By Rohan Narayanan

If you’ve been watching the news recently, you know the United States has begun bombing Libya. You know that we’ve joined forces with other nations like Great Britain in a United Nations-imposed no-fly-zone. You know that in addition to two incomplete wars in the Middle East, we seem to find ourselves in the early stages of a third. The only question remains: WHY?

Why did we begin to bomb Libya, seemingly in the midst of a violent and brutal civil war? Why did we choose to use military force in support of the Libyan rebels and not the pro-democracy rebels in other countries like Tunisia, Egypt, or Bahrain? Why did the President choose to begin military action without the support or vote by Congress? Why is the conflict in Libya even happening?

First things first, why is the Libyan conflict happening? Well, after several decades of a brutal dictatorship under Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi, also known as Colonel Gaddafi, the people of Libya have grown tired. Their pent-up anger boiled over, and drawing inspiration from nearby and relatively successful rebellions in the Middle East, they moved to change their government to a more inclusive one. Gaddafi would have none of it, and his evident insanity and delusions of grandeur and support have lead to full-scale conflict in Libya.

Why did we involve ourselves in Libya, instead of other rebel vs. government conflicts in the area? In Washington, they claim it is the ever search for stability in a region of turmoil and to help the oppressed people of Libya attain freedom. However, this argument doesn’t really hold up when reasoned out. Each rebelling nation is oppressed and searching for democracy, but only Libya is unstable to the point of perceived influence. It’s very much like the conflict in Iraq. Our hope is that we can gain substantial influence in the country, make another ally, and then tap into the oil present in the otherwise desolate desert of the land.

The reason behind going as far as to bomb a civil-warring nation is less obvious. However, we’ve done it before. In Iraq and Afghanistan, local ethnic groups had already been trading shots with each other and the unstable government before the United States barged in. Though not expressly or simply stated, the U.S. was looking to take advantage of preoccupied enemies and hoping to sweep in and finish a conflict in double-quick time. A similar idea holds in Libya. We want to assert our dominance in another unsteady land, and help the nation reach democracy quicker. Our belief is that if we involve our superior military, we can reach a lasting peace more easily.

Why was the timetable of this attack on Libya so rushed, and Congress and the American people not consulted? That is the one question I don’t really have an answer to. Even George W. Bush’s misguided war in Iraq was preceded by several tense weeks of Bush’s advisors selling the war on news networks and President Bush himself giving heartfelt talks to the nation. President Obama’s administration has seemed to gloss over some details and avoid entirely straight answers on the reason behind our attack on Libya, besides our continued quest to spread democracy. President Obama and the U.S. government have assured us that no ground forces will enter Libya. Only stealth-bombers and aircraft launched from naval ships have attacked Gaddafi’s forces.

Right now, our future in Libya is uncertain. My hope, and the hope of most Americans, is that this conflict does not follow suit with our previous two wars, and we cease fire in a reasonable timeframe. For now, all we can do is sit back, watch things unfold, and question why things are happening the way they are.