The U.S. Knows What Awaits Libya

Gadhafi’s fall means chaos in Libya, according to American specialists. That is why President Obama should see to it that the transition “is the right transition” and the appropriate people come to power. If need be, why not send in an army?

Some observers, like the leading expert on international security, Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings Institution, consider the rebels' victory to be a vindication of Obama’s multilateral approach to the conflict in Libya. The U.S. government emphasized that the U.S. is not leading the NATO military intervention in Libya, which had been decided on the initiative of France and England. The U.S. forces, however, played a crucial role in the intervention by providing logistical support and bombers that attacked the regime's army.

Critics of the administration believe that America's “support” role in the operation unnecessarily prolonged the conflict, harmed American prestige and weakened NATO. Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker told the Polish Press Agency (PAP) that such a policy was not good for the health of the alliance.

Initially, the Obama administration hesitated for a long time about the intervention, which would not have been possible without U.S. participation. American involvement in NATO’s mission was not met with support from the public. In Congress, even the majority of Republicans was against it. They argued that U.S. military involvement is not advisable in times of economic difficulty, especially since Libya is not of such strategic importance to the U.S. as, say, Egypt.

President Obama decided to proceed with the military intervention due to the influence of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and two presidential advisors: Samantha Power of the White House and Michelle Flournoy of the Pentagon.

Washington’s indecision resulted from concerns that the Libyan rebellion and Gadhafi’s overthrow would lead to seizure of power by an even more anti-American and anti-Israeli regime. It was emphasized that many Islamists operate in the rebel-dominated eastern Libya, and thence al-Qaida recruits them for suicide bombings in Iraq.

These concerns have now resurfaced with the death throes of Gadhafi's regime.

“Clearly, what the United States has been trying to achieve is not the removal of Gadhafi, but the transition to something post-Gadhafi … I would say the end result is very positive. Gadhafi is going to be gone. We don't know what that's going to look like. But the key thing again is who is going to take charge of this very, very toxic, very chaotic situation that exists right now? […] who now takes control of Gadhafi's military? … If the end result is there is a transition that's taking place in Libya, let's work real hard to ensure it's the right transition,” the military analyst, Gen. James ("Spider") Marks, told CNN.

"Weeks from now, we're going to see the beginning of a tension between the more Islamist part and the more secular part of that Transitional Council," said Walid Phares, a Middle East analyst and Fox News contributor. “We still don’t know what is going to happen in Libya after Gadhafi’s fall and whether further changes in Libya will be peaceful. There can be a period of chaos there. We should be prepared for that and consider sending peacekeeping forces to Libya," Michael O’Hanlon told PAP.

Oil prices dropped worldwide as a direct effect of the rebels’ capture of Tripoli. They fell because Libya is expected to renew oil exports after the armed conflict ends. Experts say, however, that this will not happen quickly as Libyan oil installations have been damaged.