I have been following the Libyan conflict since the first pockets of rebellion emerged. I’ve read reports of Gadhafi ordering his airmen to bomb villages and flying mercenaries into the country to butcher civilians. I’ve listened to interviews in which those citizens plead for no-fly zones, and I’ve watched as nearly every national and international organization, from the U.N. to the Arab League, has condemned Gadhafi’s brutality.

And I’m amazed that the American response to U.S. military action has been so overwhelmingly negative. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 77 percent of Americans are against the recent American bombing of Gadhafi’s military installations, a number that I believe suggests that many Americans don’t fully grasp the costs and implications of what America has done.

Our actions so far have been nothing but beneficial. Statesmen have made it clear that the U.S. will not spearhead the campaign against Gadhafi; it appears we are leaving that to Britain and France. At this point, the U.S. has fired around 110 Tomahawk missiles into Libya. Libyan anti-aircraft installations were the primary targets, clearing the way for British and French planes to support the rebels with little harassment. The U.S. is the only nation capable of unleashing such an unmanned attack, and when the potential lives saved are set aside, the total expenditure of $225 million for deploying the missiles does not seem like such a high number.

Not only will the United States’ intervention ideally lead to the ousting of a murderous dictator, but even if Gadhafi remains in power, the U.S. has taken an important step toward improving relations with the countries that have in recent decades treated our nation with antagonism. President Obama stood with the Arab League when it spoke out against Gadhafi, and it was only after the U.N. received a petition for help from the Arab League and authorized the U.S. to use any means other than an occupation force to protect Libyan civilians, that the U.S. intervened. The United States has abided by national consensus, and if the protests that are sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East are at all indicative of public opinion, the people in the region will approve of our taking an aggressive stance toward Gadhafi. The Libyan rebels, should they triumph, will certainly set up a pro-American government as a result.

As significant as the domestic opposition may be, the goodwill won abroad more than makes up for it. Had the U.S. done nothing, the effect of the backlash would have been far worse. It is difficult to forget that, when it seemed as if the Libyan rebels would oust Gadhafi themselves and diplomats were predicting that the colonel would fall in less than two days, Obama declared that Gadhafi had lost the legitimacy to rule, and that he must not continue as head of state in Libya. Had the Obama administration not aided the rebels, Republicans would have torn him apart at home. Members of the Arab League—nations which we can hardly afford to annoy—would have criticized us for supporting democratic ideals in theory, but for not being willing to sacrifice funds when force was required.

All signs indicate that United States will limit its involvement in Libya. Obama has repeatedly stated that France and Britain will do most of the legwork, and the U.N. expressly forbids the sending of troops. Assuming there is no escalation in the Libyan conflict, it is difficult to see how such great gains at such a small monetary cost could be viewed in such a negative light.