Libyan Loophole - Handling the Crisis in the Middle East

Over the past decade, many countries within the Middle East, such as Tunisia and Egypt, have revolted against their suppressive governments in an attempt to liberate their people. More recently, the citizens of Libya have followed their neighboring countries' trend and rebelled against the heinous acts of their dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. What started off as peaceful protests soon escalated to armed conflicts when the demagogue responded with severe military action, hiring mercenaries to exterminate those who opposed his methods. Most citizens believe that America should not intervene with a foreign affair such as this, while others believe that it is absolutely necessary. When considering the role the United States should take in this conflict, one should closely observe a similar situation involving Former President George H. W. Bush and Saddam Hussein.

In 1991, Bush persuaded the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force to stop Hussein. This, however, did not officially give the president grounds to invade and overthrow the dictator - so he didn't. Bush Senior has been vilified ever since for dutifully following the letter of the United Nation's resolution and for not using his army to overthrow Hussein when he had the chance. America, as well as the rest of the world, is still facing the consequences of this action. Since history is bound to repeat, if Obama simply stands by as Bush did nearly 20 years ago, dire outcomes are inevitable. With this in mind, United States involvement in the Libyan conflict is completely essential to maintain world order.

The most effective method for the United States to aid in the Libyan conflict is to provide the disarrayed nation with durable military support and equipment. Radical Gaddafi is committing borderline genocide against the country's innocent people, killing thousands of individuals who simply yearn for democracy and civil freedom. In order to halt these mass executions, the United States government should arm the freedom-seeking Libyan rebels with the weapons and ammunition they desperately require. This action will allocate the soldiers with the proper supplies and support necessary for them to overthrow their militant leader and, therefore, attain civil liberties for themselves and the rest of the nation. The United States would not only be ceasing this ruthless carnage; they would be promoting the spread of righteous democracy.

However, there a great deal of controversy about whether or not an action such as this is actually permitted. Many individuals argue that providing arms would violate paragraph 9 of Resolution 1970, which establishes a military embargo with Libya. While this may be true, Resolution 1973, passed three weeks afterwards, contains a "notwithstanding" clause, which allows the Secretary General to "take all necessary measures... to protect civilians and civilian populated