(Image source: NDTV)

BY: ALLIE SPILLYARDS

ANCHOR MEGAN MURPHY

You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy

What’s the U.S. to do? Step in and help rebel fighters or stand back and let Libya take care of Libya.  A writer for CNN says the U.S. has already stuck it’s toe in the water by calling for Ghaddafi to step down. Now, it needs to follow through.

“Gadhafi's departure from power in other words is not just a requirement of humanity and decency. It's not only justice to the people of Libya. It is also essential to American credibility and the stability of the Middle East region.”

Others say not so fast. During a Meet the Press roundtable discussion, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says the U.S. needs to consider if its help is even wanted.

“Do you really want American boots on the ground? The rebels in Libya are not exactly excited about the idea of a kind of U.S. sponsored revolution. They’re doing this themselves. I’m not sure how that would leave America's standing if we participate to too great an extent in what they’re trying to do.”

And if the U.S. does intervene, what considerations should it make? Political analysts from two competing networks say the U.S. can’t act alone.

Michael O’Hanlon: “I think given the lessons of Iraq where we tried to do the right thing but paid a big price for overthrowing a dictator, we need to be careful here. I think international support is the key prerequisite to acting unless the violence just gets so much worse its a humanitarian requirement to intervene, but we’re not really at that level yet.”

MARK HALPERIN: “It would be crazy to make this a U.S. operation. If it’s an international operation it takes away some of the dangers in terms of how this is viewed around the world.”

All debates aside.... the questions really at the heart of the issue: why Libya? Why now? A blogger for the New American challenges U.S. interest.

“If moral obligations were our reason for meddling in the lives of others, then why did we not do anything in Sudan? The West sent only relief workers to aid the afflicted and no military might to quell massacres hundreds of times greater than those that may be occurring in Libya. There was no “morality” because Sudan and its people are insignificant to the West — that is, they have no economic importance to us.”

So whether America is taking a stance in favor of humanity or protecting the oil that keeps its economy stable, politicians have some decisions to make. Congress and the White House will grapple with the options. As President Obama has said, it’s all on the table. So for now, Americans and rebel protestors will be watching for action.

According to Politico, that response could be a no fly zone, a no drive zone, arming the opposition, or invasion.

Now, it’s just a waiting game.
 

'Like' Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed

Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy

Transcript by Newsy