More than three weeks after the United States commenced combat operations in Libya, Cornell professors said the outcome of the United States’ intervention remains unclear. 

Since the adoption of United Nations Security Resolution 1973, which authorized a no-fly zone over the country, the U.S. has spent more than $608 million on airstrikes against Libyan military targets, according to The Associated Press. Despite initial hopes that the conflict would be resolved quickly, the rebels and Libyan military appear to have reached a stalemate, according to various press outlets.

Professors disagreed about the broader implications of the war for America’s relationship with the Arab world.

Prof. Nicolas van de Walle, government, said that America’s actions in Libya are unlikely to fundamentally change U.S. relations with Middle Eastern and North African nations because U.S. support for Israel is the primary determinant of how America is perceived in the region.

Prof. David Patel, government, however, disagreed, saying that while support for Israel is important, so is U.S. support for other regimes whose authorities are being challenged, such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain.

Most professors agreed that U.S. intervention in Libya was necessary to avert a serious humanitarian situation.

Prof. Peter Katzenstein, government, said that, while the outcome in Libya remains “murky,” military action was necessary to avert a “bloodbath” in rebel-held Benghazi.

“I’m pro-intervention; If you mistreat your people as Gadhafi has, you should be kicked out,” van de Walle added.

Patel described the intervention as “less-than-perfect,” noting that it was executed with limited intelligence on the strength and intentions of the rebels. He also pointed out that the operation was set up in 30 days, as opposed to the 1993 U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zone over Bosnia that took two years to organize.

Still, Patel defended Obama’s decision. “He intervened because there was an imminent massacre,” he said. 

By acting, he added, the U.S. and its allies told authoritarian rulers in the Middle East and North Africa that they cannot mistreat their people as Gadhafi has.

Katzenstein, Patel and van de Walle all agreed that President Barack Obama’s actions were a departure from the policies of the George W. Bush administration. While the Bush era was marked by unilateral action, combat operations in Libya were only initiated with a U.N. mandate and support from European and Arab partners, the professors said.

According to Van de Walle, Obama showed that the U.S. could pursue a multilateral route that would still be successful. He said that the intervention set a precedent that the U.S. could use force in other conflicts, although he cautioned that “the U.S. can’t intervene everywhere.”

Katzenstein said he saw the intervention in Libya as a reversal from the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whereas the U.S. was then the main combat force with other nations like the United Kingdom providing a supporting role, in Libya the U.K. and France have taken the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone, he said.

Professors said it was impossible to predict the outcome of the intervention, although they made some tenuous predictions.

“We have no idea what comes out of this rebellion,” van de Walle said.

However, according to Patel, it is inconceivable that the nation will go back to the regime that existed before the conflict.

“I don’t see a situation where Gadhafi could rule all of Libya,” he said.