As the picture above shows, this will be about the ongoing Libyan protests. I don’t normally post about current events because I try to avoid speculation– I don’t have the facts on hand and I don’t particularly like relying on Western media sources for analysis. Al Jazeera is a nice balance, but it’s only one source and has its own issues with “impartiality.” Additionally, I am not a Middle East watcher or political enthusiast.
With that disclaimer, I’ve been watching the Libya protests and been wondering exactly what America can do. They’re presented with two outcomes, both of which will essentially be bad for American foreign policy: either Whacky Gaddafi will win and crush the insurgents or the insurgents will win and crush Gaddafi. Yeah, it’s one of those situations. But I suppose it’s not that simple.
The Egyptian and Algeria’s “Jasmine Revolution” resolved themselves without outside intervention. This was ideal for the West and America because it precluded any kind of risky entry into a potential civil war and they could make noises about supporting democracy, peace, blah blah blah. Notice the uselessly non-committal statements made by Barry O and all the other Western leaders. And this reaction is fine and understandable– they’re not intervening into another country’s affairs. That is already problematic from a “moral” viewpoint, it’s also problematic from a global realpolitik and PR viewpoint.
Unfortunately, things aren’t so simple in Libya and the affair has become a civil war. Now America and the West are caught in a dilemna: help or not help.
It's a trap!
Let’s start by noting that this is an instance when the Iraq War is really, really biting America in the ass. I’ve been pretty non-committal about that whole thing (I could afford to be, I am Filipino and was in the Philippines) but now its legacy has been… problematic. Intervening is already difficult from a practical viewpoint, since the American armed forces are, shall we say, busy. Any kind of active intervention also risks the Americans looking like they are once again invading a Muslim country and meddling in its affairs. Gaddafi is a dictator of pretty much the same odiousness as Saddam, so it would look like Iraq Part III. From another practical viewpoint, going in would leave America with another dilemma… then what? They oust Gaddafi and are left with what? Do they try to set up a democratic government? Watch in the sidelines as the place descends into chaos as people try to fight for control? Again… Iraq Redux. The American intelligence services seem to have been caught flat-footed by all this, so there might not be any information or plans in place for a post-Gaddafi Libya.
What if America does what it is doing now– sit it out? Barry O has been sitting this one out, and the Japan disaster also has his full attention. And well it should, it’s a humanitarian nightmare and America has an obligation to its friend and ally to help– although I am not the first to notice that the Japan situation has given the US government a convenient way of taking the focus off the Libyan situation.
If Gaddafi wins and crushes the rebels, America will be accused of doing nothing and letting a potential democratic movement get killed. I say potential we don’t really know if this is what that is, after all. Again, the Iraq War bites America in the ass, because didn’t they invade Iraq with the stated intention of “spreading democracy?” I remember how all the right and neo-con pundits extolling on the virtues of spreading freedom, of how Bush kept on pushing North Korea and Iran for “rights” and democracy, how one neocon pundit even predicted that seeing a democratic Iraq would start a “flowering” of democracy in the Middle East. Well, it’s happening– and without any US help whatsoever.
An additional problem here is America’s tendency to prop up or aid dictators in the Middle East. At one point this included Saddam, but it included such delightful people as Hosni Mubarak and the Shah of Iran. The Algerian government was also closely aligned to the West. Even Gaddafi, long a pariah, has been making overtures to the West and has recently reached a surprising detente. He was, in fact, being rehabilitated and it’s rather ironic that he gets targeted by his own people now he’s been winning more acceptance with the West– look it up online and see how it culminated under the last Bush administration. Oh and let’s not forget the less than democratic regimes America continues to protect in places like Saudi Arabia. The regimes also happen to be closely tied to neoliberal economics and institutions, like the World Bank. Algeria’s regime is a nice example of this.
So clearly, America goes after dictators or regimes it finds inconvenient, like Saddam, Iran or the Kims, but keeps those it likes. However, it keeps quiet about those repressive regimes it likes and it doesn’t like potential mass movements and democratic movements it doesn’t start or control. Realpolitik– it’s understandable from a purely cynical perspective.
The obvious key here is oil, of course. The West has long preferred stable, pro-Western governments in oil-rich nations, regardless of who they are or what they do to their own people. I mean, we all read Dune, right? House Harkonnen might be evil, but the spice must flow.
Shut down all trash compactors in the detention level!
So, if Gaddafi wins, America and the West will be accused of doing nothing and letting another dictator stay in power and kill his own people. It’ll be like Saddam all over again, where the Americans let an uprising after Desert Storm get crushed– an uprising they encouraged. In a sense, I suppose it doesn’t much matter. America is already hated by much of the Arab world, what’s some more hate for pretty much the same reasons? Things can go back to business as normal for American Middle East policy and the CIA will have weathered this terrible surprise and can go back to devoutly wishing for a return of the Cold War. In such a scenario, Gaddafi will probably be overtly anti-Western in a bid to distract his people, but then how is this new?
If the rebels win WITHOUT American help, this will be remembered as well. It may well be that America would have created another base for terrorists, especially if Libya ends up unstable and in chaos after. Fortunately for America, they managed to get rid of a lot of Libya’s WMDs in the 2000s, as a condition of his returning to diplomatic respectability. Unfortunately for America, Libya has a lot of other weapons that’ll end up causing trouble for it elsewhere. I also suspect its army personnel will disperse and cause problems as they look for means to survive. It may well be that America will have to isolate a post-Gaddafi Libya, which will be ironic and incredibly disastrous for its PR.
The few noises the West has been making to help have been pretty damned useless and slow. A No-Fly Zone is largely symbolic, although this is the most aggressive push being made by any Western country (France). A No-Fly Zone means a Western country gets to fly the flag since it sends combat elements over to Libya and it gets news footage of its fighters and pilots doing something without really having to commit troops to the ground. However, this rebellion in Libya will be crushed primarily by the army on the ground. Additionally, given its history (or read Kevin Pollack’s Arabs at War) the Libyan Air Force is largely ineffectual, grounded due to bad maintenance, and undermanned, so it’s really not much of a factor anyway. Unless France and others intend to bomb Libyan Army units, then this is a useless fig leaf. Bombing is a risky course, however, because without units on the ground identifying WHAT to bomb, they might hit civilians or simply bomb the wrong military targets and be useless.
I suppose NATO could try arming these rebels, or providing them aid. This is also a risky move since there is no knowing where these arms will end up. For all we know, in the chaos after they could be used to kill and add to the misery of Libya, or they might end up being used against the West.
This is all theorizing, of course, but it’s my guess as to why the West and Obama have been largely quiet about the whole Libya fiasco. They hem and haw, they make uselessly broad statements regarding a need for order, respect for life and so forth, and they might even send a few fighters or a carrier over to make some demonstrations, but they will largely do nothing. I bet Western leaders are even secretly wishing that Gaddafi can just go ahead and win already– the business community seems to want this since oil prices go down whenever he makes signs of progress. I also bet that the American government is earnestly praying for these mass movements to just end already– they’re threatening American interests in the Middle East and what if they spread? Fundamentally, they seem to threaten the global neoliberal economic network and that is absolutely no good for the world’s political and business elites.
Let us end with this: An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?
Addendum:
As a postscript, I would like to add I personally think its would be far better for long-term stability in the Middle East if America DID just go ahead and allow or encourage genuine democratic governments in the area. A lot of the frustrations felt there, the ones they take out in America, seem to be driven by a combination of economic distress and a sense of powerlessness. Their governments tend to be oligarchies that support elites and control economics for a few, and there seems to be a sense of anger that they have no voice in how things are run (including a lack of voice in how resources are distributed or economics are structured).
If this is true, and I could be wrong, democratic movements would not only be more just (and I believe they would be), but would also mean the energies of the people in the Middle East would be directed to their own countries and systems. Instead of blaming the West due to feelings of helplessness and rage, they might direct their energies more profitably to improving their own lives and contending in their own arenas.
If I might speak briefly on my own political beliefs, I am a very staunch anti-corporatist (I did always admit to being a lefty) and a lot of the rage and anger I have seen in the world recently seemsto stem from a collective anger at becoming increasingly powerless in the face of large entities like governments and corporations that benefit a few or are completely unresponsive to individuals. Kant, right? People are not a means to an end and added to that they don’t like being treated as such. The current neoliberal capitalist economic philosophy governing the world tends to treat people as no more than economic units, and governments think of them as such. Look at Filipino Overseas Foreign Workers. The Filipino government has found that sending its people out into the world as workers has been its most viable economic strategy, so Filipinos are treated as economic units to go do other people’s menial garbage work. They have to spend time away from their families, they are treated poorly and discriminated abroad (in Italy, the word for “maid” is Filipino while in the Middle East Filipinos have their religious rights squashed and they are often maltreated). All so the Philippines can post percentages of GDP growth, and to prop up a system that tends to benefit the small upper and upper middle classes (who get to enjoy the benefits of neoliberal economics, like imported goods)– I freely admit I belong to this privileged class.
Liberté, Liberté chérie!
Governments seem to be either largely controlled by these economic interests or there is a complex union of corporate entities and governments I’m not qualified to untangle. Either way, the Philippines isn’t the only country this is happening. Look at America. The rage felt by the Tea Party and the Left I think are all one: anger at an unresponsive government and a feeling of alienation from the modern system– they just happen to be directed at different things. The rage seems to be spreading, and it’s rather amazing that the first place where it would manifest itself in such a visible manner has been the Middle East. Of all places. My guess is that the problem of unresponsive governments and people being marginalized by economic systems is that it bumps up against increasing abilities to network and communicate– thus making it harder to control and isolate people. Attempts to control or buy the Internet by various governments and corporate entities (here in America and abroad) seem to be failing and until this contradiction is worked out there will be problems.
Either way– from a larger perspective, I think it is within people’s interests to hope for democracy in the Middle East. REAL democracy, not just sponsored “elections” where there are no real choices or consequences.
Update:
Well, it looks like Whacky Gaddafi has decided on a ceasefire for now, after the passing of the UN resolution declaring a No-Fly Zone and possible air strikes. It remains to be seen what more will happen after this. Perhaps, however, Gaddafi remembers all of his disastrous run-ins with American air power and El Dorado Canyon, which almost killed him.
Posted by callitaweasel 
