As the self-proclaimed promoters of freedom and democracy around the world, does the United States have an obligation to assist the oppressed?

The United States has thrown its forces into Libya without a clear end in mind. There are civilians and rebels in want of an uncorrupted democratic process that are on the ropes as Gaddafi’s forces continuously pound away at the out matched rebels. To watch the failure of a revolution occur is difficult, especially when they are fighting for the rights and the privileges that we have.

There is a familiar recognition between the people of America and those struggling in the Middle East. Though not entirely similar, the American Revolution and revolutions calling for rights and representation are recognizable in that they both represent similar, over arching values, at least if viewed in the most basic sense.

But there are plenty of dictators around the world that oppress their people. So, why Libya? The country is not of any real strategic importance to the United States. Likewise, as Albert R. Hunt puts it in the New York Times, “foreign policy, except in times of unpopular and higher-casualty wars, rarely drives U.S. elections.”

The true motivator for action in Libya is that the deposition of a dictator (notoriously uncaring about human rights, let alone the most basic rights in general) is a victory for American humanitarian aid. Though it is not a normal American aid handout to those it deems less fortunate, it is a hand-up to the oppressed.

In addition, the Libyan action, which will see its completion when Gaddafi is removed from power, sends a message to the rest of the dictators of the world that the United States will not stand by to watch the brutal oppression of people.

If it were possible, I believe the United States would be obligated to depose the despots of other countries. Resources, however, are limited and the people of the United States grow weary of continued wars. In a sense (not that this is probable or possible), if the United States attacked all of the tyrannical dictators in the world, then the United States would clearly be spread far too thin to actually be effective.

Since the United States cannot oppose all dictators in all countries, it is necessary to choose those countries that are the most hard-pressed or have the best chance of succeeding in revolution. Clearly the Libyans were already in the process of revolt so it was much easier for the United States to assist, as opposed to fomenting opposition to a dictator in another country, such as North Korea, where the possibility of revolt is much less.

Despite mixed feelings about U.S. involvement in Libya, it is extremely worthwhile for the utilitarian betterment of humanity to remove Gaddafi from power, at least in the long term. The United States must be an active voice in the world for the rights of individuals. If the U.S. is going to present itself as a promoter of rights and freedoms, then it must regard the rights and freedoms of citizens of other countries important as well. Instead of remaining silent when others are destroyed, the United States should act, as it is doing in Libya, to assist in the dismantling of regimes clearly in opposition to human rights.

Michael Dearman is a first year majoring in the pursuit of truth and the overthrow of systems. He can be reached for comments at [email protected].