The U. S. Does Not Need to Solve This One

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Mar 10, 2011 at 17:15

After years, nay, decades of American intervention in situations such as Libya, with results varying from marginal to deplorable (very little of record has lasted too much beyond a presidential term of office from which a presidential act of intervention was meditated and acted upon), there is actually little in the way of solid common sense rationale to engage in the political disarray seen in Libya. Is there not enough history to point to the misuse of American military might in order to compel an outcome that does nothing to enhance America's posture in an environment that otherwise would tell America and Americans to die?

Leave alone the mindset of the current American Administrative Executive's lack of initiative to engage in yet another Muslim country's internal affairs, there is little, save the avaricious oil interests, to justify another American intervention that will, as all the other times, end badly for America. And to put it into potentially mercenary terms, how does the government of the United States intend to justify the expense when we are in hock to an unnamed amount for the previous actions that actually had some justification, however debatable the cause?

Libya is a problem that is not going away, yet whether or not America gets involved needs to be examined from the another angle; this is not 1805. At that time, America was not involved in a 'police action,' which this portends to be. To provide the enforcement of a no-fly zone means that escalation is potentially hazardous as soon as the circumstances are determined that ground action is inevitable. Then the American public must be prepared for the first casualties for a conflict in which there will be little justification for the loss of loved ones in combat.

Let us contrast this with a scenario that, fortunately, did not get too far out of hand: Egypt. Would the American Administrative Executive have engaged in Egypt to depose Mubarak if he had declined to exit and the circumstances escalated by the Egyptian military encountering and decimating the resistance? And if so, the rationale to get involved there, how would it be different than with Libya?

In the second to last paragraph, suggesting aid, commencing to escalate as needed: is that not similar to the police action in Viet Nam? Maybe not; but there is enough contradicting evidence that America should not rush to engage in a civil battle that has less justification than many other conflicts that the U. S. has engaged in for the last thirty years. To be sure, there are the humanitarian considerations; yet if this were a principle consideration, how is it that there are hordes of others on the African continent that can point to the lack of American intervention and ask: why are we not worthy?

Spend time on the alternatives, getting the others who are content to be observers of how America might respond (there are some who are convinced this is a ploy to get America engaged in yet another battle that cannot be won), to get themselves involved. After all, they have as much, if not more, to lose if this does not go well enough not to become another U. N. humanitarian catastrophe. Oh yeah, then there's the oil.....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".