Remember Libya?
Probably not.
It's OK. I understand.
Once Col. Gaddafi was removed, the world turned its
attention away from the oil-rich North African state.
During the Arab Spring, when so many good hearts convinced
themselves that democracy was breaking out in the Arab world, it was not
difficult for a French philosopher to convince the French president to
intervene on the side of democracy.
As was his wont, the American president chose to lead from
behind.
And, all of this was before the American administration sent
an ambassador into the terrorist stronghold of Benghazi, Libya without sufficient
security. Young and naïve as the administration was, the State Department, led
by one Hillary Clinton failed to assess the risk to Ambassador Stevens. And, when it learned of the attack, the administration chose to do nothing.
Que
sera sera….
To be fair, administration policy toward Libya should
be judged by the results, not by our feelings about the administration or about
French philosophers.
As was thoroughly predictable and was predicted at the time, the
situation had nowhere to go but down. As you know, if the fallout from an Obama administration
policy is bad you will be less likely to hear about it.
Now, Reuters reports:
Two-and-a-half
years after the fall of former leader Muammar Gaddafi, the oil-rich North
African state is struggling to contain violence between rival forces, with
Islamist militants gaining an ever-stronger grip on the south of the country.
Evidently, this is seriously inconvenient. The looming chaos
poses a risk to the oil supply that many western countries rely on:
But
with violent disputes between rival tribal factions disrupting exports of
Libyan oil, the lack of a stable political foundation is causing growing
concern for energy-hungry western countries, several of which were involved in
overthrowing the Gaddafi government.
So, our intervention has provoked something that resembles a
civil war. The Libyan central government is nearly powerless to stop it.
The
weak government in Tripoli is struggling to control well-armed former
anti-Gaddafi rebels and Islamist militias, while parliament was stormed by
protestors at the weekend who blamed the politicians for the growing chaos.
We need not call this the last judgment, but the situation
is clearly deteriorating.
No one in government in the US, France, or elsewhere in Europe was naive. Tales of influence by philosophers are a fig leaf for a realpolitik military intervention on behalf of Islamist radicals.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, the Islamists were perceived as the eventual winners in the battle for control of North African governments, and the western powers -- especially the European elites who enrich themselves from trade and petroleum -- wanted to back the right horse.
The best paradigm to muse might be the British Government's release of the Lockerbie bomber in exchange for a sweet deal for BP and some arms exporters. That's how this stuff works. Everything else is bunk.
Enquiring minds can start here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10206659/Lockerbie-bomber-release-linked-to-arms-deal-according-to-secret-letter.html