The implications of the intervention in Libya

Libya returns to world attention after Obama's decision to bomb Benghazi doe area are the forces of the Islamic State. Are in fact several possible consequences of US military actions: the first consideration that must be asked is whether this decision will move the vote in the US election campaign. The outgoing US president has often been attacked both from his own party, which Republican unwillingness to intervene, the decision to act in Libya takes place in the terminal phase of its mandate and can not have an impact on his political image rather could embarrass Trump and his party, because it is difficult to criticize a decision. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has always been presented as the most interventionist, including the use of military force in international crisis and, for this reason, also criticized Obama. For the Democratic candidate could be a foretaste of the crisis management mode it intends to take, whether it will be elected. Seen in this light, then, the military intervention in Libya can also be read as internal political factor, intended to embarrass Republicans, who does not seem to agree criticize the decision of the White House. Unlike the case if the military action will not be limited to intervention plane, but should see involved US military on the ground. On this point, it seems unlikely that Obama changes the setting that has characterized his tenure and that was to avoid the involvement of US soldiers on new theaters of war; However, the air military action has been programmed for at least a month, so deal a final blow to the militia almost the caliphate on Libyan soil. In this period, certainly not short, you may need logistical support on the ground, that Libyan military may not be able to ensure, or worse, you may have the need to recover the personnel employed in aircraft in the event of demolition. In these cases the return of the image could become negative and facilitate the Republican Party. It remains obvious that the mission would be a success not only for Obama, but would represent a source of growth in the Democratic party consents. Besides American issues must, however, also look to the problems that this action could raise in Europe. The nation seems to be more interested in Italy, followed by France and England. Rome is directly involved in the bombing actions to have granted its airspace, needed to reach Libya, the US military aircraft, that would be even using a base in Sicily. This could expose the country to Italian terrorist reprisals, which have already been threatened by men of the Islamic State. It should be specified that Italy is less prone to return fighters, more motivated to carry out attacks. This problem applies to a greater extent France and then England, where Muslim communities are more consistent and record in them an increasing rate of fundamentalism. In these cases the American military action could offer, if ever proof were needed, the pretext for new attacks. For Italy the greatest danger is the possibility of an increase in migration, both coming from the war zones, is used as a form of pressure from the government of Tripoli, which does not recognize the executive who requested American help. In addition to the problem of managerial nature of the phenomenon, it is of a practical nature, that inherent in the Italian domestic political debate, there is also a greater chance that terrorists could use this method to enter the country. The question then exposes Rome to a greater danger, however, the need to eradicate from the Libyan coast the presence of the Caliphate appears priority. It has then to be considered as will be dealt with the future of the Libyan country once the Islamic state was defeated. It is certainly not a secondary issue, since the mistake of leaving Libya itself after the fall of Gaddafi should not be repeated. Among Western allies there are different visions: the US would prefer to maintain the current composition of the country, while the West is taken into account the possibility of creating more states more responsive to social structures and present policies on the ground; this solution might favor a division of the peaceful power without lead again in a civil war, which could bring the country in a dangerous alteration of balance and even encourage, therefore, the terrorist contagion.