-
FP EBOOK
Making Sense of the Middle East
-
LIBYA
Should the West Intervene?
-
EGYPT
Mubarak Leaves At Last
Posted By Marc Lynch
Monday, February 21, 2011 - 9:48 PM
Share
The unfolding situation in Libya has been horrible to behold. No matter how many times we warn that dictators will do what they must to stay in power, it is still shocking to see the images of brutalized civilians which have been flooding al-Jazeera and circulating on the internet. We should not be fooled by Libya's geographic proximity to Egypt and Tunisia, or guided by the debates over how the United States could best help a peaceful protest movement achieve democratic change. The appropriate comparison is Bosnia or Kosovo, or even Rwanda where a massacre is unfolding on live television and the world is challenged to act. It is time for the United States, NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League to act forcefully to try to prevent the already bloody situation from degenerating into something much worse.
By acting, I mean a response sufficiently forceful and direct to deter or prevent the Libyan regime from using its military resources to butcher its opponents. I have already seen reports that NATO has sternly warned Libya against further violence against its people. Making that credible could mean the declaration and enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, presumably by NATO, to prevent the use of military aircraft against the protestors. It could also mean a clear declaration that members of the regime and military will be held individually responsible for any future deaths. The U.S. should call for an urgent, immediate Security Council meeting and push for a strong resolution condeming Libya's use of violence and authorizing targeted sanctions against the regime. Such steps could stand a chance of reversing the course of a rapidly deteriorating situation. An effective international response could not only save many Libyan lives, it might also send a powerful warning to other Arab leaders who might contemplate following suit against their own protest movements.
I don't have any illusions that the outside world can control what happens in Libya, if the regime really wants to try to hold power by force. I don't call for a direct military intervention. And I am keenly, painfully aware of all that could go wrong with even the kinds of responses I am recommending. But right now those fears are outweighed by the urgent imperative of trying to prevent the already bloody situation from getting much, much worse. This is not a peaceful democracy protest movement which the United States can best help by pressuring allied regimes from above, pushing for long-term and meaningful reform, and persuading the military to refrain from violence. It's gone well beyond that already, and this time I find myself on the side of those demanding more forceful action before it's too late. The steady stream of highly public defections from the regime suggest that rapid change is possible, yesterday's speech by Saif al-Islam Qaddafi and today's events suggest that so is terrible violence.
There is no avoiding what is happening in Libya. Al-Jazeera Arabic has been covering the Libyan situation heavily for the last couple of days and has powerfully conveyed the gravity of the situation, including broadcasting some truly disturbing images and video of protestors. I've been stunned by what Libyans inside the country and outside have been willing to say on the air about the regime --- prominent Libyan diplomats declaring Qaddafi to by a tyrant, major tribal leaders calling for his overthrow, Yusuf al-Qaradawi calling on the air for someone to shoot Qaddafi, and more. The Arab world's attention is focused on Libya now, after several days of a fragmented news agenda divided among Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt and more. Voice after voice, Libyans and other Arabs alike, denounce the silence of the international community and call for action. Qaddafi has few friends, and Qatar has called for an urgent Arab League meeting to deal with the crisis. While history doesn't suggest we can expect all that much from that club, their public support for international action could go a long way towards overcoming any suggestion that this is an imperialist venture.
That's all for now.
Getty Images
A "NATO" no-fly zone is a thin veil over unilateral U.S. action, which has an obvious downside in this case. A no-fly zone needs UNSC action, which may be easier to get than a NATO consensus given how the Italians are kow-towing to Qaddafi these days!
Daniel Serwer
www.peacefare.net
I think that any outside intervention including no-fly zones will only compromise the freedom that the Libyan youth are fighting for. What they need is arms supplies so that they don't have to play the part of worthy victims on the world stage, but have instead a fighting chance of winning.
Not only do we have nowhere near enough time to actually set up a system to send weapons in it wouldn't change anything. What matters most right now is whether or not the military will stay loyal.
