|Sergey Ponomarev/Associated Press|
Gaddafi was captured on October 20th, 2011 and killed on that same day. This obviously removed him from power, but it was not the ideal end to his life. The goal was to capture Gaddafi, not kill him. He was a cruel leader and many thought he deserved a life of punishment rather than to be killed. However, when the rebels had the chance to be more powerful than Gaddafi himself, they took full advantage of it. He was captured outside of his hometown, Sirte, and shot with the intentions to keep him controlled for questioning and punishment. Regardless of the intentions, that was not the result; rebels got ahold of him and beat him practically to death, he was then dragged into an ambulance and shot in the head. People were heard shouting to keep Gaddafi alive, but the majority of the civilians exclaimed with joy and participated in his beating. I agree with the people who urged to keep him alive; yes, Gaddafi performed horrible actions but it would've done greater damage to keep him alive with punishment than to kill him. Also, I disagree with the way he was killed. No human should be dragged on the ground and beaten and shot to death simply because he is disliked. So yes, it is good that he is out of power, but I think the way that it was handled was unfair and too cruel. If this event happened again, I would want the result to be different.
The war in Libya was brutal, in the six-month civil war 30,000 people died, 50,000 injured, and 4,000 are still missing. These statistics disgust me, knowing that innocent people died because of the cruelty of their leader, and then in return, the remaining citizens killed their leader. This whole story is twisted, where did the United States even come into play? If Obama is going to spend the time and money sending troops to war, why not do it with clear intentions? Why send them with unclear goals knowing that they would be in extreme danger? And not even including the goal of capturing Gaddafi, the root of the problem? The war had only been going on for approximately a month before the U.S. sent troops and in that time frame we had no idea what the war would turn into or when it would end without interference. I think we should have waited to see further progress in the country itself, and then spend the time and money to put our troops in danger to help save the lives of others. After deciding whether or not to send forces, decide on goals, and make them clear to the fighters and the citizens of both countries. If there is no debate on what the action plan is, then send troops to benefit the greater good. However, if there is debate between what the country should do, then no person's life should be put in danger for a "just in case" situation. I am not against sending troops to better a situation, but in this case I do not think the government handled it in the best way.