A National Take on an International Issue

The conflict between Libya's national government and rebel forces is something that has garnered attention worldwide.  Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, who seized power in 1969, is taking brute military action to level the uprising in his country.  The United Nations has convened to discuss appropriate action in dealing with the dispute.  In recent weeks, the United States of America along with Great Britain has directed missile attacks against the nation at war.  The missile assault aimed to "target Libyan air defense missile sites, early warning radar and key communications facilities around Tripoli, Misratah, and Surt, but no areas east of that or near Benghazi" according to Vice Admiral William E. Gortney of Great Britain.

The United States has no business involving itself in foreign conflict that does not directly or indirectly affect the United States.  First off, the efforts of the US in Libya are not going to be cheap.  The cost to date of mobilization against Libya has been estimated to be $550 million.  In the next coming weeks, this estimate is expect to increase by $40 million.  There is absolutely no reason we need to be adding to an already mushrooming deficit when there are so many domestic issues that need to be addressed.  President Obama was noted as saying that the acts of el-Qaddafi are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.  I believe the President should also realize that the unemployment, education, and health standards in America are also unacceptable and should not be tolerated.  These issues are much more pressing than conflict in Africa unless, of course, the prices of oil and gas will decrease as a result.  If that is the case, bomb away.

Second, el-Qaddafi is now calling for other African and some Middle Eastern nations to help support his cause.  Creating new enemies and opposition of America in no way, shape, or form benefits the American people in any way.  These actions only set the stage for future military initiatives against these nations, and in effect, more money poured into waging battle abroad.  I understand that the US based its decision upon what was agreed upon amongst UN countries, but can they not send help and peacemakers instead of helping Great Britain drop peacemakers?  This is the much more frugal and less alienating than our current approach to the situation.