Most college students have already been acclimated to war: Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. We have seen Saddam Hussein

fall from power, we have watched as our soldiers searched treacherous mountains and caves for Osama Bin Laden, and we are now witness to our government trying to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya. There is no denying that these three men have committed malicious and violent acts against their people, but should our government really be intervening with the affairs of others so often? As we look at how events have transpired and what The Obama Administration has done, every person needs to decide whether they believe we are going into Libya for just causes.

While some people may tell you that Muammar Gaddafi has committed massive amounts of human rights violations, Obama’s administration as well as human rights organizations say that reports of potential war crimes are still unconfirmed. In a world where everything is documented or videotaped, it is disturbing that we are being catapulted into a war when we do not have strong evidence to back us up.

Human rights violations would be a compelling argument for humanitarian intervention, but senior officials have shown that rehabilitators got Obama to go to war to not only prevent atrocities that Gaddafi may or may not commit, but to also boost America’s ability to intervene elsewhere in the future. Keeping innocent people out of harm’s way is imperative, yet at what cost to the American public. We know from past wars that they are not only expensive and hurl us into debt, but that it causes the premature death of our youth. Is our government ready to make these sacrifices to help others, when there are people in the United States that are going hungry and others that are homeless?

There have been efforts made by Obama, however, to prevent a full war with Libya. Two weeks ago, he met with his top advisors to decide if the United States should support a U.N. resolution, which calls for a no-fly zone in Libya. The problem with this is that the Pentagon is skeptical. “On the military side there was a lot of skepticism in the initial days that a no-fly zone by itself was going to achieve what we wanted militarily,” says a senior administration official. Another senior administration official is blunter: “[Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates tried to stop it.” They believe that this will not prevent civilian causalities, but Obama did not abandon the idea of a no-fly zone altogether.

Obama has clearly been weighing all the options carefully before we enter into another war, because right after his meeting with his top officials and the Pentagon, he had dinner with his combatant commanders and discussed intervention. After a two hour meeting, he tasked Susan Rice, his ambassador to the United Nations, to get authorization for tougher action. Tougher action does not necessarily mean war, but intervening in Libya is sure to have its complications.

We are hopeful that there will be little bloodshed, and that the intervention in Libya will be for the best. There is a strong hatred of Gaddafi in the Arab world, so perhaps this will turn things around for their people. It is possible that we will help set Libya on the road to democracy and continue the political change that has been sweeping the region. For the rehabilitators, perhaps it will bring new credibility for the idea of humanitarian intervention. Nevertheless, even those administration officials who most want to see the return of humanitarian intervention realize how big the stakes are. “I’m praying that this works,” says one.