PREMISE
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has made her foreign policy experience a center-piece of her campaign. In particular, she has touted her stint as Secretary-of-State (2009-2013). In that period several major international events occurred. One of the most notable is the ongoing war in Libya.
Her Libyan legacy is one of thoughtless action and carelessness, of brute force. That is the subject of this article.
Background
In early February, during what has been called the “Arab Spring”, Libyans began protests in and around Benghazi. Violence erupted and loyalists forces were driven back in cities like Misrata. Defections, resignations, and other assorted acts of disintegration hastened loyalist defeat. Unrest was reported in Tripoli. Then, loyalist forces counter-attacked, aided in large part by superior arms (in particular the air-force). Continued shelling, including by naval units, drove rebel forces back.
In mid-March, the U.N. passed a resolution establishing a no-fly zone. Fighting nevertheless continued. Immediately, the no-fly zone was exploited by its principal backers (U.S., U.K., & France), who essentially became the rebel air-force. It was successful, obviously. To shorten things: the backers supplied and financed rebels, Qaddafi was lynched in the streets, and a new government was established. Democracy, constitutional crisis, & civil war, with the infamous Benghazi attack happening during this period.
Thus you have eastern-Libya governed by Tripoli’s government and western-Libya by Tobruk’s government (the recognized government), with militias and terrorists groups jumbled up all throughout the country.
Analysis
As the rebel uprising was faltering, charges that genocide was coming were levied. That accusation spurred international action to protect the people and stop the potential genocide against them.
That’s where the Clinton legacy begins.
A Just War
As Qaddafi's forces advanced, cries of genocide and potential genocide rang out to the international community.
As reported by McClatchy:
Libyan diplomats at the United Nations mission in New York and at other embassies worldwide broke with Gadhafi's regime Monday. Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's deputy U.N. representative, called on Gadhafi to resign and urged the world to speak out. The regime is committing "a real genocide against the Libyan people. Colonel Gadhafi is shooting his own people," Dabbashi said in an interview on the al Jazeera network.
The turmoil raged on the sixth day of an uprising against Gadhafi that's claimed hundreds of lives and left the second largest city, Benghazi, and other population centers on the country's eastern wing in the hands of troops who defected to the opposition and armed civilians.
As reported in Politico, by a Clinton deputy:
We knew we had a choice. We could mobilize a coalition to protect Libyan civilians from Qadhafi’s attacks, provide space for Tunisia and Egypt to stabilize, demonstrate our solidarity with key allies and partners and send a signal of our support for peaceful democratic transition. Or we could sit on the sidelines and let Libya be plunged immediately into chaos with significant consequences for the region and a massive humanitarian disaster.
However, cries of genocide were questionable.
As reported in the New York Times:
And like the chiefs of the Libyan state news media, the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.
As reported in the Independent:
An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.
As reported in the New Republic:
Human Rights Watch (HRW) also didn’t find strong evidence suggesting an impending slaughter by the time NATO intervened. “Our assessment was that up until that point, the casualty figures—around 350 protesters killed by indiscriminate fire of government security forces—didn’t rise to the level of indicating that a genocide or genocide-like mass atrocities were imminent,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division.
As an article written in Counterpunch explains, these “myths” were known early on.
JUST A WAR
The goals of the major backers of intervention were laid clear from the beginning.
As reported in Reuters:
"Through their actions, they have lost the legitimacy to govern. And the people of Libya have made themselves clear: It is time for Gaddafi to go -- now, without further violence or delay," [Clinton] told the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.
As reported in the BBC:
"I am proud to stand here on the soil of a free Tripoli and on behalf of the American people I congratulate Libya," [Clinton] said.
...
"We hope he [Col Gaddafi] can be captured or killed soon so that you don't have to fear him any longer," Mrs Clinton said.
As Leon Panetta stated:
In Libya, “the objective is to do what we can to bring down the regime of [Libyan leader Muammar] Gaddafi,” he said.
As reported in the Atlantic:
[original links included]
As I have noted often on this blog, NATO has selectively enforced the arms embargo by looking the other way when the rebels were caught red handed violating it. Furthermore, after NATO ally France was exposed by Le Figaro for violating the arms embargo by air-dropping rocket launchers, machine guns, and anti-tank grendaes to Libyan rebels, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen responded: "I don't consider the so-called arms drop a problem." Alliance spokesperson Oana Lungescu added, despite all public evidence to the contrary, that "the arms embargo is effective."
The war lobby
The main leaders for war in Libya were also clear.
As reported in the New York Times:
In joining Ms. Rice and Ms. Power, Mrs. Clinton made an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution. Libya was not vital to American national security interests, the men argued, and Mr. Brennan worried that the Libyan rebels remained largely unknown to American officials, and could have ties to Al Qaeda.
...
On Wednesday at the Security Council, Russia put forward a competing resolution, calling for a cease-fire — well short of what the United States wanted. But the French, who had been trying to get a straight no-fly resolution through, switched to back the tougher American wording. And they “put it in blue” ink — U.N. code for calling for a vote.
As reported in Rolling Stone:
Clinton also worried that if an intervention failed to remove Qaddafi, or failed to gain enough international support, it would be a blow to American credibility. But in a sign of the defense secretary's dwindling influence, Clinton began to break away from Gates and side with her former rivals, Power and Rice. "I think she had some firsthand experience that changed her views," says one official familiar with her thinking. On March 12th, before her trip to the Middle East, Clinton learned that Arab states might back an intervention in Libya. Three days later, she was rattled when a coalition of Egyptian youth groups refused to meet with her. According to several State Department officials, the snub left her thinking, "We didn't get off to such a great start with Egypt – let's reverse that with Libya."
As reported in the New Republic:
...the pivotal role played by Clinton in convincing the president to support the intervention, which was also strongly backed by then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, and Samantha Power, then serving at the National Security Council, as well as then-Senator John Kerry…
(The skeptics, who doubted that vital U.S. interests were at stake, included then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and other top national security officials.)
It should be noted that Congress was actively ignored.
As reported in Talking Points Memo:
The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.
...
Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.
...
A cross-section of Democrats and Republicans are opposed to President Obama's decision to authorize air strikes in Libya without seeking a resolution of approval or a declaration of war from Congress. Lawmakers ranging from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, have groused about not being consulted before Obama took military action.
It should also be noted that Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders continues to be critical (as mentioned above Congress never had a chance to vote one-way or another).
As reported by the Guardian:
“...criticised Clinton for carelessly fomenting regime change in Libya “without worrying” about the ensuing instability that has helped Islamic State forces take hold in the country.
“Regime change without worrying about what happens the day after you get rid of the dictator does not make a lot of sense,” Sanders said.
“I voted against the war in Iraq ... Secretary Clinton voted for that war. She was proud to have been involved in regime change in Libya, with [Muammar] Gaddafi, without worrying, I think, about what happened the day after and the kind of instability and the rise of Isis that we have seen in Libya.”
Though some Congressmen supported war.
As announced by Senator John McCain:
Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today introduced a bipartisan joint resolution authorizing the limited use of United States Armed Forces in Libya. Cosponsors include Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Mark Kirk (R-IL).
Winning the battle, losing the war
Triumphantly, Clinton boasted after loyalist defeat. Which makes sense, since Clinton’s strategy ended with the death of Qaddafi.
As reported by the Daily Beast:
In 2011, as the United States considered intervention, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among those who pushed for intervention—without resolving just how Libya would be governed after Gaddafi, according to a senior defense official who was part of the decision-making process.
...
As then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who opposed the U.S. intervention, frustratingly explained to The Daily Beast: “We were playing it by ear.”
...
Nor did Clinton or top leaders ask about unintended consequences of an air campaign, especially if it successfully ended Gaddafi’s 42-year rule, according to the senior defense official who was part of the conversation at the time. And as the country was falling apart, it seems no one in the higher reaches of Clinton’s department took note. If they did, they did not take action.
As summarized by Egypt’s President el-Sisi:
[via the Telegraph]
The Egyptian leader said he wants to see Britain and the other Nato countries that took part in the military campaign to overthrow Gaddafi help with rebuilding the country and prevent it becoming a failed state like Syria.
He said: “Libya is a danger that threatens all of us. If there is no government then this only creates a vacuum where extremists can prosper.
“It was a mission that was not completely accomplished. What happened was that Libya was left without the leadership when it needed our help most. Now we have the situation where the will of the Libyan people is being held hostage by militant groups.
“We must support all efforts to help the Libyan people and the Libyan economy. We need to stop the flow of funds and weapons and foreign fighters to the extremists. All the members of Nato – including Britain – who took part in the mission to overthrow Gaddafi need to give their help.”
However, Libya was not saved with the lynching of Qaddafi
As reported by the New York Times:
[original links included]
Each of the two coalitions now has its own rival provisional government, each riven with internal divisions.
The side that is recognized internationally, centered in the eastern cities of Tobruk and Bayda, is dominated and defined by Gen. Khalifa Hifter, 72, who once fought for Colonel Qaddafi but later broke with him to join the exiled opposition. General Hifter last year announced his own attempt at a military takeover, promising to purge Libya of both moderate and extremist Islamists.
…
The other coalition, centered in Misurata, controls the capital, Tripoli. It includes both moderate and extremist Islamists as well as Berber tribes and much of the former exiled opposition to Colonel Qaddafi — all united mainly by a fear of General Hifter.
Their battles killed more than 2,800 people last year and displaced about 400,000, according to a recent United Nations report. They have destroyed or incapacitated Libya’s two main airports, flattened districts of major cities, and disabled much of the oil and energy infrastructure. Libya, despite its oil wealth, now suffers widespread blackouts, gas lines and even shortages of cooking oil.
As per the Week:
As per usual in this region, Sunni radicals are moving in to the power vacuum. Libya now has clerical thugs like Grand Mufti Sadiq al-Ghariani issuing fatwas against women's rights. Perceived agents of "foreign" influence, many of them workers brought in by the Gadhafi regime, are being expelled or oppressed in popular uprisings. All in all, civil war tends to be a loser for minorities, women, and children.
As per the Guardian:
[original links included]
Western officials are scrambling to get authorisation for Libya airstrikes in the coming days before Islamic State captures the strategically important town of Ajdabiya, gateway to the country’s oil wealth.
Fierce fighting is raging in the town, which sits on a rocky plateau dominating the eastern oil ports. Capture will give Isis command of the Sirte basin, home to Libya’s largest collection of oilfields.
...
Western officials fear that, without Libya strikes, success in the intensified bombing of Isis in Iraq and Syria will be undone as it builds strength in north Africa. Isis is already reconfiguring globally, with volunteers from Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen moving to Libya, both by ship and along the “pipeline”, a smuggling network leading over the country’s long unguarded desert border.
As reported by NPR:
Polarization between the sides is growing, feeding extremism and the so-called Islamic State, which is in control of pockets of the country, she says. People feel stuck in the middle as politicians vie for power and resources.
"Now, in this very wealthy country, now, electricity is scarce, water comes in and out, there's a huge amount of displacement, huge fuel lines caused by the conflict," she says.
In fact, the country is in a worse situation than it was under Gadhafi, Fadel says. Militias, divided by region, by ideology, by tribe, now divide Libya, controlling what are essentially a series of city-states.
A model of success
The motive behind the Libyan war remains unclear, but not entirely invisible. Toppling Qaddafi was an important motive, as he was unpredictable, to say the least. However, there were a few others of importance, especially as Clinton was going to run for president.
As mentioned in the New Republic:
[previously cited, re-linked for convenience]
[original links included]
El Amrani thinks it was a test case for NATO’s continued relevance. Supporters of intervention, El Amrani said, thought Libya could serve as an example for the type of interventions that the international community failed to undertake in Bosnia and Rwanda in the '90s. Both Rice and Power were strong supporters of R2P (Responsibility to Protect)...“It’s almost like they wanted a model for R2P,” El Amrani said. “For these liberal internationalists, there was an ideological element that this was a test case for this kind of intervention.”
...Libya also occurred in the context of the Arab Spring, and there was a sense, as reported in a piece by Michael Hastings for Rolling Stone, that the U.S.—which was caught flat-footed in Tunisia and Egypt—wanted to get ahead of the curve. In her memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton wrote about how the Arab League’s backing of military action heavily influenced her decision to intervene, as did a March meeting with rebel opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril. And at the time, as Whitson of HRW pointed out, there was “the greatest international consensus on acting against an abusive leader than anywhere else in the world. “At that moment in time, the U.S. wanted to be on right side,” Whitson told me.
Summation
Clinton is the prototypical American politician, quick to use force, quick to act without thought, and quick to posture to always be successful.
As James Taub writes in Foreign Policy:
[emphasis added]
A President Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be more confident about the utility of force than President Obama...Clinton is a Cold War-era patriot who believes unambiguously that America is a force for good in the world. At the same time, it’s clear from conversations I had this summer with most of her senior staff members, as well as White House officials and outside advisors...Her belief in the use of American power has less to do with the humanitarian impulse to prevent injustice abroad than with the belief that only coercion works with refractory nations and leaders.
This is Sec. Clinton’s legacy, her “signature”. A country ravaged by a war based on trumped up charges, thoughtless interventionism, & irrational fears from the “consensus”; a consensus too often within a bubble around Clinton.
Remember: Actionsnotwords
John F. Kennedy: Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.