Ashton Kutcher in his Twitter account asked what’s the alternative to bombing Libya and Syria. Last I wrote of the air attack on Libya, which was a few days after the first strike, I opined that it was a bad decision and that the Allies have apparently forgotten the lessons from history especially those in Iraq and more recently Afghanistan.
Introducing air strikes in the conflict may protract it, leaving behind great casualties and a disenfranchised local population, again. Moreover, context of the conflict would’ve have probably changed in the midst of the fighting which begs the question, what were the death and destruction for?
The air attack may be the Allies’ way of saying, we’ve had enough of you, Gaddafi, give up now or else! They believed, from within the confines of comfortable war rooms, that they’re doing locals a good turn. But who knows for sure? The world has heard nothing from locals. News imply that while Osama and Gadaffi are being protected, sheltered, and provided supply of food by protectors, the masses are fleeing their homes into rabbit holes, quaking in fear, wondering when the fighting will end so they could go back to work and their livelihoods.
Notwithstanding such consequences to the local population, it is now clear to the world that in the fight against terrorism the end justifies the means. Retaliation however makes this world an increasingly insecure place.