Find an article in a recent newspaper about a current political event in any part of the world. Then write an essay summarizing the major points of the article. After a brief one- paragraph summary, point out how you agree and/or disagree with the points made in the article. In your essay, cite one other source who agrees with your viewpoint. The essay should be about one and a half pages, double-spaced.
Through his article Hugs from Libyans in NewyorkTimes newspaper, Nicholas D. Kristofe produced many evidences to prove that the military intervention in Libya was a true decision and a successful action. The intervention prevented a humanitarian catastrophe in addition to security interests and oil. He started his article with a story about an American airman and how Libyan villagers treated him. This led the author to that Libyans are very thankful to the coalition forces because they save Libyans' lives. The intervention is a reaction to the rule that United Nations have approved in 2005. Then, the writer mentioned many doubts about the military intervention and weighed them with few certainties: civilians would be died, the Qaddafi's family would be locked, and a wrong message would be sent. He finally expressed that though war is hateful but it is much better than "the systematic slaughter of civilians as the world turns a blind eye".
As the western countries declared, the motive behind the military intervention is to save civilians' lives and a response to the Arab League and Libyan rebels who approved this intervention to prevent a disaster. I agree with the writer that this intervention averted a humanitarian catastrophe but it can't be believed that it is motivated solely by concern for human life. Who bolstered Qaddafi and rehabilitated him? We watched Berlusconi kiss his hand and Clinton pose with his son Mutassim and Blair sit in his tent and announce a New Era, all when the brutality of the regime was being masked by the thinnest possible patina of change, the change of Saif's western bought PR. (Tasnim) "The hesitation in taking a position on the crimes committed by Qaddafi against Libyans while maintaining bridges with the Libyan regime indicates the stimulators of Western policies that care about nothing apart from oil, their interests and protecting Israel's security." (Nassar) Why they intervene in Libya to avert a humanitarian slaughter while there are many ongoing slaughters across the world? For example, the Syrian regime is pursuing his campaign of violence against his own people but the American and European political reactions are characterized by bootlicking and hesitation.
Some critics against the intervention make valid arguments, but they are weighed by certainties. I agree with this point but I think the cost of this aid is playing a major role in the American and European decision about the intervention. The intervention in Libya, of course, is an expensive operation and the Libyans will be charged to pay the cost as their country is rich oil. What if the humanitarian slaughter is happened in a poor country such as Syria, would they intervene to prevent a slaughter? According to experts, Libyans have to pay many billions to reconstruct their country.
Libyans are welcome to the foreign intervention because they have no choice except dying under Qaddafi's tanks. They prefer an Arabian intervention but it is unreliable. "The silence of the Arab states is not surprising, since a great majority of Arab states fear this wave of revolutions. Many Arab regimes want to have nothing to do with it, since it means chaos for them," said Dr. Azmi Bishara on Aljazeera Channel.
According to the news, the Arabian dictators have, unfortunately, received the wrong message that ruthlessness works. After the intervention, the Syrian dictator is still violently killing his nation and the Yemeni one is committing crimes to save his regime, but they both will meet the same destiny as Qaddafi.
Finally, though the intervention brought problems, it saved Libyans' lives and averted a humanitarian disaster. Libyans should now be care about that there is a "tremendous importance to the process of deepening the experience and resisting the powers that reject the revolution, powers which will continue their attempts to dominate the revolution and cripple its direction." (Nassar) Libyans should always remember the great words of their leader Omar Mukhtar that he said while stepping towards the gallows: "We do not give up; either we die or win".
Works Cited
Arabs48.com. Azmi Bishara on Libya. February 24, 2011. Monthly Review Magazine.
Atwan, Abdel Bari. True Cost of Interventionism. June 20, 2011. Gulf News.
D. Kristofe, Nicholas. Hugs from Libyans, March 23, 2011. The New York Times Newspaper. The Opinion Pages.
Nassar, Ibrahim. The Arab Peoples' Revolution: Recapturing Self and Disconnecting with Colonial Democracy - Great Failure and Deconstruction of Colonial Democracies, 31 March 2011, Alternative Information Center (AIC). June 15, 2011.
