Is the No Fly Zone a Solution or Another Problem?

As Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman support the creation of a no fly zone over Libya on the floor of the Senate, it brings up another conversation about modern American politics.  Namely that of a continually interventionist foreign policy.  While the idea of a non-interventionist policy was the advice of our forefathers and certainly something we ought to remember and heed, the implications of our involvement in Libya aren’t so easily categorized.
     It is unfortunate that we don’t hear more discussions of peaceful options.  Libya has taken several steps to encourage free trade,  such as the passing of the 1999 Free Trade Act, perhaps this effort towards economic advances for the Libyan society could be used against the Gaddafi regime.  It is seems obvious that Libya recognizes the value of tourism and free trade when one considers its involvement in the African, Arab, and Mediterranean free trade zones.  Why aren’t we hearing more about sanctions?  Why aren’t we hearing more about limiting the amount of international financial support of the Libyan nation?  Why do we not hear more about rewarding “good behaviour”?  Why must the no fly zone, a predominately military action, be the dominant go-to scenario for both politicians and the media?
    While we have President Bill Clinton encouraging the implementation of a no fly zone, we have his wife, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, already warning us that a no fly zone is useless without troops on the ground. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/12908_libyanoflyzonesamericanbackers)  This should sound warning bells of yet another occupation we can’t afford.  We didn’t pass a budget in FY 2010, we may not in FY 2011; yet we are going to start yet another military conflict, really?
     While fighting the American Revolution, America would never have succeeded without foreign intervention.  The French support of our cause was invaluable no doubt.  Perhaps America would be well served to remember that France did benefit from the relationship, namely by weakening its rival England.  When was the last time America considered its own interests (not those of corporatism mind you)?  Perhaps we should remember that America had to warrant the support through its readiness to become a sovereign nation, especially when recalling our dealings with the Netherlands.  Perhaps we ought to remember the amount of effort both America and Britain made before war became the only viable option.   Perhaps we ought to consider America will do no nation any good if it is not around in the future due to the fiscal shenanigans which allow foolish military actions in the first place.
     Libyans should keep fighting for freedom.  We ought to support this fight just as we should any fight for freedom.    I just hope we hear more options than those presented by our military might before it is too late.  If we are to fight on a foreign nation’s soil for freedom, maybe the people of America ought to think about the seemingly random interventionist foreign policy we have in America today.  How many dictators have we supported ?  From the Shah in Iran,  to the plethora of dictators in Guatemala, to the support and eventual demonization of Saddam Hussein in Iraq; America does not have a stellar record when it comes to picking winners and losers among foreign governments.  On top of that, consider how many countries disregard the human rights of their citizens while we do nothing?  (http://www.guardian.co.uk/rightsindex/) Perhaps we ought to stop pretending we offer a panacea of truth, decency and democracy to those struggling for it.  It is worth considering that the fight itself presents one of the most valuable parts of the journey to liberty.