beyond the bubble

As civil war rages on in Libya, tension within the international community has continued to escalate as political officials weigh the options of military and humanitarian intervention.

While just three weeks ago the Libyan crisis began with anti-government rebels peacefully protesting the reign of Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, it has since degenerated into violent clashes between rebels and pro-government supporters.

The United Nations has estimated that nearly 1000 people have been killed in the conflict, and many thousands more have been made refugees.

While reports on the nature of the fighting between the pro and anti-government forces have not been readily produced, the BBC has reported that the Libyan leader has implemented air strikes against his own people.

An article published on March 8 states that “forces loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi have launched further air strikes on the rebel-held oil port of Ras Lanuf, in a renewed offensive … Warplanes [have also] fired missiles on residential areas and near rebel positions in the desert.”

With such hardship and brutality, many in the international community have called for national governments to increase their political and economic sanctions against Libya and consider a military intervention.

Of the range of options being considered, the implementation of a no-fly zone is the most likely. While such a military initiative represents a significant escalation from the current economic sanctions, it would not require a significant number of troops nor put the lives of many soldiers at risk.

Proponents of such an initiative, such as John Kerry, warn against allowing the Libyan government to violently oppress its people. He has stated that the international community must remember the violence that was waged against citizens in crises such as Bosnia, Rwanda and Iraq, and must prevent such a possibility from becoming a reality in Libya.

While the sentiment behind such calls seems morally just, the practical implementation of such measures presents an infinitely more complex scenario.

One of the most difficult questions facing those considering a military intervention is who should be required to make up the body of the fighting force. While some have looked to NATO and its 28-member countries for the undertaking of such an initiative, military leaders within that organization are reluctant to implement a policy in an ‘out-of area’ initiative. NATO leaders also worry about the ramifications of an unsuccessful military mission in a climate in which many have already wondered about the effectiveness of the international body.

Some have also called for the UN to issue a Security Council resolution declaring the actions of the Libyan government to be unjust and in violation of international laws.

As the battle persists on the ground in Libya, it is equally present in the offices of high-raking political officials. The most significant problem for these national leaders is that there is no appropriate solution. Either they side with morality and endorse an intervention, or they side with reason and sit idly by. In the former case they risk the lives of their soldiers, their own domestic political fate and the economic stability of their nation. With the latter option, they permit an unjust government to inflict violence against its people.

In the politics of military intervention, there are no winners. There are only the losers, and the merit of those losers is based upon the their ability to best juggle the moral and the rational.