Libya and the Iran-Contra Affair: Recent events of American intervention in Libyan affairs have sparked a debate upon whether or not support should include arms. Support for this measure can be found on both sides of the isle in Washington. The white house seems to be ignoring the issue for the present; however, it has come to light the CIA is on the ground, and some arms are coming from Egypt. History has shown this sort of intervention as counterintuitive to American, as well as humanitarian, interests. Current policy of meddling from afar draws undeniable parallels to the Iran-Contra affair, and the activities of American intervention in the Afghanistan / Soviet conflict. Looking into the failures of policy concerning the past will show how present ambitions of arming the rebels of today as misguided; moreover, dangerous.

During the 1980's America, as seen in the Iran-Contra scandal, became interested in actively providing arms to areas vulnerable to the advancement of the Soviet Union. Basically, America used...

Selling arms to Iran for the political reason of saving hostages, and the strategic aim of stemming soviet advancement, created funding for Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra affair offered a three- pronged commitment. First, save the hostages of the Iran hostage crisis. Two, flood the Middle East with weapons to combat Russia. Lastly, provide aid to the Contras at war with the Sandinista, and coincidently, communist Nicaraguan government.
Oliver North concedes the fear of communism; "The Russian Bear was now closer than ever, which was why the Iranians were quietly transferring some of the arms we had sold them to the Afghan rebels" (Hershberg, 2003, p.30). This non-committal intervention developed into a birthplace for an organization called Al-Qaida. In other words, providing arms with no political responsibility provided fertile soil for extremism. "The true roots of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network stem from…