Here is a good summary of the debate among conservatives about whether or not to support the war in Libya:
Neoconservative William Kristol is calling the president Barack H. Reagan and saying conservatives should back off in their criticism and support the president in war time. He believes that America should always be on the side of freedom and that protecting the Libyan rebels and working to overthrow Gaddafi is something that Americans should just do as a matter of principle. All Kristol is saying, according to his turn of phrase, is “give war a chance.”
Some Congressional conservatives, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio says that congress should pass a resolution not only authorizing the war but taking it further, making it official policy that our goal is to remove Gaddafi, which would permit sending in troops if necessary.
Meanwhile, paleoconservatives and libertarians are arguing that we should not intervene in other countries, that we have no national interest in Libya and that we cannot be the world’s policeman. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is articulating that position, making this argument:
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.
Consider the various arguments. What do you conclude? (Though this post focuses on the different conservative positions, liberals may weigh in too, saying which kind of conservative they agree with.)