In the 41 years that Gadaffi's regime has held power in Libya this is the first and only time that the citizens have wanted to get out from under his brutality and repressive reign?
This is the first uprising? Or is this the first uprising that the USA has been invovled in helping determine the outcome?
Did the USA help the citizens of Egypt to overthrow their president? Did we or any other country bomb targets within Egypt to help level the playing field?
If so, I missed it.
What is so hard for me to understand is this: Why now? Why these rebels? Who made this choice within out Govn? Who made the justification for the money we spent (we are broke remember?) firing onto this country (and we just lost a fighter jet too) when we have sent a pittance to our Ally Japan in the help of the recovery. (earlier this week we had sent approx 64 million in aid, those tomahawks cost about half a million a pop and we shot off well over 100 last week).
This is a complex issue and I don't think it can be distilled into a simple statement. I really don't. JMHO.
I think the people of Libya have wanted a regime change for decades. The big difference for all of the people living under repressive regimes in the middle east was the success of the uprising in Tunisia. The demographic is similar to many of the countries now following their example, as is the repressiveness of their dictators and the length of those dictator's reign.
So, people in middle eastern countries watching Tunisia and what happened there, felt heartened, encouraged and emboldened and they acted as a result. They felt that they may have a chance.
So, why didn't we give any kind of military aid to Egypt or Tunisia? Why just Libya? That's easy: Because their governments were not slaughtering their protesters to the extent that Kaddafi has been. Also, Egypt has been our ally. Libya has not been and instead has been a known supporter of terrorism.
And why haven't we stepped in militarily to oust Kaddafi before this? Well, we did, under President Reagan, when we bombed several of Kaddafi's residences and other sites in a massive air strike. But, that's not what we are doing now. We are joining forces to make it harder for Kaddafi to slaughter his own people. We are not trying to get him out on our own or are trying to kill him - that would be very costly and is not what the world feels is the best step at present, I think. Instead, it seems that most nations feel the people rebelling should be protected somewhat from wholesale slaughter and to enable them to survive so that they can make their own decisions regarding what happens to Kaddafi and where their country goes next.
What about the cost? It's hard for me to put a price on human life. These are people who are being massacred by a force much greater than their own, because they want their oppressor, a terrorist named Kaddafi, out. And this is one way to give them assistance without engaging in an all out war. Instead, we are part of a team of nations who together agreed on a campaign based on numerous factors.
And what about the specific cost for the U.S.? Well, the U.S. military states the cost of each Tomahawk missile is around $500,000.00.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2 I'm not sure where the stat that we've shot 100 of those puppies so far came from (some online sources seem to inflate stats for the purpose of agitating) bu Reuters reports that while the total cost of the operation to all the nations involved could be close to one billion, the cost to the U.S. AND Britain, together has been about 200 million thus far.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/libya-usa-costs-idUSN2220961820110323
When you consider that we spend 9 billion per month in Afghanistan, I'm not sure it's money to poorly spent.
But what of your point that we gave Japan only $64 million in comparison with what we have spent on Libya? I think that's a fair point and a good question. On the one hand, you have innocent people who have been devastated by natural disaster and need assistance and on the other hand you have innocent people who could very well die as a direct result of our intervention in Libya, as casualties. So, what's the better place to spend our money? Is there a better way to help the people of Libya without engaging in military action? Good questions and I agree that we should be able to question what our government does in our name, at any time, regardless of who is in office.
ETA: I do not believe that the money we gave thus far to Japan, however, is the last of what we will be giving them.
