3 times no: no benefit, no friend, no priority

Submitted by myth (Germany), Mar 24, 2011 at 06:36

To me the situation looks like this: There is a civil war unfolding in Libya with the Q-regime in the west and the rebels in the east. The west has access to the military being by far the stronger party. All this is happening in the context of uprising in north-africa. I have three reasons why the USA should not engage:

1. I do not see how an intervention benefits the people living in the USA. There is no way to explain loss of lives.
2. It is an assumption only that the rebel party would actually turn out to be a friend in the future. Quaddafi's regime is evil but that does not make the conclusion self-evident that the rebels are worth supporting. The USA might be shooting itself in the foot if shooting in the dark.
3. Deploying military in one place essentially reduces the capabilities to act elsewhere where it is really needed and therefore is weakening. There is actually a real enemy of the USA, a country that declared war on the USA, took an embassy hostage, has been supplying people killing US troops with arms and is ambitious to acquire nuclear weapons. That country is Iran.

My conclusion is to save military capabilities for an air strike or more in Iran. If I was to reside in Barackingham-Palace (quoting Mark Steyn on Extension 720) I would actually say "the usa will not intervene in Libya now but is ready and prepared to confront enemies of the usa in the wider region"

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".