On that night, U.S. warships launched 112 tomahawk missiles at 20 targets in the Libyan capital of Tripoli. Although I cannot confirm the cost of the operation, various sources place the cost of the 112 missiles at about $100 million, and the upper-range estimates for the cost of maintaining a no-fly zone for six months could be higher than $8 billion.

The European pressure for intervention is easy to understand because Libya provides 10 percent of European oil imports. Moreover, Libyan oil has some of the lowest production costs on earth at around $1 per barrel.

The international community has come out strongly in support of the opposition and the need to protect the Libyan people. However, it seems rather than simply caring for the Libyan people, NATO is interested in protecting its access to cheap oil and appearing to be on the “right” side of history — whatever that means.

The primary goal appears to be regime change; however, there is no mention about how far the coalition members will go to complete the objective. In Iraq and Afghanistan, regime change was the initial phase, which was then was followed by years of nation building. Maybe regime building is a better term.

Prior to Saturday, Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, wrote an op-ed in Al Jazeera English that questioned the legality of any intervention in Libya in international law.

Falk argued the motion for intervention shows a continued disregard in the “developed” world for the rule of law when dealing with the “developing” world’s politics.

Despite the atrocious violence Gaddafi continues to use against Libyan citizens, the rule of law is a more important principle to uphold, no matter how morally repugnant.

Intervention in Libya continues the disregard for national sovereignty, not only Libya’s sovereignty, but also U.S. sovereignty.

U.S. foreign policy now is embroiled in a set of entangling alliances, which require us to engage in conflicts and campaigns against our interest to ensure international stability in the global economy and on the geopolitical map.

So, now we spend tens of millions to protect Libyan citizens and the European economy.

In the same week, the House debated defunding National Public Radio, and there is constant talk of defunding education across the nation. So where do priorities lie?

We would love to be the world policeman — the good guy keeping the peace — and invest in ourselves to produce a strong and educated citizenry (at least I hope).

However, reality is such that we cannot do both. The former takes precedent; the external rather than the internal is in the forefront of policy decisions.

More troubling is the lack of national debate before engaging another war. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., mentioned to reporters he was angry Congress was not consulted before the strikes.

He said, “Going to war is not a decision that presidents should make.” (Thanks to former President George W. Bush, it actually is the president’s decision.)

My point is not to reject the international world and solely focus on us. It seems there is a line to be walked between internal and external affairs, but it looks as if we are losing our balance.
The role we want to play cannot continue.

We either will be pushed to the brink, or we will redefine our position. In the mean time, let’s continue to cut education, employee benefits and taxes on the rich and businesses and spend billions on wars that appear not really to matter aside from cheap oil.

Joey Podrasky is a State News guest columnist and an anthropology and Arabic senior. Reach him at podrask2@msu.edu.