Another Front in Southwest Asia

The dispatch of U.S. warships to the Libyan coast and the calls to support Libyan rebels appears to indicate that the United States will soon be opening a third front in Southwest Asia (after Iraq and Afghanistan). Experts predict there will be either comprehensive military action or targeted missile strikes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claim that Libya could soon be transformed into a peaceful, democratic country is inappropriate. The United States has already opted for the use of force so her rhetoric falls into the category of business as usual. But there are nonetheless many reasons why Washington is willing to risk a Libyan intervention.

The Libyan rebels are accusing the West of hypocrisy. They say that Western nations talk a lot about human rights but are doing nothing to stop the genocide underway. Gadhafi has not yet been deposed, and already we’re hearing anti-American voices from some Libyans. That can’t make Washington particularly happy. In addition, some factions among the rebels are under al-Qaida control.

That’s why it is entirely possible that some parts of the country will fall under their control with the remainder still ruled by Gadhafi. One could scarcely imagine a worse scenario for the United States and its allies. It’s this situation they most want to prevent in developments across North Africa.

It is also necessary to consider the specifics of the Libyan armed forces. Since the end of the 1970s, the Libyan army is only a part of the national defense force. In addition to the weakened army, elite units, civilian defense forces, and the Islamic pan-African Legion were created. The hierarchy of this military force is very unclear. The most important fact is that large quantities of unsecured weapons (including warplanes) have been looted from depots and could now end up in the hands of terrorists.

President Barack Obama also needs to restore his image: The revolution in Egypt caused him considerable discomfort. He gives the impression of someone who missed the important political developments and is still playing catch up. The situation of “al-Qaida in the Maghreb” is even more difficult. This phrase had heretofore been unknown in the West, as well as in Russia. This al-Qaida faction terrorizes the countries of North Africa from Sudan to the Western Sahara.

Last year, Algeria, Mauritania, Mali, and Niger created a cooperative military committee and intelligence center to combat “al-Qaida in Islamic Maghreb.” The admission of Libya, Morocco, and Chad was also under consideration. If al-Qaida gained control over half of Libya, the Libyan rebel forces and the unsecured weaponry, the balance of power in the region would be seriously impacted. It could then be said that the U.S. war against terror in this Islamic part of the world had failed. In addition, the United States has problems with its military stationing. Of the approximately 80,000 soldiers currently deployed in Arab countries, 50,000 of them are in Iraq.

Nearly all the military bases are located in countries to the south of Iran. Its headquarters is in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates; there’s a large installation in Kuwait; the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, as well as an Air Force command, is based in Bahrain; there are seven bases in Oman, as well as units in Yemen and Djibouti. The United States has no military installations or units in the countries of the Maghreb. American use of airfields and ports in Egypt must first be negotiated and approved, as must those in Morocco, in the event of a crisis.

Mali doesn’t want its country used as a staging area for military intervention. The same goes for Algeria. It is turning out that the only possibility the United States may have to station troops in this region may be military intervention in Libya.

That would be the third American front in the region. In addition, Republicans in Congress are calling for expanded operations in Afghanistan. The Pentagon and the U.S. Security Council have been debating stationing special operations units in Pakistan to more effectively combat the Taliban and al-Qaida. In addition, Obama desperately needs some sort of military victory. The main problem here is that Pakistan and the United States have already agreed that no U.S. troops would be stationed in Pakistan. But there are, in fact, U.S. soldiers already on the ground there, a fact that no one seems to want to trumpet too loudly. Obama can’t reasonably expect to convince Islamabad to modify the current agreement. Why can’t they do likewise in North Africa?

Europe is apparently more interested in Libyan oil and refugees than they are in far-away Afghanistan. That’s why the United States may get European support for its military actions in Libya. But it is as yet unclear how to proceed in the wake of Gadhafi’s downfall. And it’s equally unclear whether the United States could successfully create a Libyan staging area for operations against al-Qaida in the Maghreb at all. Events in the Arab world are unfolding so quickly and unpredictably that Washington practically has to react blindly.