Don't Kill Gaddafiby Patrick McKinney
In the early hours of April 15, 1986, American and allied aircraft launched raids against Libyan military targets and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's compound. In the early hours of April 25, 2011, American and allied aircraft launched raids against Libyan military targets and the Gaddafi compound. Air strikes followed again on April 30, and appear to have killed Colonel Gaddafi's son. President Ronald Reagan ordered the first strikes as punitive action in retaliation to the terrorist bombing of American servicemen in Germany, and to prevent future attacks. The Obama administration authorized strikes as an escalation of force to resolve an emerging political and military stalemate. Once a decisive military act, targeted killings are descending the slippery slope of acceptance for conflict resolution.
On March 17, 2011, the United Nations passed Resolution 1973, authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and short of foreign occupation, protect civilians. It did not approve regime change. President Barack Obama then ordered the United States military to lead airstrikes against the Gaddafi regime to halt an expected massacre of Libyan rebels and civilians. Allied missiles and bombs halted the Libyan offensive, but have not ended the urban fighting and continued shelling of rebel Libyan cities. The United States intended to transition the burden and leadership of the campaign to NATO, but fiscal, technological and capability realities have kept the United States in the fight. American military leaders announced that American Predator drone aircraft now patrol Libyan airspace, and many experts suggest their ultimate mission is the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi.
On November 3, 2002, the United States began its current campaign of targeted killings with a drone missile strike on an al Qaeda leader in Yemen. Following the Israeli model of killing terror suspects and targets off the direct battlefield, the United States exploited its advantages in technology, intelligence, and military reach to target and kill individual targets. The policy continued with shock and awe strikes during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and with continued drone attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. These strikes are vetted and cleared by military personnel, intelligence officials, lawyers, and if appropriate, the political chain. They target al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their allies who are at war with the United States and its allies. Colonel Gaddafi is a dictator and a killer, but until Operation Odyssey Dawn, he was no longer at war with the United States.
President Reagan's bombings in 1986 worked. Colonel Gaddafi halted his explicit and covert support of terrorism. In response to the Iraq invasion of 2003, he renounced the Libyan WMD programs and attempted to open channels to the international community; and in 2008, he compensated the families of the Lockerbie bombing and other Libyan sponsored terror attacks. He continued his repressive dictatorial rule, stirred controversy, and created spectacle in the international political scene, but he ceased his support of terrorism against the United States.
On May 2, 2011, American forces raided a compound in Pakistan and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The media coverage and domestic jubilation of the mission's success have led to demands for the similar targeting of Colonel Gaddafi. Newspaper editorials, American politicians, and political commentators across the spectrum support have called for Gaddafi's death to resolve the crisis. al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden declared a war on the United States that continues today. A non-state international terrorist network, al Qaeda lacks the legitimacy and structural institutions for peaceful or diplomatic resolutions of their conflict. America must meet al Qaeda's demands, or continue the fight; and bin Laden was a casualty of this war he initiated. Gaddafi's regime is not innocent, but it does exist in the international community, and can respond to political and diplomatic means. Killing bin Laden does not justify killing Gaddafi.
Some argue that killing Gaddafi is justified by his alleged war crimes against the Libyan people, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is pursuing investigations for these acts. Gaddafi has killed innocent civilians, but he has also killed rebels fighting his regime. If the international community intends to continue to justify its actions through international institutions, then it must follow due process and await fair proceedings. The Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, was found guilty for war crimes by the ICC, but he remains free. Does the international community or America have an obligation, or right to kill al-Bashir? If so, where does this obligation end, and how does America decide when to act? The world would be a better place if certain leaders were removed, but American strikes are not a panacea.
The United States banned political assassination in 1976, but has since used targeted killings for defense. The United States Congress has not declared war or authorized escalated military action in Libya, so the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi enters questionable territory. I served in the United States Army field artillery, where the intended target is miles away and receives volleys of high explosive; and was in Balad, Iraq, preparing a convoy when they announced the targeted killing of the al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I clapped my hands when I heard the news, and I still support the killing of legitimate targets.
For his past crimes abroad and at home, I would not shed a tear if Colonel Muammar Gaddafi were tried in an international court and then executed, but his assassination would set a dangerous precedent. On March 28, the American Deputy National Security Advisor stated, "... we don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent." If the administration does not intend to use precedent for judging intervention abroad, it should not criticize or object if another state relies on assassination to resolve a future stalemate. If the United States intended to intervene and force regime change, it could have done so when decisive action would have turned the tide against the Libyan regime. Targeted killing now, to resolve a political and military stalemate, is inadvisable. A missile strike may seem the easy answer, and it may be easy, but it is the wrong choice. Americans must not be seduced into resolving or salvaging every international dispute by killing the opposition's leaders.
Patrick McKinney served as a United States Army officer and deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom IV. He now resides in Alexandria, VA. The opinions and views expressed in this piece are his own.
