The war in Iraq has made us cynical and paranoid. Libya is not Iraq and Iraq is not Libya. Aside from the geographical obviousness, there appears to be some confusion in regards to our involvement with the two countries. First, the war in Iraq was based on the myth of a threat to our national security. Second, the people of Iraq weren’t exactly begging for our help. While Libya may not be the biggest threat to our national security, the people of Libya are desperately asking for outside assistance.
The arguments for and against our involvement are all over the board and are coming from both sides of the political aisle. John McCain said that Obama didn’t act fast enough while other Republicans like Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Rob Portman of Ohio feel that there is little justification for our involvement at all. Various other Democrats like Senator Dennis Kucinich have echoed the same concerns.
The truth is that our own well being is probably not a good rational for justifying intervention. Joe Smith in the middle of Montana would probably be minimally impacted by the slaughter of thousands of Libyan rebels. But if our nation has even a semblance of a collective conscience, then it would best to act where we can. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we can or should act as the constable in Bahrain, Syria and other countries in similar circumstances. That’s one complaint I commonly see from the left. That if we act on Libya, does that mean that we’re suddenly turning into the world police for all other countries with miserable dictators? The simple answer is no.
We don’t have the ability to be everywhere all the time and there’s no reason to believe that we should intervene in all world atrocities. But this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to help where we can. Some are arguing that what we are doing isn’t actually helping anyone, that we are just aimlessly getting involved in a civil war. These are valid concerns, but they’re valid concerns for any action ever taken anywhere. If we want to make it law that we will never take action anywhere, that we will never intervene in international affairs ever, then you can make that argument. But if you believe that there are times that the United States should play a role in stopping mass murder and genocide, then when is the right time? When will the situation in Libya get bad enough to where it’s acceptable to step in?
The United States would be better served in a backseat position considering that our plate is a bit full. However, not every role gets determined by where you wish to be. Sometimes the urgency of the circumstance overrides the need for a conservative step by step bureaucratic assessment of all actions. What separates Libya from Iraq more than anything else is timing. The timetable that was set for Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction was arbitrary and could have been prolonged. Prolonging action in Libya means more death. It means that Gaddafi will have more time to continue to hire thugs to kill his own people. We might not be sending in the Marines, but doing nothing is not a viable option when there are still options on the table.