The US default position always seems to be what military action to take, which is seldom effective, and not what the locals do or don't want.
recent news report:
"A spokesman for the new National Libyan Council, which formed in the eastern city of Benghazi after it was taken by anti-Gaddafi forces, said his group did not want any foreign intervention."
On using Bosnia as an example of success, there was no genocide -- until the US intervened.
Don't you think they'd veto any action like this? The developed world should revisit the whole question of elites and legitimacy, imo, but that won't occur in a timely enough manner to influence these events.
I say put the F-18s in the air and tell the UN the Martians are doing it.
No to NATO!!!! In the last four days NATO butchered 60 men, women and children in Afghanistan, using planes to strafe and bomb them. These are the same tactics being used as Gaddafi. Now you think they should get involved in Libya? NATO has maintained a corrupt and backwards regime in Afghanistan for ten years, not a democracy. Do you want to see that replicated in Libya. These people didn't martyr themselves for that.
The only people who have the moral authority to intervene at this point are the Tunisians and the Egyptians. I hope they can pull it together. If only they were already fully liberated.
"By acting, I mean a response sufficiently forceful and direct to deter or prevent the Libyan regime from using its military resources to butcher its opponents. "
Might that not invoke the "you break it, you buy it" clause? How far are you willing to go in being sufficiently forceful?
Oh, I guess not that far, because:
"I don't call for a direct military intervention."
Are you willing to fight the regime or not? The first rule of pulling a gun is then you better damn well be ready and able to use it.
But for the tragedy unfolding in Libya and the terrible suffering there, I would find the suggestion by any AJ commentator that the US should intervene anywhere in MENA to be some sort of fantastic April Fool's Joke worthy of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. After all, AJ has made its bread and butter demonizing the US for its interventions Iraq, AfPak, etc. If the US did actually intevene, five minutes later AJ editorials would be accusing my country of trying to steal Libya's oil. While it is my wish that the killing cease immediately, I do not think it would be wise for the US to intervene in LIbya. It would only give Gaddafi and other regimes more ammunition in their claim that the West is somehow behind the Arab Revolt, thereby under-cutting the revolution in Libya and elsewhere in MENA. No, I'm afraid you guys need to solve this one on your own. Maybe Egypt should intervene using all the military hardware we've sold them over the years--then they would be true leaders of the Arab world!
But for the tragedy unfolding in Libya and the terrible suffering there, I would find the suggestion by any AJ commentator that the US should intervene anywhere in MENA to be some sort of fantastic April Fool's Joke worthy of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. After all, AJ has made its bread and butter demonizing the US for its interventions Iraq, AfPak, etc. If the US did actually intevene, five minutes later AJ editorials would be accusing my country of trying to steal Libya's oil. While it is my wish that the killing cease immediately, I do not think it would be wise for the US to intervene in LIbya. It would only give Gaddafi and other regimes more ammunition in their claim that the West is somehow behind the Arab Revolt, thereby under-cutting the revolution in Libya and elsewhere in MENA. No, I'm afraid you guys need to solve this one on your own. Maybe Egypt should intervene using all the military hardware we've sold them over the years--then they would be true leaders of the Arab world!
since confirmed by one commentator on the BBC, is that ties between the US and Libya are almost nonexistent. The west's relations with Gaddhafi are spearheaded through Europe, and Bloomberg reports that earlier today the Italian Foreign Minister has rejected intervention.
Events may change this, of course. Were I looking to affect Libya, I might be calling on BP's help, and there will be a bigger price for that than I'm willing to consider, but I'm a lefty liberal and easily ignored.
I don't see any intervention at all from the US without European leadership at this time, but like I say, event may change this. Contingencies should at least be drawn up.
that the French foreign minister is under fire right now for her family's close contacts with North African regimes. I haven't a clue how that might shake out, seems to me it could go either way, but it's certainly a distraction.
I understand the sentiment, but sentiment is a poor foundation for a sudden change in policy.
Marc Lynch seems to recognize this himself, saying he is not calling for military intervention moments after writing that making NATO warnings effectual "could" require establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya. First, establishment of a no-fly zone would be a military intervention. Second, it could be done under the legal authority of NATO, but would practically speaking need to be an almost wholly American operation, utilizing sea-based air and considerable logistical resources based in Europe. Third, rules of engagement would need to be made up on the fly (for example, would American pilots be restricted to firing at Libyan aircraft only after being fired upon, firing after Libyan aircraft fired at ground targets in Libya, firing after Libyan aircraft took off -- or could they actively suppress Libyan air activity before aircraft took off?)
This is all a lot to ask of the American military on such short notice. And if the Obama administration directed what Lynch says "could" be done, how would he avoid getting us entangled in internal Libyan politics? As I say, I appreciate his sentiment; I no more want to see Libya's government shoot down its subjects than Lynch does. We can provide certain kinds of assistance to Qaddafi's internal opposition, but they will need to stop short of the intervention necessary to stop all the Libyan regime is capable of doing.
Europe should pledge not to buy a further drop of oil from Libya
until Gaddafi leaves, and to blockade the country in the event that other buyers - such as China - try to fill the void.
Please, a no-fly zone is not going to spark cries of imperialism. It can be done quickly (as long as you do not involve the UN) easily and without a boo ton the ground. Nothing else needs to be done, let the people bravely battling the regime do the rest on their own. Well I would probably add an AC_130 to the mix and smoke any armor coming out as well. But again...not lots of follow-on issues there.
Gotta say, I like this suggestion.
One anti-rad missile could take out the jamming transmitter(s), with zero casualties, allowing the revolution to see and believe in itself.
Can't speak to the 'simplicity' of forcing internet and cell phone access. Air drop sat phone links? But putting street recordings of the war crime of indiscriminate fire on civilians on Jazeera, as it is happening, would change the dynamic in favor of those fighting to get out from under the dictator's goons.
Speaking of 'sub-saharan mercenary' goons, exposing their origins, shutting off resupply and threatening their retreat and payment would start to shrink that lifeline.
Is NATO putting a no fly zone over Bahrain as well?
How bout Egypt? Did we consider that after the day of Mubarak's thugs?
How bout Saudi Arabia? China anyone??
Give it a rest guys!! If we're going to be hypocritical, should we at least put in an effort to make it less obvious?
Our moral compass is clearly off after Guantanamo? Are we completely abandoning that now?
Is this an unpatriotic remark?
Surely you can see the variation in the brutality of the regimes. Not all Middle East dictators are the same and neither are the strategic constraints.
Re: Egypt, how would a no fly zone have worked since the regime never used the military to massacre the people. I am not calling for a ground intervention, merely suppressing of air assets so the people of Libya stand a better chance.
And it always astounds me when people think we should have the same policies to hostile states as friendly ones. Grow up!
And I do not get how our moral compass is served by watching the Libya regime butcher its people.
And no, your remark is not unpatriotic, just naive.
we didn't advocate military intervention when Bahrain brutalized their revolution with military and yes they killed a lot of people.
It always astounds me when people think we are not hypocritical despite having different policies for "democracy for hostile regimes" and "democracy for friendly ones"!
While our moral compass is NOT served by watching the Libya regime butcher its people, we have no moral compass at all if we do the same for Bahrain.
I have no problem with a foreign policy that's simply stated as "We're the big 800 pound gorilla and you'll do what we want or we'll pound you to pulp."
However when we talk about "morals" and "non-hypocrisy" and "support for democracy" - except in places that have friendly regimes, that's when it becomes a sham and our enemies write about it in their recruitment posters.
That my dear friend is naive.
The United States doesn't have the spare muscle and funds for another action at the shores of Tripoli... The pattern of wars for oil needs to stop. If the current crisis blows up near term to disrupt oil supplies, we might be facing something worst even to the vicinity of WWIII ...Either personally or by policy we in the West need an immediate conversion to a clean energy economy in a big way. Oil hasn't been good for world peace for quite some time now. I think the time for arguing, doubting and splitting hairs about conversion has long since passed.... Also, clean energy including smart grids and more nuclear power will be a vital component necessary to assure humanity has a future on this planet.
