Now that we are officially involved in Libya’s civil war, many are questioning America’s position in regards to the numerous revolutions taking place.
President Barack Obama is already being blamed for dragging the U.S. into another war in which it does not belong, and many have criticized him for inconsistent stances regarding the various violent suppressions taking place about the region.
This criticism is inevitable and perhaps even necessary to ensure Obama maintains a cautious mindset toward the military action, but that does not mean the criticism is rational.
Our aid to the innocent people of Libya has no bearing on our position toward other revolutions taking place. As of now, no other countries in the Middle East are undergoing a civil war the likes of that in Libya — that is, one where the rebels are severely outgunned and have been promised certain death by their own leader.
Skeptics who ask why we choose to help Libya while neglecting other nations fail to see what high standards our current administration holds to justify intervention.
Sovereignty is key. Sovereignty is why a number of U.N. Security Council members abstained from voting on — yet condoned — intervention in Libya, and it is why America would be rightfully vilified for actively taking sides in any conflict in the Middle East right now.
Libya is the exception because its leader, who has maintained autocratic rule for decades, has killed innocent men, women and children in his desperation to keep power and thus has by unanimous decision lost legitimacy to rule.
We have not chosen sides in Libya. We are neither arming the rebels nor fighting on their behalf — our mission is purely to protect the innocent.
We cannot forget the three standards Obama displayed for our participation in the intervention: that it be limited, as he promised there would be no ground troops deployed; that it be finite, lasting “days, not weeks;” and that it be done cooperatively as an international effort agreed upon by the U.N.
Other criticisms claim the Western world’s intervention betrays a double-standard by ignoring the oppression of the Bahraini Shiites — because Shiites typically are anti-Western — while engaging Libya, perhaps because it possesses economic promise in oil.
Our administration’s standards come to mind again, as the situation in Bahrain has not escalated to civil war and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has already condemned the Sunni leadership of Bahrain for the suppression of the protesters.
The inconsistency actually comes from nations like the United Arab Emirates, which retracted its decision to send military aid to Libya solely because America condemned its participation in Bahrain’s crackdown.
As for the economic potential of intervention in Libya, if the rebels do succeed, they will know who protected them. Future gains, however, in no way undermine the obvious danger facing the people there, i.e., the immediate reason for our involvement.
I dare say if there is a proper way to make friends with a nation in hopes of future economic partnership, protection from a murderous dictator is one of them.
Besides, we cannot forget the U.S. did not even lead the coalition into action. France did, which makes far more sense following the logic of economic benefit because the European Union has much more to gain from Moammar Gadhafi’s ouster than we do.
The only real concern is how and when America will step down as the largest contributor to the effort. Obama has assured the nation of the dissolution of our leadership within days, hoping to pass leadership on to NATO, but the international community is struggling to make that possible.
These are the pains of possessing the best military in the coalition: Our weapons are more effective, therefore our military leadership is only practical.
We simply must not forget the cooperative and consensual nature of our actions in Libya. The Libyans praise and celebrate the intervention on their behalf, and had we not acted immediately, thousands of civilians would have been killed as Gadhafi promised they would.
Clayton Crockett is a 19-year-old international studies freshman from Lafayette. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_ccrockett.
 
 
_____
contact Clayton Crockett at [email protected]