The US and Libya

Libya's revolution has hit a significant obstacle in Gadhafi and his loyalists, who will seemingly not shy away from any available means for retaking control of what they deem their personal fiefdom. If the rumors and reports are to be believed, he and his coterie are using the state military to outright (as opposed to indirectly and involuntarily) attack the Libyan population as both a show of might and as a source of deterioration and attition of the revoutionary leadership. Mass violence, summary executions, and the use of human shields are some the examples being reported abroad.

Invoking the ideal of the United States as vanguard and protector of human liberty, some now call on the US to take action in Libya. While similar calls were made during Egypt's uprising against its former dictator Hosni Mubarak, the calls have intensified in magnitude and intensity due to the extensive state terrorism and repression in Libya by the Gadhafi regime. However, much as I love the idea of humanity rising in unity against tyranny, I believe the US should restrain itself and not invade Libya (at least not yet), even if it came with the authorization of the UN Security Council or NATO.

This moment, this struggle, belongs to the Libyan people. It is their fight. They are the protagonists in this current story. Our role should be and should remain that of support in favor of the factions supporting greater socio-economic and political liberty; we should provide humanitarian assistance, material support, moral and ideological support, and possibly tactical input, but we should not lead the charge against their oppressor. If we take leadership in the war itself, we morally obligate ourselves to take leadership after the war; we should avoid both, for the sake of our own limited resources and to prevent any post-war dependencies that would hinder (a hopefully liberated) Libya from becoming and independent nation-state.

There are limits to this deference, of course; should the Gadhafi regime take on monstrous counter-measures (not simply executions, but mass genocide) we have obligated ourselves by our unfortunately-often-broken promise of "never again." In this hypothetical case, inaction would stop being prudence in favor of the Libyan people and instead become passive complicitness with the regime.

Another potentially necessary condition for US intervention is for some recognizable organization among the revolutionaries to explicitly request US/international assistance. Simply assuming such an interest or intervening in response to the calls of the group with little legitimacy provides too little legitimacy to the idea that it is the Libyan people that want the US there for protect them from an unwanted dictator. If the US is to invade and intervene, it must first secure a degree of recognizable credibility with the Libyan people. Until then it should continue its efforts to support the refugee population and to provide the revolutionaries with material and moral support (as long as they fight for liberalizaton of the people and their system).

While we should be willing and preferably always be able to assist fellow humans in the cause of civil freedoms, we must always temper ourselves and our actions both so that we do not coup a movement that belongs to the true revolutionaries and so that we do not take on the world's problems instead of dealing with our own. Part of the liberal democratic nation-state is the domestic movement to end authoritarianism and install democraticism.