Tasnim. The Price of the Divide on Libya. April 5, 2011. KABOBfest.
An Analysis of the Article "Hugs from Libyans"
Through his article Hugs from Libyans in NewyorkTimes newspaper, Nicholas D. Kristofe produced many evidences to prove that the military intervention in Libya was a true decision and a successful action. The intervention prevented a humanitarian catastrophe in addition to security interests and oil. He started his article with a story about an American airman and how Libyan villagers treated him. This led the author to that Libyans are very thankful to the coalition forces because they save Libyans' lives. The intervention is a reaction to the rule that United Nations have approved in 2005. Then, the writer mentioned many doubts about the military intervention and weighed them with few certainties: civilians would be died, the Qaddafi's family would be locked, and a wrong message would be sent. He finally expressed that though war is hateful but it is much better than "the systematic slaughter of civilians as the world turns a blind eye".
As the western countries declared, the motive behind the military intervention is to save civilians' lives and a response to the Arab League and Libyan rebels who approved this intervention to prevent a disaster. I agree with the writer that this intervention averted a humanitarian catastrophe but it can't be believed that it is motivated solely by concern for human life. Who bolstered Qaddafi and rehabilitated him? We watched Berlusconi kiss his hand and Clinton pose with his son Mutassim and Blair sit in his tent and announce a New Era, all when the brutality of the regime was being masked by the thinnest possible patina of change, the change of Saif's western bought PR. (Tasnim) "The hesitation in taking a position on the crimes committed by Qaddafi against Libyans while maintaining bridges with the Libyan regime indicates the stimulators of Western policies that care about nothing apart from oil, their interests and protecting Israel's security." (Nassar) Why they intervene in Libya to avert a humanitarian slaughter while there are many ongoing slaughters across the world? For example, the Syrian regime is pursuing his campaign of violence against his own people but the American and European political reactions are characterized by bootlicking and hesitation.
Some critics against the intervention make valid arguments, but they are weighed by certainties. I agree with this point but I think the cost of this aid is playing a major role in the American and European decision about the intervention. The intervention in Libya, of course, is an expensive operation and the Libyans will be charged to pay the cost as their country is rich oil. What if the humanitarian slaughter is happened in a poor country such as Syria, would they intervene to prevent a slaughter? According to experts, Libyans have to pay many billions to reconstruct their country.
Libyans are welcome to the foreign intervention because they have no choice except dying under Qaddafi's tanks. They prefer an Arabian intervention but it is unreliable. "The silence of the Arab states is not surprising, since a great majority of Arab states fear this wave of revolutions. Many Arab regimes want to have nothing to do with it, since it means chaos for them," said Dr. Azmi Bishara on Aljazeera Channel.
According to the news, the Arabian dictators have, unfortunately, received the wrong message that ruthlessness works. After the intervention, the Syrian dictator is still violently killing his nation and the Yemeni one is committing crimes to save his regime, but they both will meet the same destiny as Qaddafi.
Finally, though the intervention brought problems, it saved Libyans' lives and averted a humanitarian disaster. Libyans should now be care about that there is a "tremendous importance to the process of deepening the experience and resisting the powers that reject the revolution, powers which will continue their attempts to dominate the revolution and cripple its direction." (Nassar) Libyans should always remember the great words of their leader Omar Mukhtar that he said while stepping towards the gallows: "We do not give up; either we die or win".
Works Cited
Arabs48.com. Azmi Bishara on Libya. February 24, 2011. Monthly Review Magazine.
Atwan, Abdel Bari. True Cost of Interventionism. June 20, 2011. Gulf News.
D. Kristofe, Nicholas. Hugs from Libyans, March 23, 2011. The New York Times Newspaper. The Opinion Pages.
Nassar, Ibrahim. The Arab Peoples' Revolution: Recapturing Self and Disconnecting with Colonial Democracy - Great Failure and Deconstruction of Colonial Democracies, 31 March 2011, Alternative Information Center (AIC). June 15, 2011.
Tasnim. The Price of the Divide on Libya. April 5, 2011. KABOBfest.
