International intervention has been a main topic on this site for the past few days, so I will link to previous arguments rather than sum them all up once again. I will add, though, that as neocons in the US push for the United States to get involved in the revolutions in the Middle East, more and more people, thankfully, are realizing that such an intervention would be bad for both the US and – in this case – Libya. In fact, Libyans themselves have been very clear in their desire not to have western powers participating in their revolution. Despite the clear consequences of western support, Secretary of State Clinton offered assistance to the Libyan people. As Jonathon Wright notes, the offer of support itself could turn toxic:
It’s a very bad idea for the United States to intervene in Libya and I have no doubt that no one credible in the Libyan opposition will accept such an offer. “We’ve been reaching out to many different Libyans who are attempting to organize in the east and, as the revolution moves westward, there as well. I think it’s way too soon to tell how this is going to play out, but we’re going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the United States,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The last thing any Arab rebellion (and that is what we have in Libya) needs is the kiss of death that any association with the United States would bring. If the US administration is reacting to domestic pressures, as it did in the case of its decision to veto the UN Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements, then it should resist the temptation. Even the vague offer could do damage. Who is giving advice to these US officials, and what is driving them?
Photo from Rumblyinmatumbly