What is more to the Operation Odyssey Down?

The allied forces of America and European have started their efforts of obliterating Muammar Gaddafi’s hold onto power. In a series of air and sea attacks, warplanes and missiles destroyed dozens of government armored vehicles leaving a field of havoc and wreckage.

President Obama’s description of the role of the US in the coalition forces as being narrow mission which will play only a supporting part is critically contradicting. We are seeing the US forces taking the initial commanding attack which undoubtedly raises eyebrows. A barrage of questions are being asked as to the extent of the parameters of the US involvement and the operations motive

The US and the allied forces are provoking and rehearsing old wounds and memories of earlier external intervention. The US-led intervention may well harm the psychology of the civilians prompting public sentiments. The strike comes across as history repeating itself.

The US has a history of being a failure as an intervener in the world affairs. Anyone with good conscience would not entertain that to happen to Libya whatever that happened to Iraq. The US initially invaded Iraq under the pretext of destroying Sadam’s weapons of mass destruction. It came as a surprise to all after it became apparent that the motive behind Iraq’s invasion was solely for oil and revenge thus proving that external intervention come along with strategic and economic interest.

It proves beyond reasonable doubt that the US-led intervention is for other gains. Before the UNSC’S resolution for imposition of NFZ over Libya, America and UK have evacuated their citizens from Libya. No evacuation initiatives have been offered to Libyans. This goes without saying that the intervening forces are nonchalant about loss of innocent lives. This strongly makes me to disagree with the reasons for the military intervention in Libya.

I would like to make it clear here that I am not rejecting the need for intervention. I was actively for the idea of intervention as the regime was meting atrocities to the Libyan people. But I never opted for a military intervention because it has its own repercussion. But diplomatic intervention was the best thing to have been done in this situation

The Libyans needed an overwhelming moral support, they needed solidarity, humility, the power and the vigor to overthrow Gaddafi’s long-term rule. In broader sense, they needed emotional support rather than military support. The interveners are oblivious of the ground reality and they have no clear sense of the consequences of the intervention and the impact it would have on the minds of the people.

The annals of history indicate that international agencies were never successful in restoring and reinstalling peace in conflict regions. Take the case of Somalia, Iraq, Vietnam or any other nation, the history. The united Nation’s efforts always bore no fruits. They have the record of only worsening, meddling and messing with other people’s countries. Now what makes us think that they can reverse roles and do wonders. I express slim hope in this intervention.

I hope against hope that Libya would not become like another Iraq.

Tweet