The political unrest in Libya has prompted the U.S. to pursue military intervention in yet another Middle Eastern state. President Barack Obama took little time to exercise his presidential power by ordering a U.S. lead strike against the Khadafi regime. Some in Washington are skeptical of the president’s decision to launch attacks amidst a seemingly self-contained civil war between long-time dictator Khadafi and those who are attempting to overthrow him. Khadafi has reigned over Libya for over 40 years and now, according to many, the rebels are fighting a just cause against the forces of oppression and corruption.
The U.S. and its swift decision to intervene in Libya begs the over-arching question: What business does the U.S. (and other U.S. allies like England, for that matter) have waging war halfway across the globe during a time when the national deficit is rapidly expanding and two wars are already dragging on in the Middle East?
The justification that we are attempting to “sow democracy” initially sounds genuine, but when looked at closely, it is a paper-thin statement. In an effort to spread our way all over the world, we fail to stop and ask the self reflective question: Do these people even want democracy? Why does it seem as if we are attempting to bestow democracy upon various nations who, for whatever reason, may not be compatible with our “good, old” version of government?
Furthermore, the assertion that our way of government is the “best” and that it can be successfully “imported” is somewhat naive. This outlook has lead us astray in the two follies that are Iraq and Afghanistan; so I ask why we seem to have continued this mantra into the new administration. If President Obama supports “change,” then he should begin by changing the aggressive role that the U.S. has assumed.
The United States has exercised its power by navigating the planet in search of countries that we believe could use some “Americanizing.” With guns in hand and God as our witness, we attempt to create peace through violent means. If we are in fact the most civil, fair ,and free, then why doesn’t our foreign policy, which is centered around constant foreign intervention, reflect this? Doesn’t it seem inconsistent for the U.S. to push its agenda by means of violence and force? By acting in this way, are we in some way worse then the very factions that we wish to rid the world of? Who’s to say?
Vietnam is a perfect example of what can happen when a nation gets overly aggressive in overseas politics. Our imperialistic nature kicked in and prompted an all-out assault against the communist north along side our South Vietnamese allies. In the process, we lost thousands of young troops and divided a nation that supported peace over violence. The point is, as the United States assumes the role of “world police,” we are far more vulnerable to attack.
The same can be said for our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. These two conflicts are an example of an offensive militaristic agenda that leads nowhere. President Obama should use former President Bush’s errors as an example of what not to do as a representative of the United States. The allure of entering another territory in the name of war offers nothing but loss of American life and capital that, frankly, we don’t have to spend.
As we get involved in an increasing number of overseas conflicts, we must remember to take into account the world’s view and not just our own. Although foreign intervention may seem like the best way to help a nation in peril, it could also have the opposite effect.
Leave a Reply