Friday, April 1, 2011


For the decision of implementing the no-fly zone, officials have used different
decision-making processes. One of the processes was voting; 10 out of the 15 UN
Security Council voted in favor of resolution for the reported air strikes and raids
Gaddafi has set out for. There were no votes against the resolution, and due to the
unknown time limit of Gaddafi’s possible actions, a decision was needed to be made
sooner than later. Countries have agreed to work together in order to stop attacks, but as
a decision is being discussed, the process of implanting any resolution must be looked at
carefully. From “How ‘Who You Know’Affects What You Decide,” the idea of getting
it right and getting it done in a certain time is used in the decision making process. Since
the US and other countries’ number one priority is to protect civilians, the decision must
be looked at carefully and implemented effectively. However, since Gaddafi’s actions
are unpredictable, time is limited.

Obama has decided to limit the US’s interference. His decision was made after
analyzing past experiences such as Iraq. He mentioned that if there were a change in
regime for Libya, money and innocent lives and troops would be wasted just like the in
Iraq. “’We must always measure our interests against the need for action,’" the president
continued. "‘But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right.’”
Because Obama has used past experiences with similar issues, Obama has looked at all
possibilities in order to make a decision in passing the leadership to NATO. Instead of
looking at symptoms of the issues brought from Gaddafi, Obama has target what is
actually needed and what should be avoided in order to implement resolution effectively.
Lastly, for NATO’s choice in taking over actions, NATO used consensus to reach
a final decision. NATO agreed to take responsibility from the US for enforcing the no-
fly zone over Libya, aiming to protect civilians. NATO has claimed that consensus is
always used as the decision-making process. For time being a bit limited, I believe that it
may have been a little more acceptable to use consensus. Plus, the UN has also used
voting as a way of making the decision for resolution for Libya. NATO was able to use
all information known in order to come to consensus, so it was used as a tool rather than
the goal.