Can America, And The World, Sustain The Libyan Action

It's been remarkably interesting to watch the reaction to the military action taken in Libya. I've seen some question how this will turn out. Some question the cost. Some question if we have any place in this. Some question why we weren't there before. Some question why we're not on the ground. Some question if we're helpful to the rebels. Some question if we have the military capability. Basically, this is not breaking on the regular "side A vs. side B" political fight we're used to. It's fairly fractured up, and there are a lot of questions.

I want to take a look at one question though, which is whether or not we're stretched too thin right now. The United States is currently still in major commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the "combat" portion in Iraq supposedly over. We're involved in the humanitarian effort in Japan (where we have troops stationed anyway), as well as still patrolling in the Balkans. We're involved in humanitarian efforts when they come up, as in Haiti. We're basically global right now in military actions. So can we really afford to involve ourselves here?

Whether or not we can afford it from a money standpoint is a different debate, one that I welcome the side of people who think not (we spend a ton on military action, to our own detriment each year). Whether we have the forces though seems elementary to me, that we do. We're actually on a person for person basis, in less committed to Afghanistan and Iraq combined than we were a summer or two ago. While we can't sustain those levels forever either, it's worth noting that on manpower, we probably are less "stretched thin" than we've been in 3 years, and can probably afford to deploy fighter jets there. While it's a valid concern that we're stretched too thin, I don't think we're breaking over this.

Now, should we really do this? You know, I think so. The tide of change in the Middle East and North Africa is coming in fast, and we were very slow to support it in the previous nations to see it. We're not being overly supportive in other parts of the region right now. I don't think we want to allow this tide to roll in without us. I also don't think we want to not do things we believe are right, just because we've over extended ourselves in Iraq for years, a nation we didn't need to invade. On the whole, I think as long as we're not staging a massive land invasion of Libya, this is a worthy cause that we can afford the manpower to do, and should do. While we can't do this everywhere, there seems to be global consensus on this, and a willingness to take the lead from our allies. I didn't, and still don't, support the decision to go to war in Iraq, but this just isn't Iraq, and I think we have to be careful not to group every military action in with Iraq.