U.S. Policy in Libya: between Role-Playing and Imposing Decisions

The roles being played and the labels by which they are called are numerous. Operation Odyssey Dawn is strumming the chords of geopolitics and has thereby unleashed discord among Libyans. Almost anyone trying to come up with a balanced explanation of what is happening in Libya is drowned out by a morass of convoluted political analysis as if being drowned in a murky swamp.

The myriad of writing produced from abroad has given life to events by explaining the geopolitics of the situation. Political geography is considered the most important facet of U.S. policy in its interactions with other nations. Yet given the poor quality of much of the analysis on Libya, it is as though we ourselves have forgotten what the Arab thinker Mohamed Jabir al-Ansari wrote when he declared that the study of geography is so important to understanding the situation of the contemporary Arab world that it ought to precede the study of history, or at least serve as an introduction to it.

Before we try to understand the political stance of America toward the critical developments in the intricate, complex mosaic that is Libya, we ought to read about that mosaic geographically. This will enable us to understand Western approaches to it, and their goals in intervening in such a complex mosaic from a geopolitical vantage point.

He who looks at the human and geographical intricacies of Libya and the dynamics of the current conflict there realizes clearly that the U.S. would not have intervened if the country did not border two important countries, namely Egypt and Tunisia. This is the issue that compelled the U.S. to ride the Libyan wave in the name of democracy and human rights.

The U.S. is exploiting Libya’s strategic location so that unrest in Libya does not lead to a complete vacuum of U.S. influence in North Africa. The U.S. does not want this region reshaped in a way such that any of these countries (Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt) develop in ways that are contrary to U.S. interests.

The Western Alliance has used lies as its currency, marketing ideas like humanitarian intervention and the protection of civilians. Meanwhile it is trying to hit two birds with one stone: securing Libyan oil and fixing holes in the Arab region militarily (and the countries adjoining Libya politically).

Moreover, the Arab world lacks the terminology that must be applied to analyze these phenomena. It also lacks a culture of scrutinizing geopolitics. These concepts have been abandoned in the darkness of the murky Arab night. The Arabs have nothing to say other than what Nizar Qabbani said in his verses, “Do not think ever, for the light is red … the mind is cursed, and hated and forbidden.”

The major questions of the day are calling to us from behind that veiled red light. We must dot our I’s and cross our T’s to get to the truth. We must ask: have the forces of the Alliance by way of the intervention in Libya undertaken to politically aborting the phrase “popular revolution” – but not to eliminate the appearance of a revolution – in Egypt and Tunisia? Meanwhile, we all know the importance that the Western Alliance attaches to the Darfur region that adjoins Libya.