Should the U.S. intervene to aid the uprisings in Libya and other parts of the Middle East? If so, to what extent?
Ross Marine (Conservative):
If the world was our school, America would play the role of Mr. Roberts; not because our country looks good in a shirt and tie, but because America is in charge.
Just like the job of a principal is to make sure things run smoothly around the school, America’s job is to keep things under control on the global stage.
The coming months could turn out to be one of the most pivotal periods in the course of human history, and it is up to the United States of America to determine whether we will look back on this time positively, negatively, or at all.
If democracy — or at least stability — is going to be achieved in the Middle East, then America and its allies have no choice but to take a leading role in the development of new governments in (most notably) Libya and Egypt.
Despite what my colleagues will likely say, America has actually been pretty successful when it comes to building stable democracies, especially in countries like Libya and Egypt that have a history of organized government.
While my detractors will point to Iraq and Afghanistan as proof of failed U.S. attempts at nation-building, they fail to accurately represent the facts.
In Iraq, parliamentary elections have gone remarkably smoothly over the last two years, and considering the environment under which a government had to be constructed, the current progress is very promising.
At this point, you might be wondering why it is important that America gets involved.
If the United States chooses to do nothing, it merely opens the door for radical groups (like the Nazis in the ‘20s) to take control of unstable states.
American objectives in countries rocked by revolutions should be limited to supporting a moderate government that will be insulated from future, more radical coups. This could mean redrawing the map in countries like Libya, where one half of the country supports original dictator, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi; the other half does not. The more democracy and stability America can bring to the region, the lower the likelihood of genocide and war.
The bottom line is that whether we like it or not, the United States cannot afford to take a backseat in the Middle East. We tried this approach in Europe in 1914 and 1938; it didn’t turn out so well.
Pavan Kota (moderate):
What started out as large protests in Libya has slowly morphed into a violent civil war.
Because the rebel forces are using less-advanced weapon systems against their own country’s military, the overall odds at first weren’t looking too great.
However, when the U.S. and NATO allied coalition stopped just saying, “Hey, can you stop that please?” and turned to military action instead, the rebel forces gained some much-needed hope.
Yet not everyone supports U.S. military involvement in yet another war, for understandable reasons.
As we approach our 10-year anniversary in Afghanistan, starting fresh in Libya probably doesn’t seem too appealing on the surface.
However, this war shouldn’t last nearly as long, given the superiority of the Allies, who have their own reasons for taking military action.
They feel that they could not just play the role of the passive bystander as the regime committed murderous, torturous deeds on its own civilians.
According to British Prime Minister David Cameron, Gaddafi has been cutting off food, water and electricity to “starve people into submission,” and is in constant violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
Such acts clearly justify military action, as sitting down at the table and holding hands much longer would not have worked anyway.
In a broader sense however, military action rarely promotes peaceful relations with other countries.
Though military involvement in Libya is definitely validated, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are undoubtedly controversial in the Arab world (and here in the U.S. as well).
This being said, moving out of these relatively unpopular wars as soon as possible would be a start to a long road of making amends with the Middle East.
Mackenzie Nelson (liberal):
So in case you missed it (which is partially understandable as Charlie Sheen’s bi-winning has been quite distracting), the Middle East is kind of experiencing a people’s revolution on a massive scale.
It started in Tunisia, spread to Egypt and it is currently knocking on Gaddafi’s front door in Libya.
Personally, simply thinking about the current uprisings in the Middle East gives me chills of nervous excitement.
For the first time in who knows how many years, the international community, including the Arab League itself, is on board in both condemning Gaddafi’s regime as well as supporting the rebel uprising in Libya.
We are witnessing history, and have in many ways, reached a diplomatic crossroads with the Arab world.
Obama has the power to change the way the U.S. interacts with the Middle East and even heal some of the wounds of past military and diplomatic engagements.
While I am in nature a pacifist, I also recognize that what is going on right now in the Arab world is, in fact, extraordinary.
I must also acknowledge that I am somewhat indecisive about U.S. military intervention in Libya.
This indecisiveness stems largely from my skeptical views of American diplomacy.
On one hand, I am not a fan of oppressive dictatorships or human rights violations of any kind.
But my question is, how is the situation in Libya any different from that in, say, Darfur, and why does the U.S. pick and chose which “humanitarian emergencies” are worthy of its intervention?
Additionally, how do we have money to spend on million-dollar missiles yet no change to spare for programs that could actually increase American soft power, like youth exchange?
Over the last 30 or so years, the relationship between the U.S. and the Arab world has been one of imperialism, paradox, and greed.
We’ve supported anyone who lets us continue to drive our Hummers and live in our McMansions while claiming to support democracy and freedom.
It is this sort of paradoxical dialogue that must come to an end.
I don’t believe it is the duty of the United States alone to help placate the situation in Libya and certainly do not advocate police-like engagement, but I am hopeful that with the help of the international community and minimal military intervention, both the Libyan people and the people of Egypt and Tunisia can peacefully transition into a stable government.