By Brendan Raleigh
Round Table reporter

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he specifically warned his countrymen to avoid unnecessary entanglement in foreign affairs. Thomas Jefferson reiterated Washington’s concerns in his inaugural address, listing the avoidance of interfering with other nations’ quarrels as one of the essential principles of the United States government. Despite the Founding Fathers’ advice, the United States has been involved in numerous foreign conflicts since the early 20th century. The recent uprising in Libya once again forces the United States to consider whether involvement in a foreign conflict is in our nation’s best interest.

 After spending four decades as the head of a despotic regime, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi seems to have lost control over a significant portion of his people. Death tolls in the country range from 200 to 2,000 and Gaddafi seems intent on turning Libyans against one another, reportedly offering large sums of money to those willing to repress protesters. He has even placed a $400,000 bounty on the capture of Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the leader of the anti-Gaddafi forces.

 Less than two weeks after the uprising in Libya began in February, President Barack Obama called for Gadhafi to step down from his position. Obama then issued Executive Order 13566, which froze all assets held by Gadhafi and his family, as well as prohibiting all economic transactions between the United States and Libya. These actions had little to no visible effect on Gadhafi’s plans, leaving the United States and its President at a crossroads.

 Four high-profile senators, John McCain, John Kerry, Mitch McConnell, and Joe Lieberman, have come out in support of imposing a no fly-zone on Libya. This would place U.S. planes over the country, with orders to shoot down any sky-bound Libyan aircraft. McCain argued that the same action was taken against Iraq, and, despite its cost, it was successful.

 Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and White House Chief of Staff William Daley have cautioned that the establishment of a no fly-zone would result in a growing commitment to rebuilding the country, almost certainly requiring the deployment of U.S. ground forces. The disagreement between these two groups brings one question to mind: What should President Obama do?

 The United States has already lost thousands of lives and spent more than a trillion dollars on wars in the Middle East, yet politicians like McCain and Kerry are still somehow able to hold onto the idea that the United States can help implement Democracy through military intervention.

 Kerry claimed that “the last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention,” explaining that he didn’t consider a no-fly zone to be military intervention. This course of action would require setting up anti-aircraft guns, bombing air bases and (as previously mentioned) shooting down Libyan aircraft. While Kerry is free to define “military intervention” however he wishes, it’s unlikely the rest of the world would see such actions to be as peaceful as he does. McCain’s comparison between the current situation and what was done in Iraq was not the wisest, considering how deeply the United States is involved in the country. The no-fly zone may have been successful, but the war as a whole is not one to look to for inspiration.

 Proponents of the no-fly zone have argued that, should the Gadhafi regime survive without U.S. involvement, it would send a message to all other Arab leaders that such heavy-handed tactics are tolerable. And what if the U.S. does intervene and Gadhafi’s regime endures? Not only will America look completely feeble in the eyes of the world, but it will have earned another Middle-Eastern country’s hatred. Unless Obama is willing to commit to a full-scale military operation in Libya, the risk of half-heartedly supporting such an unstable and drastic change in government could be disastrous for our country.