The Daily Campus spoke of the “flood that is coming” concerning the pending eruption of liberty and democracy in the Middle East.

While I fully agree that the U.S. is in an excellent position to ally itself with the people demanding freedom across the Middle East, I fundamentally disagree on the extent to which such an alliance would serve the best interest of either this nation or the very people protesting despotic regimes across Africa and the Middle East.

My argument, relying on logic rather than vague pathos, is based on the following two premises:

First, by throwing enthusiastic support behind those demanding the overthrow of despotic regimes, the U.S. may very well hinder the success of those it meant to benefit.

Take Iran for example. Current opposition is undeniably organic, coming primarily from the educated youth and well-off middle class. If America – Ahmedinejad’s Great Satan – supports revolutionary movements, even nominally, it allows the current regime to paint our nation as the instigator of revolution and thereby justify harshly repressive policies levied against its own people.

This is why the Obama regime has been so carefully focused on preserving the right to peaceful protest; it ensures a stage for concerns to be heard without the U.S. being wrongfully turned into a scapegoat for the legitimate calls for change.

Secondly, by intervening as the global supporter of “freedom” and democracy in other nations, we may, in effect, be acting in direct opposition to the will of the oppressed.

Libya illustrates this concept perfectly. International debate concerning the institution of a “No-Fly Zone” over Libyan airspace seems, at first glance, to be a move that is clearly in the interest of Libyan rebels.

However, the people are not, as you claim, clearly and definitively “reaching out” for U.S. aid.

In fact, according to a recent CNN report (“Libyan no-fly zone would be risky, provocative.” Craig Johnson. Mar 2, 2011), an increasing percentage of these rebels, having seen the successes achieved in Egypt and Tunisia as well as the considerable success achieved in their own nation, view American intervention as little more than a way to undermine their own capabilities while strategically elevating American interests abroad.

Support of international human rights agreements, particularly those concerning free speech and the right to life, would no doubt serve as a more palatable incentive for calling for reform than a full on, America-as-savior intervention.

Of course, the matters brought up in my response only make up a small portion of all the potential decisions, consequences, and repercussions of our foreign policy response to crises across Africa and the Middle East.

But that’s the thing about politics. It’s complicated, messy, and, when based on rote idealism, very rarely effective.

Emotional appeals calling for support of freedom and liberty, without consideration of the complicated reality behind each incident, are about as useful as a necktie in Ahmedinejad’s closet.

Alexander Mace is a sophomore triple majoring in political science, economics and Spanish. He can be reached for comments or questions at [email protected].