The Aftermath of Destabilizing Libya

[Uncle Hotep]

This is why Obama didn't move for regime change in Syria. His entire cabinet was telling him to make a move against Assad in Syria and Obama hit them with the . He saw what Libya was and didn't want his legacy be tarnished with two failed states in MENA. I blame Sarkozy more because he really forced for an intervention in Libya.

instead he gave al nusra weapons and hoped they could get the job done. I would have rather him send in the marines then give weapons to unsavory characters

 

[Birnin Zana]

Libya is unquestionably a disaster and failed state, and while the West deserves some of the blame, so does Gaddafi himself. The guy ruled the country for 40 plus years and didnt leave a single institution that could survive after his departure.

The U.S. and NATO knew all this and proceeded with the intervention anyway, without a plan for what happens after Gaddafi is out. One can even question the wisdom of deposing Gaddafi in the first place. Gaddafi made plenty of mistakes and bad things but his ouster was triggered by foreign forces. The blame for Libya's current condition lays on them.

Final thought, how come people dont discuss the relatively succesful interventions of the past? Theyre always an option of last resort in a bad situation but I dont buy the dogma that theyre always doomed to disaster. Off the top of my head in Africa alone, there are interventions that ended up OK:

-ECOWAS intervention to oust Jammeh
-UN (and French-backed) intervention to oust Gbagbo
-Nyerere's intervention to oust Idi Amin

When people talk negatively about intervention, they usually refer to the US. The U.S. is often nefarious when enacting interventions and/or regime change. On top of that, the U.S. doesn't have much of a success rate on interventions as of late.

Notice that the successful interventions you mentioned involved regional countries. ECOWAS intervening in Gambia makes sense: they are Gambia's neighbor and thus have way stronger ties and a much better idea of how things work there. Whatever happens in Gambia can directly impact their nations. Same principle applies with Nyerere actions concerning Idi Amin.

With the U.S, however, they intervene in countries that are thousands of miles away and who's ties are nowhere as solid as the ties the country being intervened has with it's neighbors. This results in disasters like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, as well as very costly never-ending conflicts like Afghanistan (Afghanistan is a bit more complicated than that, but there are many similarities to other interventions).

 

[Birnin Zana]

This is why Obama didn't move for regime change in Syria. His entire cabinet was telling him to make a move against Assad in Syria and Obama hit them with the . He saw what Libya was and didn't want his legacy be tarnished with two failed states in MENA. I blame Sarkozy more because he really forced for an intervention in Libya.

He did try though. Difference is, he went along with the plan of empowering several opposing forces--including jihadists--that were against Assad. Even though he didn't go all way like he did in Libya via US strikes, Syria became a shyt-show and the conflict triggered a major refugee crisis.

Only reason Assad survived was Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah intervening. Especially Russia. Ironically, the events of Libya was a big reason why Russia stepped in.

 

[thatrapsfan]

The U.S. and NATO knew all this and proceeded with the intervention anyway, without a plan for what happens after Gaddafi is out. One can even question the wisdom of deposing Gaddafi in the first place. Gaddafi made plenty of mistakes and bad things but his ouster was triggered by foreign forces. The blame for Libya's current condition lays on them.



When people talk negatively about intervention, they usually refer to the US. The U.S. is often nefarious when enacting interventions and/or regime change. On top of that, the U.S. doesn't have much of a success rate on interventions as of late.

Notice that the successful interventions you mentioned involved regional countries. ECOWAS intervening in Gambia makes sense: they are Gambia's neighbor and thus have way stronger ties and a much better idea of how things work there. Whatever happens in Gambia can directly impact their nations. Same principle applies with Nyerere actions concerning Idi Amin.

With the U.S, however, they intervene in countries that are thousands of miles away and who's ties are nowhere as solid as the ties the country being intervened has with it's neighbors. This results in disasters like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, as well as very costly never-ending conflicts like Afghanistan (Afghanistan is a bit more complicated than that, but there are many similarities to other interventions).

Even in the U.S. case their intervention in the Balkans met its intended effect ( even though the losing side remain embittered). The country didnt fall apart either. The politics remains polarized but that would be the case with or without intervention.

I agree that regional countries/orgs would be preferable if possible - they usually have more "skin" in the game. But you overlooked the examples of clear Western intervention in Africa that worked out moderately well ( British intervention in Sierra Leone to keep fragile elected government in power) as well as France's role in the intervention against Gbagbo that ended a political deadlock in that country and has so far put it in the path towards recovery. In all examples residual political polarization remains, but the interventions overall led to a turn for the better.


Another thought - why is it only American intervention that leads to outpouring and very strong reactions? You mention Syria, but I think its pretty clear that the most significant direct American intervention there was direct towards ISIS and not the regime. Syria is a perfect example of what I mean. Russia and Iran directly intervened there, have contributed thousands of soldiers, foreign militia, military hardware, and airstrikes towards maintaining Assad - yet few in the anti-war/left even spoke of this as an intervention? Cant have it both ways.

