OPINION: ARHU's Greg Nasif, senior history major, weighs-in on U.S. involvement in the Libyan Civil War.

By Greg Nasif, The Diamondback

Dear Michele Bachmann, Here's a scenario for you: Imagine the oppressed citizens of a country are fighting a bloody revolution against their ruthless tyrant. The rebel forces are primarily composed of untrained volunteers led by officers defected from the ruler's military. The tyrant is conducting a brutal campaign of bullying and torture, killing dissidents across the country in an effort to maintain control. And while the freedom fighters are willing to die for their cause, they cannot defeat the state on their own. Should they lose, their people will suffer a terrible fate.
Mrs. Bachmann, by sacrificing very little of its own resources, should a neutral superpower help these rebels, save thousands of innocent lives and deliver an infant democracy to millions more?
Assuming you stand by your statements in the Sept. 7 Republican presidential primary debate, that it was wrong for the United States to intervene in the 2011 Libyan Civil War, you'll say no. Congratulations, you've made another history gaffe, abandoning the United States in its hour of need. How's that for "anti-American views," Mrs. Bachmann?
You see, like many nations young and old, the United States once needed help in its fight for independence. France, Spain and the Dutch Republic answered the call, supplying arms and cash to the Americans and opening crucial new fronts on the British around the world. Without their help, an American defeat was imminent. For more information, you can read a sixth grade history textbook.