The U.S. intervention in Libya and the danger of regional war

It is quite ironic that the air attacks on the Qaddafi military machine began on March 20, 2011, the eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Armed with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 of March 17, the United States, heading a coalition of Western powers (France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy), Launched 110 Cruise missiles while two others were launched by U.K. forces in the initial attack on Qaddafi’s air defenses and other installations.

The sheer weight of U.S. presence in this military action makes it essentially a U.S. operation. For their part, the French attacked Qaddafi’s military units poised to enter Benghazi, which would have practically ended the armed opposition to his rule. This Western military intervention might appear as a noble act, devoid of ulterior motives, merely intended to protect civilians from an impending blood bath had Qaddafi’s forces recaptured all Libyan territory, including Benghazi.

We should be reminded that the Transitional National Council has asked the international community to intervene through the United Nations to stop the blood bath.

After much deliberation, the League of Arab States on March 12 had decided to approach the United Nations to declare a No-Fly-Zone over Libya. It is important to note that only 11 of the 22 member states were present at the meeting. Two, Syria and Algeria, were opposed to military intervention under the guise of reinforcing a No-Fly-Zone. The Paris meeting on March 19 saw the Western coalition countries along with Arab states such as Qatar and Jordan agree to the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1973.

The Arab position gave the West more cover to legitimize the strikes on Qaddafi’s military machine. However, the initial strikes had killed about 100 innocent civilians, something that prompted Amr Mousa, Secretary General of the League of Arab States, to protest that the strikes had gone beyond what the Arabs (nine of 22 states) had asked the United Nations for, namely a No-Fly-Zone.

In a sudden reversal of his position, Mousa came out the next day in support of the Western military action in Libya. Such a turnaround in position kept observers wondering whether heavy Western pressure to toe the line has descended upon Mousa.

Arab collaboration went further with Qatar sending four fighter jets to participate in the air strikes and the United Arab Emirates sending what it termed “humanitarian” aid. More Arab states are expected to materially support the Western military operation. All eyes are now on Saudi Arabia to see whether it would participate militarily with the U.S.-led Western coalition and, if so, the level and manner of that participation.

The irony in all of this is that none of the Arab states involved are paragons of democracy, liberty, human rights, individual rights, and freedom. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has sent troops to Bahrain to crush the non-violent uprising with the blessing of the United States.

The people in the Arab countries have come out in support of the Libyan uprising against Qaddafi, but vehemently opposed to the U.S.-engineered military intervention.

Given the recent U.S. track record of supporting dictators in the Arab world, the masses do not believe that the United States and its Western coalition, along with a sprinkle of Arab support emanating from pro-U.S. states, had the interest of the ordinary Libyan at heart. If it did, it would not have dealt with Qaddafi for the past several years, knowing full well the repressive nature of his regime. Nor would it have supported dictators such as Ben Ali of Tunisia, or Mubarak, of Egypt, had it regarded the Arab masses deserving of political systems that respect their national human, and individual rights.

Furthermore, if the United States is acting in support of human rights and to prevent Qaddafi from committing crimes against humanity, why the silence towards Israeli crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people on a daily basis? Why veto a U.N. Security Council Resolution, condemning Israeli practices of ethnic cleansing and building colonies in East Jerusalem?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has given mixed signals regarding the real objectives of the military adventure in Libya. Signals about sharp differences within the White House have begun to emerge regarding the conduct of the military operations, especially between Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama. The U.S. Congress has been left out in the dark regarding the objectives of the U.S. intervention in Libya and whether there exists an exit strategy after a declaration of “mission accomplished.”

The United States cannot afford to continue its involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as none of these wars are winnable as the U.S. military portrays those wars to be. Those wars and the United States (in) direct involvement in Somalia, and multiple other conflicts in Africa and Asia, compellingly argue against opening another war front in the Arab world.

It is clear that the United States does not have control over all the variables in the Libyan conflict. Unintended consequences could easily overwhelm the capacity of the United States to deal with the situation on the ground. At the end of the day, the United States could find itself embroiled in a full-fledged war that it can ill-afford. It is precisely because of this fact that Admiral Mullen said that the consequences of such an operation was not certain in the long-run.

Rumblings about boots on the ground have already been heard. The Belgian Defense Minister on March 21 has declared that there might be a need for a “limited use” of foreign ground troops in Libya. Referring to the fact that inserting ground troops into the conflict does not contradict UNSC Resolution 1973, which prohibits the entry of “occupying forces” only. Here we see legalese being deployed to justify the use of ground troops.

Two important consequences could flow from the Libyan military adventure. First, the high cost of the wars in which the United States is involved, makes an additional military commitment unwise to even contemplate. Budget cuts, high levels of national debt, and an already weak economic recovery, could hasten another considerable dip in unemployment, and an increase in corporate bankruptcies and bailouts. Those, in turn, would result in more debt, budget cuts and unemployment.

Second, the uprisings engulfing the Arab world prove that the United States has no credibility among the masses, especially when the United States has been behind the curve in each of the uprisings. This hesitation in stances toward the non-violent struggles led by the youth puts a question mark on the sincerity of the United States regarding its interest in the wellbeing of the Arab masses.

While the United States is busy trying to contain and co-opt the uprisings that have succeeded initially or are still on-going, the Libyan military adventure, once its real objective(s) become apparent, might reignite the flame of revolution against U.S. interests in the Arab world and beyond.

One suspects that control over Libyan oil is definitely one of the objectives of the military action. But this near-sighted view could lead to a civil war in which many civilians would be killed and an entire people devastated.

Another central issue that is not in favor of the United States, especially since the uprisings began, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In June 2009 in Cairo, Obama delivered his famous speech to the “Muslim World” in which he flatly said that the United States stood with Israel. Nothing else mattered in the speech insofar as the Arab masses were concerned. It was clear from the statement about Israel that the United States did not stand for human and national rights of the Palestinian people and had no regard for their plight.

All the recent uprisings in the Arab world support the human and national rights of the Palestinian people. The stance of the United States toward the Palestinian people significantly impacts those uprisings. It was not surprising to the Arab masses, therefore, to watch Tunisian revolutionaries a few days ago chant, “the people want the liberation of Palestine.” 

A full-fledged U.S. war in Libya would influence the next stage in the revolutionary process in the Arab world. In this case, a fusion of Arab uprisings in a pan-Arab revolution is quite likely. The United States would find itself not only behind the curve yet again, but on the losing end in a way that would threaten its global dominance.

Ibrahim Aoude is a professor of political sciences at the University of Hawaii at Manoa