Behind the Facade: Obama's Great Libyan Scandal

Published in Veja
(Brazil) on 17 May 2013
by Caio Blinder (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jane Dorwart. Edited by Kathleen Weinberger.
In the trinity of scandals that have plagued President Obama, the first was Benghazi — the case of the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2012 on the U.S. diplomatic mission in the Libyan city, which resulted in the death of the American ambassador and another three people. Benghazi exploded during the electoral campaign of last year and continues to be the most convoluted issue, with the government minimizing the impact and the Republicans maximizing it. The other scandals are the tapping of the journalists' telephones for the Associated Press and the targeted auditing of the IRS, which placed conservative groups under a higher level of scrutiny.

The debate about the government's response is extremely legitimate (as much as is the question about the lack of security in the diplomatic mission in such a dangerous location, combined with the contorted rhetoric of the government in explaining what happened in the heat of the electoral campaign). Sorry for the pun, but this scandal was more smoke than fire.

However, there is a greater political scandal in the context of Libya. I personally was in favor of the Western intervention in Libya in 2011, which culminated in the fall and savage death of the dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The scandal is in the "day after." It lies in the lack of enthusiasm from the Obama administration toward contributing in a resolute manner to the reconstruction of Libya.

Up until now, the government on duty in Tripoli has lacked policies to control the country, which is bristling with militias. Rebel groups continue to be armed in open defiance of the state. Parliament submitted to brigands* who had circled the Ministry of Justice and Public Relations, demanding legislation which would deny public employment to those who had held high positions in the government of Gadhafi, who was in power for four decades.

Destroying an infamous regime is just the first phase in the long march to reconstruction — and some of them, such as the regime of Bashar al-Assad, are hard and very atrocious in their fall. Obama never was enthusiastic about humanitarian interventions; his strategic design is to have an American presence in the Middle East. Libya was an accident on the course of this trajectory. It happened and demanded responsibility. But contributing to the stability of a country is expensive and takes time.

Max Boot, one of my favorite conservative strategists, goes to the point. Taken by the "Iraq syndrome," Obama always believed having a force to stabilize Libya would be the first step into a quagmire and would not contribute to the redemption of the country. His government left the country alone without support. The Republicans did not fault Obama for doing so, as the party base is averse to the concept of "nation building." They prefer to keep their attention on the facade of the problem, which is Benghazi.

Using a phrase from a song, the question for Obama is: "If it was just to undo, why was it done?"**

*Translator's Note: By brigands the author is referring to militia.
**Translator's Note: This refers to the following song lyric:

"At times I want to believe but cannot/ And it all is complete nonsense/ And I question God: Listen, friend/ If it was all to undo, why was it done?"

“Às vezes quero crer mas não consigo/ É tudo uma total insensatez/ Aí pergunto a Deus: escute, amigo/ se foi pra desfazer, por que é que fez?”
— Vinicius de Moraes


Atras da fachada, o grande escandalo libio de Obama

Na trindade de escândalos que assolam o governo Obama, o primeiro foi Benghazi, o caso do ataque terrorista em 11 de setembro de 2012 à missão diplomática na cidade líbia que resultou na morte do embaixador americano e mais três pessoas. Benghazi explodiu na campanha eleitoral do ano passado e continua sendo o mais convoluto, com o governo minimizando o impacto e os republicanos maximizando. Os outros escândalos são o grampeamento de telefones de jornalistas da agência AP e o alvejamento pela receita federal de grupos conservadores para o escrutínio de mais calibre.
O debate sobre a resposta do governo é extremamente legítimo (tanto na questão da falta de segurança em uma missão diplomática num lugar tão barra pesada, como no contorcionismo retórico do governo para explicar o que aconteceu, no calor de uma campanha eleitoral). Sorry pelo trocadilho, mas neste escândalo há mais fumaça do que fogo.
No entanto, há um escândalo político mais amplo no contexto líbio. Eu pessoalmente fui a favor da intervenção ocidental na Líbia em 2011, que culminou na queda e morte selvagem do ditador Muamar Khadafi. O escândalo está no day after. Está na falta de zelo do governo Obama para contribuir de forma resoluta na reconstrução da Líbia.
Até hoje, o governo de plantão em Trípoli carece de condições para controlar o país, onde pipocam milícias. Grupos rebeldes continuam armados, em aberto desafio ao estado. O Parlamento se submeteu a bandoleiros que tinham cercado os ministérios da Justiça e das Relações Exteriores, exigindo legislação que negasse emprego público a quem tivera alta posição no governo de Khadafi, que ficou quatro décadas no poder.
Destruir um regime infame é apenas a primeira fase (e alguns infames, como o de Bashar Assad, são duros e muito atrozes na queda), numa longa marcha de reconstrução. Obama nunca foi chegado em intervenções humanitárias e seu projeto estratégico é contrair a presença americana no Oriente Médio. A Líbia foi um acidente de percurso nesta trajetória, aconteceu e exigia responsabilidade. Mas contribuir para a estabilização de um país custa caro e leva tempo.
Max Boot, um dos meus estrategistas conservadores favoritos, vai no ponto. Tomado pela “síndrome do Iraque”, Seu governo deixou a Líbia na mão. E aqui os republicanos não pegam no pé de Obama, pois a base do partido é avessa ao conceito de “nation building”. Eles preferem ficar na fachada do problema, que é Benghazi.
Na paráfrase da música, a pergunta para Obama é: se foi só para desfazer, por que é que fez?
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Turkey: Will the US Be a Liberal Country Again?

South Korea: Trump Halts Military Aid to Taiwan, and It Concerns Us, Too

Malaysia: A Major Breakthrough of US and EU on Ukraine or Mere Rant? ASEAN Taking Notes

Japan: ‘Department of War’ Renaming: The Repulsiveness of a Belligerent Attitude

Mexico: Qatar, Trump and Venezuela

Topics

Poland: Charlie Kirk’s Death Is a Warning to America

Germany: Trump Wants To Shut Down the Free Press for Good*

Germany: Trump Turns the Tables

Malaysia: A Major Breakthrough of US and EU on Ukraine or Mere Rant? ASEAN Taking Notes

South Korea: Trump Halts Military Aid to Taiwan, and It Concerns Us, Too

Japan: ‘Department of War’ Renaming: The Repulsiveness of a Belligerent Attitude

Turkey: Will the US Be a Liberal Country Again?

Related Articles

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Sri Lanka: Trump Is Very Hard on India and Brazil, but For Very Different Reasons

Colombia: US Warships Near Venezuela: Is Latin America’s Left Facing a Reckoning?

Germany: Learn from Lula