Chinese, Russian, and Indian officials on the council abstained from voting on the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya to show their disapproval of the plan, according to the International Business Times, though that was only the beginning of what has now become a controversial, international, diplomatic standstill between nations.

On Sunday, Arab League chief Amr Moussa reported that the objective of Libya was not to create war, but to keep more civilians from dying, sparking controversy over, if such was the case, why exactly NATO and the Arab League decided to enter into their “humanitarian mission” with an air strike. On Monday, he withdrew his claims on the grounds that he spoke only for himself and not for his nation or for the Arab League.

Though this was only the first wave of controversy as, early yesterday, Turkey criticized NATO’s strikes, and officials urged the west to “avoid a comprehensive war” like the ones currently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Huffington Post reports. A Russian government spokesman added to the controversy by claiming that the attack, which was allegedly initiated for support of the pro-democratic rebels, killed up to 48 civilians.

This claim came at the worst time imaginable for the NATO coalition, which has yet to decide which country of their 28-nation alliance will “spear-head” the assault against pro-Gadhafi forces. It was only late yesterday that the alliance realized that there was no real military breakdown.

The Pentagon has refuted the claim that the United States has led the movement, and NATO, still deadlocked in dispute over which nation should lead, has also denied leading the assault. The Arab League, whose approval was withdrawn only hours after giving it, stood beside the United Nations Security Council this time, who both stood to the side as Libya’s Gadhafi air forces were “completely devastated.” According to Air Vice Marshall Greg Bagwell of the British Royal Air Force (RAF), Libya’s air force “no longer exists,” according to the news agency Al Jazeera.

Until the standstill is resolved, however, Norway, among other nations, has decided to ground their planes until it is clear who is in charge of the aggression.

Through the political mist, it is difficult to discern what exactly NATO’s mission is, humanitarian or otherwise, as no long-term strategy has been verbalized. Accurate information as to casualties on both sides seems, at this point, to be impossible to come by, even if the danger has become alarmingly clear to civilians caught in the “no-man’s-land” of the crossfire.

The Atlantic’s Max Fisher puts NATO’s actions best:

“IT WOULD BE AS IF, IN JUNE, 1944, THE ALLIED POWERS DECIDED TO INVADE NORMANDY AT ROUGHLY THE SAME TIME, BUT DIDN'T BOTHER TO APPOINT GENERAL EISENHOWER TO COMMAND AND COORDINATE THE MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE."