Gadhafi Fell. Will Libya Fall As Well?
Published in Gazeta Wyborcza
(Poland) on 21 October 2011
by Mariusz Zawadzki (link to original)
The Libyan revolutionaries’ victory, sealed by Gaddafi’s death, is also Barack Obama's success. Six months ago, the president decided to support the armed uprising. This victory nevertheless poses a great threat to the United States.
In the spring, many Americans didn’t understand why Obama had decided to send American planes and bombs to aid the rebels in some African country, which had, until recently, been of little importance to them. Because of the economic crisis, record unemployment rates, and the budget deficit, Americans were mainly willing to help themselves, and negative experiences from the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan had increased their averseness toward new interventions in the Middle East. According to the polls, bombing Gaddafi’s forces in Libya was initially supported by half of the American society, but by the summer the numbers had dropped to one third.
The dictator’s death will probably not convince skeptics. “I'd like to say that I grieve a bit, because this conflict didn't have to last this long. The United States air power could have shortened this conflict dramatically, and unfortunately, we chose not to,” said Republican Senator John McCain, who has been the biggest fan of the Libyan revolution in Washington.
The president is also being attacked from the other side. Some commentators prognosticate that after Gaddafi's overthrow, another failed country such as Somalia will appear on the world map. And it will be this free yet unstable Libya that will pose the real threat to the United States and become a safe haven for Islamist radicals.
It cannot be ruled out that the revolutionaries divide into tribes and factions, starting a long civil war, just like in Afghanistan. Terrorism experts are wondering what has happened to Libyan chemical weapons and the hundreds of portable anti-aircraft missiles (there have already been reports that they can be bought in bazaars in Egypt).
“We need to be doing more to secure these weapons systems now,” said Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and commentator for MSNBC.
Six months ago, Obama insisted that the operation in Libya was primarily humanitarian. NATO airstrikes under the UN Security Council resolution saved Benghazi, the revolutionaries’ main city, at literally the last moment, when Gaddafi's tanks were already in the suburbs and the dictator had promised carnage. Of course, it is true that supporting the Arab revolutions that overthrew dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, but affected transitions in other countries such as Syria, Yemen, and Libya, was uncertain.
From the very beginning, Obama had ruled out a land invasion and handed over the initiative to the Europeans. It was mainly British and French pilots who bombarded Gaddafi’s soldiers. Americans supported them and launched missiles from their warships in the Mediterranean Sea, but the revolutionaries had to finish the job themselves.
This model has worked so far. Americans have invested just slightly more than a billion dollars in the Libyan revolution, which is roughly as much as they spent per week in Iraq. Obama proved that you can overthrow dictators cheaply and effectively (Removing Saddam Hussein cost the United States approximately a thousand times more).
How Americans will ultimately judge their president's decision, however, will depend on what is created in place of Gaddafi’s country. A few days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Libya and told the revolutionary government that the hardest part — building a democratic country — had only just begun. Difficult times have also begun for the West, which aided the revolution.
“Aren't you glad the United States and Europe have lots of time and money to devote to rebuilding yet another potential failed state?” Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, wrote ironically on his blog.
In the spring, many Americans didn’t understand why Obama had decided to send American planes and bombs to aid the rebels in some African country, which had, until recently, been of little importance to them. Because of the economic crisis, record unemployment rates, and the budget deficit, Americans were mainly willing to help themselves, and negative experiences from the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan had increased their averseness toward new interventions in the Middle East. According to the polls, bombing Gaddafi’s forces in Libya was initially supported by half of the American society, but by the summer the numbers had dropped to one third.
The dictator’s death will probably not convince skeptics. “I'd like to say that I grieve a bit, because this conflict didn't have to last this long. The United States air power could have shortened this conflict dramatically, and unfortunately, we chose not to,” said Republican Senator John McCain, who has been the biggest fan of the Libyan revolution in Washington.
The president is also being attacked from the other side. Some commentators prognosticate that after Gaddafi's overthrow, another failed country such as Somalia will appear on the world map. And it will be this free yet unstable Libya that will pose the real threat to the United States and become a safe haven for Islamist radicals.
It cannot be ruled out that the revolutionaries divide into tribes and factions, starting a long civil war, just like in Afghanistan. Terrorism experts are wondering what has happened to Libyan chemical weapons and the hundreds of portable anti-aircraft missiles (there have already been reports that they can be bought in bazaars in Egypt).
“We need to be doing more to secure these weapons systems now,” said Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and commentator for MSNBC.
Six months ago, Obama insisted that the operation in Libya was primarily humanitarian. NATO airstrikes under the UN Security Council resolution saved Benghazi, the revolutionaries’ main city, at literally the last moment, when Gaddafi's tanks were already in the suburbs and the dictator had promised carnage. Of course, it is true that supporting the Arab revolutions that overthrew dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, but affected transitions in other countries such as Syria, Yemen, and Libya, was uncertain.
From the very beginning, Obama had ruled out a land invasion and handed over the initiative to the Europeans. It was mainly British and French pilots who bombarded Gaddafi’s soldiers. Americans supported them and launched missiles from their warships in the Mediterranean Sea, but the revolutionaries had to finish the job themselves.
This model has worked so far. Americans have invested just slightly more than a billion dollars in the Libyan revolution, which is roughly as much as they spent per week in Iraq. Obama proved that you can overthrow dictators cheaply and effectively (Removing Saddam Hussein cost the United States approximately a thousand times more).
How Americans will ultimately judge their president's decision, however, will depend on what is created in place of Gaddafi’s country. A few days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Libya and told the revolutionary government that the hardest part — building a democratic country — had only just begun. Difficult times have also begun for the West, which aided the revolution.
“Aren't you glad the United States and Europe have lots of time and money to devote to rebuilding yet another potential failed state?” Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, wrote ironically on his blog.