No one is saying send in the Marines. But to park one aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Sidra to conduct some air ops is in no way beyond our capability.
Oh and tell me how that clean energy thing stops the massacre in Libya. Not that I am against getting of oil, but it is irrelevant to how to respond to this issue.
Libya is such a small country, you can't compare it to the Balkan war neither Afghanistan which is primarily controlled by 100's of warlords.
Just drop a guided missle on Qaddafi palace. Then tell him to flee or the next guided missle will find his house. Little details can be worked out. And the people will do the rest. Simple, quick and to the point. Why does everything have to be complicated and have a grand plan.
We dropped a Bomb on Malovovich (or whatever his spelling) and he surrendered. Had NATO done that immediately, right away, it would have saved two hundred thousand lives. Iraq was different because there was strive between 2 secs, yet in Libya all its citizens want freedom from a killing Dictator.
My family lived in Tripoli, Libya, in the late 70's as Exxon expats when Reagan ordered all US companies out. It was with regret that we left and the Libyans turned out to the airport to bid us farewell, flowers in hand. Had Reagan not been so foolish, the US might have had influence inside the regime and certainly with the military. Engagement always delivers a reward.
BTW Reagan also nearly single-handedly nearly wrecked Italian industry by forcing divestment of Libyan investments in Fiat and other firms.
First Reagan did not take office until 1981, so your statement that it was his actions in the late 70's is just impossible.
Oh, and the fact that the Libyans sponsored terrorist and were complicit in the German disco bombing targeting US military personnel and responsible for taking down the aircraft over Lockerbie...that's all due to Reagan huh?
And excuse me if I do not shed a tear over former colonial power Italy who did so much to screw up Libya in the past somehow doesn't make a bunch of corporate profit for propping up a murderous dictator.
Reagan wasn't around in 1972 when the US withdrew its ambassador to Libya and he wasn't around when Libyans burned our embassy there down to the ground in 1979. The Libyan regime was extremely hostile to the US long before Reagan took office.
Those of us who predicted a flow-on effect in the Sunni arab tyrannies once the Saddam/Baath regime was overthrown, the Sunni insurgency defeated and a constitutional democracy established in Iraq , read with wry amusement the calls for a "no fly zone" over Libya. Not to mention Prof Lynch and the Weekly Standard speaking as one. Welcome aboard Prof.
NATO is an imperialist venture
Despite the kindly and confused remarks of Marc Lynch, the "NATO" intervention in Afghanistan shows that a NATO intervention is inevitably an "imperialist venture." 20 or so NATO members, almost all of whose populations oppose the Afghanistan occupation by large majorities, have been dragged into a prolonged, disastrous occupation by the United States.
NATO met its objective in 1989-1991 with the demise of the Soviet Empire and should expire, peacefully. The Arab world can and will take care of its own and, yes, the oil producers will still sell oil.
For everyone that like to bandy the word "imperialist" about, you need a historical reality check.
If by imperialist you mean that big wealthy or powerful countries use their power in order to pursue their own interests, sometimes at the expense of the weak...OK...when has that not been true in history? Has there ever been a point in time when this has not been true? You might as well criticize the sky for being blue. It is encoded into the DNA of great power politics to use power for your national interest. I am wondering in what fantasy land international politics would not work like this.
No, actually it wouldn't and the Arab League seems to be realizing that they can't just call this business as usual.
No doubt, Gaddafi must go, but the sensationalism of comparing the situation in Libya to the Balkans is not just wrong, it's dangerous.
http://thecosmopolitanintellectual.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/libya-is-not-the-balkans/
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
March/April 2011
-
Cover Story
-
Exclusive
-
Think Again: Education
Relax, America. Chinese math whizzes aren't stealing your kids' future.
(33)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE