The most agonizing decision an officeholder could have to make must be whether or not to send one's Nation to war. When, after all, is there truly a good time to wage war? Warfare can only possibly yield good results when humanity is considered in the aggregate. For the civilians caught in the crossfire, the fallen troops on both sides, and the grieving families who will never see their loved ones again, even the most virtuous war can be disastrous. The idea, then, that war should be waged only when absolutely necessary -- such as when the nation is directly attacked by another country -- is reasonable. The country whose foreign policy is guided by this fundamental idea will not fight petty wars of aggression. At the same time, however, this country will also not fight for "the greater good" and that can be a hard burden to bear in and of itself.

I tend to see America's hypervigilance and aggressive interventionism during and after the Cold War period as a direct result of our experiences in World War II, a war we were very reluctant to enter and ultimately only did enter after suffering a direct attack. Our reluctance, alas, did not spare hundreds of thousands of military lives. There is still a feeling among many people to this day that we were far too reluctant to act, having given the Axis powers precious time to strengthen their positions and consolidate territorial gains and allowing them to perpetrate massive crimes against humanity. Granted, both the government and the public were working from a position of limited information -- the disgusting details of the Holocaust became common knowledge only after the war, for instance. Having viewed the destruction and death of World War II, it was only natural that policymakers should ask themselves, "What can we do to stop this from happening again?" It may seem bizarre that the desire to prevent future madmen from trying to conquer the world or annihilate their own people could in any way lead to the US supporting such things as coups against elected governments in Iran and Guatemala, but fear and an obsession with protecting one's interests at any cost can lead you down some strange paths. Ultimately, I see the excessive interventionism of the Cold War era as resulting from American determination to not allow the Soviets to gain an upper hand as the Nazis did. We certainly saw bogeymen where they probably didn't really exist at times (and compromised our principles in the name of fighting Communism), but at least we were responding to a real threat. If criticism of interventionism has risen in the post Cold War era, I would say it's largely because the policy no longer resonates with much of the public...there may be individual brutal leaders, but there's no Axis (the "Axis of Evil" was merely a list of rogue states, not a true alliance of inimical powers) , no Soviet Union intent on spreading the revolution, and no one trying to conquer the world. The questions of who we are fighting and what we are fighting for have become much more difficult to answer.

This brings us to Libya, the conflict du jour. As a fan of representative government, I've been frankly excited to watch the revolutions in North Africa from afar. I've never really believed that free speech and democracy are only compatible with certain cultures (one explanation offered for the host of dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East and North Africa) -- rather, I think the desire to have one's voice heard and influence one's society are fundamental aspects of human nature. It's too soon to tell what sort of government the Tunisians and Egyptians will end up with, but they've reminded the world that even corrupt and despotic governments can be called to account by their people. Alas, Colonel Qadaffi in Libya has reminded the world of a more bitter truth: the ruthless and well-armed have a distinct advantage in war. I fully understand why the UN backed intervention in Libya; when Qadaffi threatened to go "house by house" in Benghazi to crush the rebels, the specter of Nazi Germany is what appeared in my mind's eye. Thus, I tend to see Libya as a test: interventionists say that war can prevent bloodshed, genocide, and, ultimately, more war...Libya is another chance to prove it. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq overthrew brutal governments, but created tremendous instability and led to huge numbers of civilian casualties. Will Libya be any different?

I certainly see a difference in how the United States is approaching Libya as opposed to Iraq. It has studiously so far avoided taking a leadership role in the conflict past the initial stage in which Libya's anti-air capabilities were destroyed; it has appeared to be as much France's or the UK's war as it has America's. This may not last -- America has more military resources than its allies and the more it commits to the operation the more it will be blamed for when things go wrong. The coalition approach was attempted in Iraq as well, but ultimately the US was the driving force behind the war, so much so that it's extremely difficult to imagine that war being waged without US direction and involvement. For a purely "humanitarian war" (which Iraq of course was not...and in practice any successful war will yield certain strategic advantages for the victors, humanitarian or not), I think it's important that multiple countries agree it is the "right" thing to do, the more global consensus there is the better. It's all too easy to decide a war is just when it is in one's own perceived best interests that it be waged. Perhaps the great reluctance of the allies to put ground forces in Libya is also a result of lessons learned in Iraq -- in addition to avoiding military casualties, this policy also places responsibility on the rebels to win the ground war, a significant challenge but one that might help ease perceptions that Westerners are trying to take over Libya.

There is at least one distressing similarity between the actions in Iraq and Libya as well: the hypocrisy of the intervening powers. The "Bush doctrine" of preventive war sounded to me like a recipe for perpetual warfare -- it allowed for war not only against Afghanistan and Iraq but also Iran, North Korea, Syria, and any number of future threats that would emerge. In truth, I doubt President Bush had any interest in taking on an enemy with the military capabilities of a North Korea. This makes one wonder, then, if it's safe to engage in dialogue with a bigger threat like North Korea, why is there any imperative to do battle with a weaker threat like Iraq? There is perhaps even worse hypocrisy coming from those who advocate humanitarian wars. France's close ties with the former Tunisian regime were exposed in the wake of the Tunisian revolution just as America's ties with Mubarak's Egypt were placed under the microscope when the Egyptian people rose up. When France and the US can have friendly relationships with dictatorial regimes when it is convenient and fight them in other circumstances, it's hard to discern any firm ideological framework for conducting "just wars." Syria and Bahrain are killing protesters as the world watches...they don't seem to fear becoming another Libya. Better to do some good than none at all, surely, but one has to wonder about the hidden reasons behind any intervention when the choice concerning where to intervene appears arbitrary.

The debate as to whether it is right to intervene or not is perhaps not resolvable; people will always believe different things. The key debate may actually become whether or not the United States and other nations can afford to intervene. The US, UK, and France are all seriously indebted nations. The US is facing a political debate regarding raising the debt ceiling so it can continue to borrow. The UK is currently undergoing austerity measures to get its fiscal house in order. France recently raised the retirement age to protect its pension system. All three nations (and, indeed, all nations) limit their domestic spending in order to pay for their militaries, diplomats, and intelligence agencies. It seems doubtful that this course is sustainable indefinitely.