22 March 2011

Three Good Reasons NOT to Intervene in Libya

The United States has begun "humanitarian" intervention, with bombs, in Libya. Two pilots have been shot down. Will this lead to a war? Here are three good reasons NOT to intervene in the affairs of the Libyan civial war.

1. The United States cannot afford intervention, or another war. $170 million dollars alone spent on Tomahawk missiles, more than all the humanitarian aid to Japan. The US is in the middle of the greatest economic crisis in its history. Wouldn't it be better to keep the economy from collapsing than bombing one dictator among many?

2. Support for intervention is tenuous at best. The Arab League and African Union as well as some anti-Qaddafi groups within Libya don't want us there. China doesn't want us there. Considering the two largest holders of US foreign debt, Japan and China, are being spurned in favour of bombing one dictator among many, it seems like a wise choice to leave the Libyan civil war to its own devices.

3. US forces are spread too thin. Troops are stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, with ongoing war of a decade. The US boarder with Mexico is collapsing. Parts of Arizona and Texas are controlled by the drug cartels. If the US spreads its forces too thin it will collapse like the Romans or the Ottomans did.

Bonus 4th Reason!: There is no way out. With no clear objecties and no exit strategy, the intervention in Libya has quagmire written all over it. After two wars have gone quagmire with no exit strategies (Vietnam and Afghanistan), hasn't anyone in the government learned that a plan is needed before going to war?