Why Is the West So Divided?

The United States threatens to end its participation in the Libyan war, not in weeks, but days. Why? Barack Obama didn’t want this involvement, and with good reason. He’s in the midst of a war in Afghanistan, U.S. troops are still in Iraq and because of these two wars and his nation has piled up an unbelievable $14 trillion in debt over the past few decades. Obama wants to do some nation building at home, not in Libya. Added to this are the warnings of his military advisors: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen says nobody knows how the Libyan episode will end.

France appears decisive because Nicolas Sarkozy wants to style himself as a wartime leader: His approval ratings are at an all-time low of 25 percent. He apparently believes that whoever shoots fastest gets re-elected, and he wants to get re-elected in 2012.

Germany is abstaining and is being pilloried for it. Its reasons for not participating are driven mainly by domestic political considerations. Is that criticism justified? Could be, but it applies to all the others as well, especially the French. Besides, Germany isn’t alone in abstaining; Brazil, that highly praised and celebrated democracy and rising superpower, refrained from voting in favor of intervention, too.

Even NATO member Italy, whose president Silvio Berlusconi is intimate friends with Gadhafi, doesn’t really want to get on board. Italy sends bombers, but they don’t bomb anything. Being in this company makes Germany’s position neither right nor wrong, but it does keep it from feeling too lonely.

Why is there intervention in Libya — but approval of the repression in Bahrain?

There were massive demonstrations in Bahrain over the past several weeks. The protesters’ demands mirror those of millions of people across the Middle East and North Africa: They want reforms and democracy. The sheik responded with brutal repression and the Saudi king dispatched 1,000 troops to support him. And what did the West do? If it didn’t remain silent, it found some encouraging words for their actions. Close political advisers to Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and her recently appointed counselor, Robert Cooper, even signaled their understanding for the measures taken against the demonstrators, measures that have thus far cost 21 people their lives.

The only explanation for this is that the West is applying a double standard here. Admittedly, it’s a double standard based on good reasons: Bahrain is the headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet and the most important American military installation in the Middle East. Bahrain’s population is predominantly Shiite, as is a majority of those protesting. Even if they demand democracy and reform, they’re nevertheless suspected of supporting the goals of Iran’s Shiites. And Iran is the West’s public enemy number one, just as Saudi Arabia is the West’s ally number one vis-à-vis Tehran. That’s why no one protested when the Saudis sent their troops into Bahrain. And because of their opposition to Iran, the Saudis are increasing their weapons stockpiles as never before: The turnover for 2011 is around $70 billion. There is no criticism of this even when people see the ramifications of the West almost mindlessly and arbitrarily exporting armaments as it is now seeing in Libya.

Why did the Arab League decide to approve the intervention and express doubts about their decision almost simultaneously?

The members of the Arab League detest Muammar Gadhafi. He has spent years mocking and ridiculing them and has even gone so far as to make attempts on some of their leaders’ lives. Now they can be rid of him. But, at the same time, they worry about Western intervention. The longer the intervention lasts, the more it may be seen in the eyes of many Arabs as a Western colonization campaign. But the shorter it is, the greater the danger that such an intervention may become the blueprint for the toppling of other autocratic regimes. And there are many such autocratic regimes in the Arab League.

Does Gadhafi really have a strategy, or is he just crazy?

Muammar Gadhafi has the distinction of being the only person ever publicly designated a psychopath by a German president. But even if Christian Wulff’s long-distance diagnosis was correct, Gadhafi is behaving quite rationally in this current war. He isn’t fleeing (where would he go?) but is fighting mercilessly to remain in power. In so doing, he is counting on having time on his side. The longer the intervention lasts, the weaker and more contentious the Western alliance will become. And with that, the more restive the people on the “Arab Street” will also become.

No one in the Middle East has any sympathy for Gadhafi, but he is betting that the Western intervention will sooner or later lead to too many civilian victims. The result of that will be many gruesome images. Images that Gadhafi the dictator will find somewhat less disturbing than they will the West.