Libya - To Intervene Or Not

Dissent is spreading across the Middle East. After years of living under tyrannical rulers the people are beginning to demand their own rights to democracy, economic justice and human rights. The tyrants in Tunisia and Egypt has already been tossed out by their people and the movements is spreading to other countries. Currently, the battle for freedom is reaching a critical point in at least one country -- Libya.

The dictator in power in Libya, Moammar Kadafi, doesn't seem to be able to read the writing on the wall. He is desperately trying to hold on to power -- even to the point of hiring mercenaries to murder his own people. The country is now divided and may well be slipping into civil war.

That has many in this country, both on the left and the right, who would like to intervene in that country on the side of those opposing Kadafi. One of the most popular ideas for this intervention is to create a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent the dictator from using his airplanes and helicopters to attack those trying to drive him from power.

That sounds like a simpler solution than it actually is. It would require the attacking of Libyan radar and air defense systems to protect the pilots that would be patrolling the no-fly zone. In other words, we would have to attack Libyan territory -- at least on a limited (we hope) basis. I can't believe it would be in the best interest of this country for pictures to be flashed around the world showing America attacking another Arab country -- especially in light of the disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which seem to be endless).

America has a history of intervention into the affairs of other countries, and it has usually resulted in undesirable outcomes. For example, we helped to overthrow the democratically-elected president of Iran years ago and installed the Shah in his place -- a dictator with American sympathies. The end result of that was the current anti-American theistic regime in Iran. It would have been better if we had just stayed out of Iranian affairs to begin with.

And that is far from the only example. Interventionism is a policy that is fraught with unseen dangers. What may seem to be a sensible action could easily turn into something horrible, like when we supported the Taliban (then called the mujahadeen) in their struggle against Russia. That one certainly didn't turn out as expected.

My point is that intervention is a mistake. We would not allow another country to intervene in our own internal affairs, and we should extend that same courtesy to all other countries. The Libyan people have the right to decide their own fate without any help or interference from any outside force (including the United States). If they truly want Kadafi out of power, then he will be tossed out (regardless of what brutal actions he may take).

In fact we already intervene in most of these countries in that part of the world too much. Much of the police and military propping up these dictators are trained and supplied by the United States -- with both lethal (guns) and non-lethal (tear gas) weapons. We have profited by selling the tools that have kept the tyrants in power. Some Americans think this is just good business, but it is a dirty business that has helped to keep millions enslaved for many years. It needs to stop.

I have no problem with selling American products to other countries, but those should not be the products to make war or oppress people. It we are to export anything, it should be the belief that all people have the right to dignity, freedom and economic justice.