The sandstorms of Libya’s deserts are again giving life to the twisted adage of “to every silver lining there is a foreboding cloud waiting to burst out.” How else should one read into Sunday’s condemnation by the Arab League regarding the enforcement of a no-fly zone, which it declared the “bombardment of civilians”? (See more at: http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=213010 )

After all, this is the same Arab League whose support for the action last Thursday was critical in gaining the U.N. Security Council’s approval to the impressive score of 10 approving and five abstaining votes.

For the record, Arab League Chief Amr Moussa is quoted by Reuters news agency as saying,“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians.” Giving even more discomfort to those who saw the emergence of a “new Middle East,” he is widely rumored to be considering a run for the Egyptian presidency.

One cannot doubt that civilians are tragically caught up in Libya’s strife, as they are in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. And there is valid criticism of the coalition conducting the campaign for its not having well-formulated goals, which would lead to an exit strategy. In addition, there is a fair debate to be had on Capitol Hill on the role of a president in making war without approval. (At least President Obama met with bi-partisan congressional leaders first. Still, since the goals have not been defined – leading to the real possibility of long-term commitment—an open conversation should have been had in the Senate and House.)

Likewise, one wonders—and perhaps this is the real reason for the Arab League’s nervousness—why similar campaigns have not been considered for Yemen and Bahrain, whose governments also have turned on their people. Of course, they have not conducted the seemingly pre-meditated and wanton war on civilians of Moammar el-Qaddafi, who never met a dissident he did not want to torture. Nor do they have the decades-old history of antagonizing Western powers. Still, they are far from the picture of George Washington and the American revolutionaries.

Finally, some in this country are concerned about elements of al-Qaeda in Libya’s revolution. There likely is some; how could there not be in that region?

Yet, the very open question is how much influence they have and whether a new Libya (half of it at least) will have the nascent trappings of democracy – enabling freedom of the press, the formation of political parties and basic human rights. (Let’s start on that last account by ending the documented torture prisons.)

But just what was the Arab League thinking would happen after approving a resolution calling for military force? This all serves to deepen the belief of many here that the word of existing Arab rulers—the vast majority of whom remain dictators, friendly or otherwise—is only as dependable as the Arab Street allows. In terms of meaningful alliances, that speaks little of today’s Arab leadership and even less of its future.

How the United States conducts itself with the leaders of the opposition in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere will be felt for decades to come. And, for certain, Iran is watching, ready to step into any perceived void.

Military engagement, the region’s history informs us, is but a stepping stone to what happens next. And if we are to avoid that, we will only have a nasty involvement in the region—with even more problems—down the road (or at least until we have a meaningful, successful alternative energy program for this country; but that is another story).