Intervention
noun: interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another.
The current military action going on in Libya has had a polarizing effect on the American people. While most people are supportive on some level, there's been a lot of "why here? why now?" and "how much?" questions. These questions are valid, but it seems like the information is out there if you seek it. Those most critical, though, have already made up their minds and are not likely to be persuaded. I will not try to persuade, but here is how I see it...

In the past, there have been situations where even people on the left who typically abhor the use of any sort of military force have wondered why we don't use our military strength to help the oppressed. There have been times we have (Kosovo) and times we haven't (Rwanda), so the "why here, why now?" question is valid. Then there is the hawkish side of the debate wondering why the military mission isn't "more clearly stated"; in other words - why doesn't it clearly say "Take out Gadhafi"? The short answer - because that isn't the military mission (ie: it's not in the UN resolution).

The first question has led to a false choice of "why not intervene in every country where there is oppression?" The implication is that we should be intervening in all of them or none at all. This is based on a false assumption that all situations are the same. The sometimes spoken (oft hinted) conspiracy theory is that it is about oil. There are numerous reasons that this is occurring in Libya right now:

• Previous alternatives were tried (economic sanctions, diplomatic advances, shaming) and found not to be effective
• The rebels in Libya asked for an intervention
• The UN created a resolution to create the no-fly zone, and enforce it. This is exactly the sort of thing the UN was created for - getting countries to cooperate with one another and enforcing rules when they don't
• There was an immediate threat of massive casualties if nothing was done.
• There is nowhere for refugees to go to escape (Egypt and Tunisia are both in the midst of their own political reorganizations)

Would those who protest the use of force be willing to see tens of thousands of Libyans die? We did nothing in Rwanda, resulting in a horrific genocide, something former president Clinton refers to as the biggest regret of his presidency. Would the people now protesting the intervention in Libya also have protested the use of the military in Rwanda? The problem of course is that one never knows what will happen if nothing is done. Perhaps the deaths in Libya would not be "excessive" if nothing was done. Is that a gamble worth taking?

Another comment I've heard is "why aren't we doing anything in the Ivory Coast? Oh yeah - they don't have oil...". The unreported reality is that we are taking similar steps there that we took in Libya prior to the military intervention:
The reality with Ivory Coast, Libya, Rwanda, and other countries is the false assumption that there is a "one size fits all" solution. The intervention in Libya was all about taking out radar and anti-aircraft installations (thus, the hated bombing). That would not have applied in Rwanda and will not apply in Ivory Coast. In those two places, the fighting is much more hand-to-hand, with low-tech weapons. To intervene would have (and will - in the case of Ivory Coast) require a LOT of boots on the ground. In those cases, the situation resolution involves simply stopping the fighting to allow a diplomatic solution to be implemented. That would not work in Libya.

Egypt was a unique situation. There were initally concerns that we might need to intervene if violence against the protesters escalated from the police to the army. However, in that case, the army acted as the peacekeepers, keeping the protesters and the police from inflicting too much violence upon one another. In this way, the Egyptian army performed the role the NATO forces are performing in Libya. Obviously, though the roles are the same, the necessary actions to perform them are quite different.

There are other areas, particularly in the Middle East where despotic rulers are suppressing protests and killing their own people. Why don't we intervene there?

• There are no UN resolutions to give legitimacy to any military action
• There is not an immediate threat of mass casualties
• Diplomatic solutions have not yet been exhausted

Ultimately, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. We waited until very late to get involved in WWII while a holocaust was occurring. We didn't intervene in Rwanda when a genocide was occurring. I would hate to see massive death and regret as result of standing by and doing nothing while a psychopathic megalomaniac anhilates his own people.