Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY -- The initial missile strikes by U.S. and British ships and submarines in Libya raise important questions about how quickly the mission can be accomplished, and at what cost.
Saturday's action clears the way to establish a European-led no-fly zone. But can that strategy alone push Libya towards peace?
Once you get involved in this kind of situation, you cannot back down at this point.
–Retired Army Maj. Gen. Peter S. Cooke
Utah Congressman Jason Chaffez does not back President Obama's plan.
"I've got real questions for the president," he said. "I just don't believe that you unilaterally use United States' forces the way that we have."
Chaffetz knows the Libyan people have suffered at the hands of Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, but does not believe that U.S. forces should take part in "policing" the globe.
"No doubt that Gadhafi is one of the world's bad guys, but the use of U.S. force raises it to another level," he said.
He criticizes the president for making his case to the United Nations, rather than the U.S. Congress and the American people. After the initial phases of the military action unfold, Chaffetz says, he and other members of Congress will press the issue.
Related:
First wave of allied assault: 112 cruise missiles
U.S. and British ships and submarines launched the first phase of a missile assault on Libyan air defenses, firing 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles Saturday at more than 20 coastal targets to clear the way for air patrols to ground Libya's air force."Unless there's a clear and present danger to the United States of America, I don't think you use U.S. forces in North Africa in what is the equivalent of a civil war," he said.
University of Utah Middle East scholar, Ibrahim Karawan, disagrees. He hopes the allies did not wait too long.
"There was a high price paid by the Libyan people already," said Karawan.
He believes President Obama took the only position he could under the circumstances and did so in a partnership with strong European allies. Karawan says the coalition no-fly zone could be effective in 10 to 15 weeks, and in the short term, should stall the Libyan leader's forces.
Unless there's a clear and present danger to the United States of America, I don't think you use U.S. forces in North Africa in what is the equivalent of a civil war.
–Rep. Jason Chaffetz
"Any movement of these troops could be stopped by the air power of the western states," he said.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Peter S. Cooke also thinks it's the right move, but he worries it could get more complicated.
"Once you get involved in this kind of situation, you cannot back down at this point," he said.
Cooke knows the Obama administration wants to get the job done quickly, but he fears that coalition forces may be forced into a longer military action than they expect.
"We have a great Air Force and we have great air support, but in history, until you put your boots on the ground, this will not be defined," he said.
Cooke says the main questions now are whether the allies acted soon enough and whether they can deliver enough firepower to force Gadhafi out of power and enable diplomatic efforts to work.
Chaffetz says he supports the troops who are following orders, but does not believe the U.S. can police the globe.
Meanwhile, U.S. naval officers announced there will be more attacks against Libya in order to limit the military's ability to contest an internationally imposed no-fly zone over the country and to prevent it from attacking anti-government civilians and demonstrators.
E-mail: jboal@ksl.com
