LAST WEEK, Libyan rebels had occupied the eastern half of their country and were advancing on Tripoli. In recent days, however, soldiers loyal to Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi have battered rebel forces, reversing most territorial gains by the fragile insurgency. These setbacks have prompted many Western leaders - and Libyan rebels - to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.
The no-fly zone, according to its supporters, would erase Colonel Qadhafi's aerial advantage and provide a quick, clean avenue for Western nations to intervene on a humanitarian basis without embroiling NATO in a full-scale war. Despite disingenuous claims to the contrary, however, establishing a no-fly zone would be no less an act of war than Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II. Imposing a no-fly zone - that is, coercively preventing Colonel Qadhafi from employing his military air power - would involve bombing Libya's anti-aircraft defenses and shooting down the country's planes. It also would be a dangerous first step toward protracted military involvement in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.
Imposing a no-fly zone would be enormously costly in a variety of ways. From a perspective favoring the Libyan rebels, American involvement potentially would undermine the legitimacy of a successful revolution. Residents of the Middle East hold remarkably low opinions of the United States. Only 19 percent of people in Egypt, 19 percent in Tunisia and 17 percent in Yemen approve of American leadership. American meddling could sully the legitimacy of whatever government emerges from the revolution, casting it as a mere puppet of the United States.
From the perspective of the United States' own national self-interest, intervention in the Libyan civil war would reflect a total inability to learn from the events of the past decade. The United States' budget and military are already severely overextended. Imposing a no-fly zone over Libya would be neither simple nor cheap. According to Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a no-fly zone is "an extraordinarily complex operation to set up." The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments - a prominent Washington defense think tank - has estimated that establishing a Libyan no-fly zone could cost up to $300 million per week.
The no-fly zone also would present a dangerous slippery slope toward further American military involvement in the country. What if, despite a no-fly zone, Colonel Qadhafi continued to rout rebel forces? Would the United States simply pack up and go home? It is unlikely that chest-thumping hawks like Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., would accept such a drubbing. What if the rebels were successful, but the country devolved into intertribal conflict? Would the United States intervene to establish democracy? In short, it would be extremely difficult to avoid "mission creep," or the gradual ramping up of American military involvement. The United States, however, can hardly afford another full-scale ground war in the Middle East.
The American leaders calling for the bombing of a sovereign nation that has committed no act of aggression toward the United States need to undertake a serious reevaluation of their views of the role of our military. The American military exists to protect the United States, not to act as world police. It is not intended to serve as a humanitarian intervention force, and it is poorly adapted to that end. Furthermore, every American should be skeptical of risking the lives of our troops in another country's civil war.
The concept of the military as a defensive force - not an interventionist, preemptive, all-purpose police squad - is deeply rooted in our founding documents. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests Congress with the power to "provide for the common defence." Invading Libya would be the opposite of a defensive action. It would be yet another unprovoked act of war initiated by an increasingly imperialist and overreaching government.
George Washington argued, "The great rule in conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible." He added that, in the foreign policy arena, the United States should "act for ourselves and not for others." On a similar note, Thomas Jefferson advocated "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
President John Quincy Adams echoed these sentiments in 1821, commenting that the United States "does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." These views in the aggregate point toward a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which requires that a country abstain from interfering politically in the affairs of other nations except in instances of territorial self-defense.
The debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that foreign interventionism is both more costly and complicated that anyone predicts. It is somewhat astounding that members of Congress are now genuinely advocating opening up a third military front in the Middle East. Such a route would be detrimental to our national interest, potentially harmful to the Libyan cause and counter to our constitutional heritage.
Austin Raynor's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.raynor@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
