Skip to main content

It has been over three years since the NATO-led military intervention that overturned what was left of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime yet the optimism that accompanied these political transformations in Libya and across the Arab world now feels decades away.  Such is the disenchantment with what was expectantly heralded as the Arab Spring in 2011.

Egypt seems to have substituted one military strongman for another with the election of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. In Syria, there seems to be no end in sight for the bloodbath that was the revolution and Libya is perched on the edge of a precipice, one move from falling into complete anarchy.

To get an idea as to how bleak the situation in Libya has become, one has to look no further than the country’s recent parliamentary elections. With voter turnout hovering somewhere around 18.5% (only 44% of eligible Libyans registered at all), there is little hope that any of the country’s new ‘representatives’ can garner much legitimacy. Indeed, Fathi al-Gabasi from the Eastern community of Aoudjila was elected to parliament with only three votes.

Moreover, the entire election took place in a context of extreme sectarian violence, which unfortunately has become commonplace in modern-day Libya. One candidate, Mohamed Kwakwai, was assassinated in the southern city of Sebha before the final ballot was cast, as was the internationally-recognized lawyer and human rights activist Salwa Bugaighis, who was stabbed several times at her home by masked men before being shot in the head. According to Reuters, at least 4 people were killed in heavy clashes between Islamists and government forces in Benghazi, while scores more were wounded.

When good intentions don’t cut it

Though there is considerable debate over exactly what led the United States and her allies into Libya in 2011, it is clear that realist motivations were not among the most prominent. Rather, the charge towards Libya was headed by liberal interventionists such as Susan Rice, then Ambassador to the UN, and Samantha Power (the current US Ambassador to the UN), both of who were still haunted by the United States’ inaction in Rwanda under President Clinton. “I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required,” Rice stated in 2001.

The crisis that Ambassador Rice encountered in Libya was very real. Having initially succeeded in wresting control of the cities of Benghazi and Tobruk, the rebel forces of Libya’s ‘Interim Transitional National Council’ had lost steam by March. Gaddafi’s forces were heading towards Benghazi in force, with the beleaguered dictator exhorting his army to “purify all decisions from these [rebel] cockroaches” and to execute “any Libyan who takes arms against Libya”.

The large coalition behind the Libyan intervention, or Operation Unified Protector (OUP), was therefore aimed first and foremost at preventing what promised to be a massacre of historical proportions and, to this extent, the operation succeeded. However laudable saving Libyans from one massacre and one tyrannical leader is, however, such actions are not responsible if Western states then leave these same Libyans at the mercy of a power vacuum, where countless rival warlords and rogue militias are wreaking havoc across the country. As the great political theorist Hans Morgenthau wrote, “There can be no political morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action.”  

Uniting a divided country

If Libya was allowed to descend so quickly into chaos in the aftermath of OUP, it is mostly because the United States, alongside her allies, insufficiently understood the country – its history, its beliefs, its people(s). One would think that, after so many years of failing to establish a Western-style democracy in Iraq, the US would think twice about pulling the same stunt elsewhere in the Middle East. Even if, in all fairness, President Obama has doubtlessly been reluctant to intervene in other foreign countries, the Libyan foray shows that the government seems to have failed to learn from its past foreign policy mistakes.

Like many states on the African continent, Libya’s current political identity bears little resemblance to the cultural identity of many of the country’s inhabitants.  Historically, the country was split into three distinct regions – Tripolitania, Fezzan and Cyrenaica – before being united under King Idris into a federal state in 1951. Under Gaddafi’s rule, a constant battle was waged against tribal and regional leaders, who often carried more heft among the population than state officials. Without a strong central leader, Libya sadly reverted back to its fragmented, tribal structure, which never truly disappeared.

The question now is how to unite Libyans, in all their diversity, under one common banner so that the country can begin moving forward towards a stable society governed by law. So far, the only workable solution seems to a leftfield proposal from Libya’s current Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohamed Abdel Aziz: a constitutional monarchy. According to Abdel Aziz, instating a monarch from King Idris’ lineage would act as a “political umbrella”, serving as a “uniting symbol for the nation”.

“I am not talking about a king who rules, but about a symbolic figure like in Belgium, Britain and Spain,” Abdel Aziz told the Saudi daily Al-Hayat in April. It will be complicated politically for the United States to endorse a political system that is not based on Washington’s idealized concept of democracy, yet it is difficult to deny that the idea has its merits. After a very ideological intervention, perhaps it is time for the US to roll up its realist sleeves and give constitutional monarchy a chance.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The reason you give for NATO intervention is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, corvo

    nothing but a canard.

    The following is utter bullshit:

    Operation Unified Protector (OUP), was therefore aimed first and foremost at preventing what promised to be a massacre of historical proportions and, to this extent, the operation succeeded.
    As Gaddafi retook towns and areas during his push-back against the "rebels" towards, there were no "massacres" by his forces.
    False pretense for war in Libya?

    EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

    But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
    ...
    In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.

    I suppose you also believed the propaganda about rape and Viagra? How about babies being thrown out of incubators from 3rd story hospital windows?

    The only genocide that occurred in the country was against the Tawerghans by NATO backed Misurata rebels. They are still suffering to this very day.

    Too bad you didn't dig a little deeper into the real causes of the NATO intervention. The current situation is a direct result of these. There were many of us here in DKos that argued that the consequences of engineering regime change in Libya through the use of military force would be chaos and sectarian infighting. We have been proved correct.

    The most effective rebel forces NATO were supporting at the time have turned out to be the very ones that are now on the receiving end of bombing runs by ex(?)-CIA asset Khalifa Hifter's "Libyan National Army". This comes as no surprise to anyone understanding the background and history of the various parties to the original conflict.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site