Do we get involved, or not? That is the question haunting the Obama administration as the World stands by watching and waiting to see what happens in Libya. Perhaps the better question is, what do we have to gain by getting involved? One could hardly argue that Libya is a threat to the United States. Libya does not have a nuclear program nor do they have a delivery system, such as a ballistic missile, that could harm the Unites States. Although Qaddafi was our enemy back in the 1980’s, he was hardly our enemy over the last decade. In fact, political and economic ties between the United States and Libya have improved significantly over the last decade. Prior to the recent unrest in Libya, everything was fine between these two countries.
One could argue that if we overthrow Qaddafi and put in a more friendly regime, we may be able to work out a good deal on oil. Problem is, Libya is a member of OPEC and won’t sell its oil directly to America. The oil must go through the price controlled OPEC, otherwise they risk being booted from the cartel. This argument gets even weaker when you consider Libya hasn’t been withholding any oil shipments because they don’t want America getting any of it. When the oil goes into the OPEC supply chain, it is shipped all around the world to various countries for the same price, including the United States. Considering 95% of Libya’s export income is derived from oil, the current government or a rebel insurgence aren’t just going to shut it down in an effort to hurt America. It would only hurt Libya in that most of its income would cease to exist. Even if Libya did stop exporting oil, it would only drop OPEC’s output by 5%. While it may not affect overall output all that much, it would probably drive oil prices up due to speculation. Other countries such as Canada and Mexico could easily make up difference. Possible yet, provided the environmentalist step aside, the United States itself could make up some of the difference.
But suppose you believe the above argument to be true, and that we could somehow put in a more friendly regime. Who would that be? There is no clear successor or political party that is overwhelmingly popular in Libya. How do we know that whoever we side with and help overthrow Qaddafi won’t be worse? America has always seemed to put it’s money on the wrong horse. It did so when it praised the Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iranian revolution of 1979 and Saddam Hussein in the mid 80’s during the Iran-Iraq war. Despite what the liberal media wants you to believe, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a peaceful organization. They are not secular, in that they want to impose the writings of the Qu’ran as the main reference point for political and lawful rule. Besides, occupying another Muslim country would not go over well in that part of the world and could incite even more disdain towards America, if that’s even possible.
The idea America could somehow impose democracy throughout the Middle East is absurd. We are failing in Afghanistan and we may very well fail in Iraq. Time will only tell. Not to mention, other monarchies and dictatorships in the Middle East, whom we rely upon for our oil, probably wouldn’t be happy with the fact that America is directly eroding their ruling power by overthrowing other monarchies and dictatorships in their part of the world. Saudi Arabia being a prime example. But it gets even more basic than that, although the complexity of a solution gets more obscure. While Europe, Asia, South America, and North America have had their struggles with wars, the middle east has been in a perpetual state of violence and civil war for thousands of years. No form of government is going to change this, although that’s a completely different topic. Sorry for not being politically correct, but as history has shown, violence is deeply ingrained into the religious teachings, within the Qu’ran, and between tribes in that part of the world. Democracy will not solve this fundamental problem.
If you believe America should be responsible for removing ruthless dictators from power, then why haven’t we attacked North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe or Cuba? These governments have killed hundreds of thousands of people, even to this day. Perhaps there is nothing America has to gain from overthrowing such governments and it’s not worth putting our American soldiers lives in danger. But then again, what does Libya have that we don’t? Oil? Why didn’t we take over Iraq then? They have far more oil the Libya.
There is no one single reason for the United States to get involved with Libya. There certainly isn’t a political reason to get involved for the fact most Americans are tired of fighting two wars. A third war is the last thing People want, especially given there is virtually nothing to gain from it. Given the United Stated is grossly in debt, it’s unlikely America could even afford to fight another war, at least not without sacrificing what little economic stability remains. There just does not seem to be a good justifiable reason to engage in combat. Not in Libya.
Sometimes the lesser of two evils is to simply let the chips fall as they may. This is a war between the People of Libya and their government. It doesn’t involve the United States.