As rebel forces continue to battle the army of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi, some Harvard professors remained undecided about the United States’ involvement in the Libyan conflict.

Professors from the History and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations departments recognized the nuanced diplomatic situation the administration faces hours before President Obama defended U.S. military intervention to the nation.

“There are compelling reasons why we did what we did ... there are probably equally compelling reasons why we should not have gone in,” Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Professor William E. Granara said. “Only time will tell.”

Last month Libya broke out in full-scale revolt against the four-decade long rule of Gaddafi, following the successful pro-democracy protests in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya’s neighbors to the east and west.

After violence between insurgents and Gaddafi’s forces escalated, the United Nations passed a resolution to establish a “no-fly zone” over the country, and on March 19 military action began, led by the U.S., France, and Britain.

“The use of military of force is a last resort,” history Professor Erez Manela said, adding, however, that U.S. involvement has “prevented a bloodbath” in the region.

“On the one hand, the U.S. is already engaged in two Muslim countries. To be engaged long-term in a third country could potentially be a problem,” said Granara.

Perhaps Western European countries, who have greater economic stakes in the country, should have led the military effort, Granara said.

Critics have also questioned the use of U.S. military force in Libya but not in Bahrain and Yemen, Arab countries also undergoing pro-democracy revolts.

“I think you have to take each case on its own merits ... you look hypocritical, but in terms of national interests I think I agree with the State Department,” said Professor E. Roger Owen, who specializes in Middle Eastern history.

“It is a valid question to ask why we aren’t doing in Bahrain and Yemen what we are doing in Libya,” Granara said.

However, crafting appropriate foreign policy involves consideration of subtle differences in historical and economic context.

Yet ultimately, the professors all acknowledged that foreign policy involves an element of the unforeseeable.

“We have other examples from history where the U.S. remained on the sidelines and ... found itself regretting its lack of involvement,” said Manela, who studies international history and has academic interests in the Middle East.

“If Gaddafi leaves and Libya evolves into something more like a democracy, Obama and the French and the British will come out looking like heroes,” said Granara. “If Gaddafi doesn’t leave, Obama could go down in history as a one-term president.”

—Staff Writer Julia L. Ryan can be reached at jryan@college.harvard.edu.

— Staff Writer Kevin J. Wu can be reached at kwu@college.harvard.edu.