Established 1826 — Oldest College Newspaper West of the Alleghenies

Opinion | Excessive U.S. involvement dangerous

Oriana Pawlyk, Columnist

This semester has put stressors on all of us. We've seen changes happening to us as we move forward, out into a world that moves at a quick pace. And sometimes we forget that we don't have it so hard, that whatever change we experience isn't torturing us as badly as we think — we aren't stuck back in the 1700s fighting to break free of our oppressors and corruption all over again.

If you have been reading any news website or newspaper in the last few months, you would know Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and now Libya have been experiencing protests in opposition to leaders who've been ruling for years. They are a part of many other Middle Eastern and North African protests known as the "Arab Spring," a series of demonstrations considered to be "revolutionary" civil resistance.

But Libya has been a bigger concern, especially since armed conflict has burdened the country. Since mid-February, opposition forces of Moammar Gadhafi's 41-year rule have become violent and pro-Gadhafi forces have retaliated.

Moreover, the U.S. has something to say about it. Since Republicans have re-established their place in Congress, they've moved against President Obama mostly on domestic and economic policy. But they have mixed views on introducing forces in Libya.

According to NPR, while most Republicans traditionally favor a dynamic and strong foreign policy, other GOP's have a different view. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul explained, "Some say, well, this is no big deal, the president should be able to fight war whenever he wants to fight war … I beg to differ and our founding fathers beg to differ."

Furthermore, Minnesota's Rep. Michelle Bachmann, said on NBC's Today Show Wednesday "the new Obama doctrine" of humanitarian intervention would allow the U.S. to enter one country after another: "I don't think that's in the American interest for us to enter into one country after another."

But the U.S. has always been a "war-weary" country. We intervene when necessary.

Gloria Borger, CNN Senior Political Analyst said it best: "We don't want to go it alone. Yet we're not sure we trust others to take the lead."

Yes, the United States tends to have the "police of the world" denotation attached to our name, but Borger makes a point. Should Libya be put on our shoulders? What do we gain from taking the lead? What do we lose?

Obama addressed last Monday, "We should not be afraid to act — but the burden of action should not be America's alone."

It's been rumored that Obama is taking orders from the Arab League and the U.N. Yet, why is that such a problem in America's eyes? First we say, "Wait, it's not a good idea to intervene," but then we criticize when we are told what to do? Obama can't seem to win with this one.

Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter

Obama administered a successful vote in the UN Security Council against Libya — but the only way people will be happy is if Gadhafi doesn't make himself leader 42 years running.

Now it's a matter of where we draw the line. How far will Obama and Congress need to go to alleviate one country? How do we know we won't get involved completely in the entire "Arab Spring?"

This isn't a "kill two birds with one stone" kind of method. Roots of unrest in other countries cannot guide America's foreign policy forever.