Intervention in Libya?

So outside of our crumbling state and local economies, one of the biggest issues these days is the impending civil war in Libya.  Unlike Tunisia and Egypt which fell rather quickly to mostly non-violent protests (outside the requisite rock throwing and club beating)  Libya shows no signs as of yet of going the same way.  Its entrenched leader Muammar Qadaffi is holding onto power, exerting ever increasing violent force upon the opposition rebels.  He is practically killing anyone whom he or his motley crew of a military deems as a threat.  The rebels are retaliating, pushing harder and harder to force him to relinquish power.  Increasingly, the divide in the country is coming down to tribal lines.  Any tribal families who had formerly benefited or supported Qadaffi are remaining supportive and taking up arms with the military forces, while the rest including some disinfranchised military factions are siding against him.  There are daily bloody battles over various towns and there seems to be no end in sight.  As is always the case with a bloody civil war heavy in civilian casualities, the U.S. is weighing the options of intervention from a no-flight zone to actual land intervention.  (The UN, NATO and various European countries are also weighing options except Italy)  There are other, non-violent options which could be used such as planes using jamming signals to interupt communications between Qadaffi and his military.  The ultimate choice it seems like, will inevitably fall on Obama's shoulders. 

As is always the case, there are politicians in the U.S.; Kerry, McCain, Lieberman, who are supportive of more aggresive tactics starting with a no-flight zone which would require decimating Qadaffi's air force.  However, as we have seen in the past, this often comes with collateral damage, both to civilians in Libya and also to our image in the Middle East.  When Obama took office, we were participating in two wars in the same region, Iraq and Afganistan.  To even think about engaging in another would be ill advised and detrimental to us.  One of the main reasons that we always consider military intervention is due to the entrenched military-industrial complex in this country.  (I will not get into that now.)  I am firmly against any violent intervention.  The idea of using jamming signals to interrupt communications is a fantastic idea that should be explored more deeply.  Regardless of which way our government chooses to go, the decision is a difficult one.  A civil war, if Qadaffi gains a stronger grip, could lead to increasing civilian casualties leading to what some might consider genocide (yes, a strong word, but if violence is exhibited on opposing tribes, viable).  On the other hand, our intervention, regardless of motivating factors, would probably be seen as neo-imperialism by neighboring countries and the region.  Perhaps the best alternative is to motivate the League of Arab Nations to support the rebels.  The United States' hand in this conflict must be minimal at best.  Support and encouragment are the best place to start.  Imagine the benefit that other countries, currently involved in their own revolts, would garner if they were to support rebels in other countries.  It could show their own citizens that they are willing to take on dictatorship in the Muslim world (although some of them are autocrats or dictators in their own right).   Ultimately, there is no easy answer.  No matter which route the U.S. or other countries decide to venture down, there is bound to be more bloodshed. 

It seems like 2011 will be the year of revolutions.  With a majority of the Middle East entrenched in protests and turmoil, it is anyone's guess as to how this will all turn out.  My only hope is that violence is kept to a minimum and these countries can turn themselves into democracies supported by the majority of the populations they govern.  Non-violent protest is the most effective way to elicit change.  Once violence enters into the picture, it encourages violent retaliation.  Violence begets violence.  Granted, non-violent protests could incur massive casualties, but ulitmately, they will succeed if seen through to the end.  We must encourage our own governments to consider non-violent means of assisting.  Offering support, guidance, and knowledge are excellent ways to start.  Most governments are run by people that we helped to put into power and if enough of us voice our opinions, we can have a distinct and effective role in eliciting the proper response from them.  Without a unified voice, or without a voice due to apathy, our governments will do what they want.  Lets look beyond ourselves, increase our knowledge of the world and its workings, and take a stand together to make a better world.