Congratulations are due to the people of Libya. After months of civil conflict, the tyrant who oppressed them with his iron fist is gone. However, a warning is needed as well: that was the easy part. What Libya is faced with now is much more cruel and much more destructive than any tyrant could be. It lurks behind the joyous celebrations, behind the statements of global political leaders, and behind the news streams around the world of Gaddafi’s death. It is the potential that Libya’s reconstruction will fail.
In a transitional democracy such as Libya, this is a very real threat. It may not seem as if the United States and other nations should concern themselves with Libya’s problems, but the repercussions of Libya’s future will resound throughout the world. We all need Libya to succeed because the involvement of the U.S. in future crises is contingent upon Libya’s outcome. In a world where people are becoming increasingly interdependent, no one can afford to ignore the plight of others.
Much progress has been made in the Middle East since the Arab Spring began earlier this year. This week Tunisia held fair, free elections. Egypt ousted its dictator. Syria is currently experiencing protests despite a governmental crackdown that has taken the lives of around 3,000 Syrians and imprisoned thousands more. Libya, however, is the only nation in which there was an actual revolution that completely wiped away the old regime and left the people with a clean slate.
This is the Libyan people’s chance to start anew, and the rest of the Arab world is watching. If Libya succeeds in creating an inclusive and tolerant democracy, it will be a symbolic victory that might just provide the impetus for major reforms throughout the Arab world. On the other hand, if Libya falls through, dictators around the world could use Libya’s failure as an example to quell pro-reform sentiments.
The U.S. should look on as well. Libya’s outcome will affect us more drastically than we may think. After 10 years of waging ineffective, seemingly pointless wars, a sense of overwhelming apathy over what we are fighting for and how we are fighting for it has pervaded the atmosphere of our daily lives. But the success in Libya so far has been refreshing. We need Libya to succeed because it will remind us of what we really should be fighting for: hope and peace.
The people of Libya called out to the rest of the world in their time of despondency and we delivered. This was America at its best. This was not the domineering America in Iraq, nor the excessively confident America in Afghanistan. This was the U.S. taking measured, calculated steps to assist people who were asking for help, people who were confronting the prospect of mass murder at the hands of an oppressive dictator. Most importantly, we intervened and accomplished our mission with minimal costs and no loss of American life.
As the world continually becomes more interconnected, the question we should ask ourselves is when is it appropriate and legitimate to get involved in situations concerning other nations. We should not be asking ourselves if the U.S. should completely stay out of the affairs of the world. To advocate such isolationism would be to reject the intertwined essence of the twenty-first century, and in some cases the very ideals of liberty that America was founded upon. The intent of an intervention is just as important as the methodology and practice of it, and both these aspects play into a successful mission as in Libya.
If the revolution in Libya results in a stable democracy, then the case for measured and careful foreign intervention will be further solidified. For now, I can only hope that our world leaders continue to exhibit the same courage, wisdom, and vision that they showed in Libya, and take similar actions in other parts of the world where the people are in need and in want of help.