 

[hashmander]

libya is europe's fault. obama and susan rice wanted no part of that and originally told them we don't want any part of your shyt show. but europe knew there would be pressure to back our allies so they said just give us air support and we'll do the heavy lifting on the ground and nation build after. well france and the UK loved the libyan people greeting them as liberators, but then said fukk it when it came to nation building.

and you have to question the agenda of a writer who is suggesting that toppling the libyan dictator is bad AND not toppling the syrian dictator is bad. he wants it to be one way, but it's the other way. i think both moves would be bad. i say leave muslim dictators alone, the people they rule are worse. this clown wrote an inconsistent piece that basically said whatever the obama administration did, i'll argue the opposite even if i look unprincipled. even if we didn't provide europe with air support libya would be a mess somehow and not taking him out would be argued as foreign policy failure.

 

[Birnin Zana]

Even in the U.S. case their intervention in the Balkans met its intended effect ( even though the losing side remain embittered). The country didnt fall apart either. The politics remains polarized but that would be the case with or without intervention.

I agree that regional countries/orgs would be preferable if possible - they usually have more "skin" in the game. But you overlooked the examples of clear Western intervention in Africa that worked out moderately well ( British intervention in Sierra Leone to keep fragile elected government in power) as well as France's role in the intervention against Gbagbo that ended a political deadlock in that country and has so far put it in the path towards recovery. In all examples residual political polarization remains, but the interventions overall led to a turn for the better.

The problem is we can name many other interventions / regime change done by or heavily influenced by the U.S. and the West that had negative results. Liberia, Congo-Kinshasa, Libya (the most recent one). Liberia resulted in a long, long conflict. Congo-Kinshasa resulted in Mobutu being in power. We all know what happened in Libya. Those are just the ones on top of my head.

Yes, there have been some interventions by the west that produced some positive results, or at least very little negative results. Problem is when interventions go bad, they often go very bad and for a long time.

In Libya's case, we now have a failed state and an intervention/regime change that has long-lasting negative consequences for Africa, Europe, and the Middle East directly. Add the fact that this occurred not even 8 years ago and that it comes not long after Iraq and it'll rightfully overshadow positive interventions by the west for a long, long time.

Another thought - why is it only American intervention that leads to outpouring and very strong reactions? You mention Syria, but I think its pretty clear that the most significant direct American intervention there was direct towards ISIS and not the regime. Syria is a perfect example of what I mean. Russia and Iran directly intervened there, have contributed thousands of soldiers, foreign militia, military hardware, and airstrikes towards maintaining Assad - yet few in the anti-war/left even spoke of this as an intervention? Cant have it both ways.

America has a rep for interventions. It's been doing it for decades all over the world with often costly results for citizens of said countries and even US troops.

As for Syria, the U.S, Saudi Arabia and others were indirectly--and sometimes directly--trying to depose Assad. The U.S. in particular was in favor of Assad being out and made that quite clear. Meanwhile, Russia and Iran, neighbors of Syria with long ties with the Syrian government and the Assad family, were requested by Assad to step in, long after the war already started.

One side wants the local government gone, while the other sided with the local government, at the local government's behest. Add the fact that the war in Syria resulted in similar results like Libya for a while and thus many people don't consider Russia and Iran's actions the same as recent US interventions.

Biggest difference between Libya and Syria is that Russia and Iran prevented the Assad government from collapsing. If the opposite occurred, there's a possibility Syria could've turned into another Libya.

 

[BoBurnz]

Pretty much this.

Clinton and Obama get to take blame for this regardless of your position on Kaddafi.

They tried to dance around both sides of it. Nah, when you're involved with removing a dictator from power you can't then just go "aight peace" and ignore the power vacuum. You need to invest the time and effort and bodies in to stabilizing the region.

Libya becoming a cluster fukk is the biggest reason they were probably looking at Syria like

You can't create a gap and not expect the dregs that the dictator was keeping down to not jump for it. Kaddafi was a bad man, but replacing him with nothing was far worse for the country than just leaving the rebels to figure shyt out themselves.

 

[Anerdyblackguy]

I have no idea why you guys are blaming Obama for this. It seems people failed to remember that Nicholas Sarkozy led the charge not Obama and it made sense sinceThe U.S had nothing to gain from this ( we weren’t relying on the Shale oil from Libya) and the French had everything to gain from this ( they were Libya biggest European trade partner). Nicholas Sarkozy saw an opportunity once the Arab spring happened, not Obama.

In fact, Obama allowed the French to take the lead on this because America was war weary with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blaming Obama is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Birnin Zana]

I have no idea why you guys are blaming Obama for this. It seems people failed to remember that Nicholas Sarkozy led the charge not Obama and it made sense sinceThe U.S had nothing to gain from this ( we weren’t relying on the Shale oil from Libya) and the French had everything to gain from this ( they were Libya biggest European trade partner). Nicholas Sarkozy saw an opportunity once the Arab spring happened, not Obama.

In fact, Obama allowed the French to take the lead on this because America was war weary with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blaming Obama is intellectually dishonest.

Sarkozy lead the way knowing that the US had his back. No way would he act this boldly otherwise.

Could you imagine Sarkozy and Cameron trying to convince the French, Brits and Europeans in general that going to Libya was a good idea without the support of Obama, who was a very popular politician across Europe back then (and still is)? Sakozy in particular would look like a complete fool.

Obama should've known better than to not only cosign the plan to go to Libya, but to remotely trust Sarkozy of all people to hold his end of the bargain. More importantly, why did Obama sign off on the plan and express his support for it when there wasn't even a clear plan for life after Gaddafi?

The blame isn't solely on Obama, but he def has to bare his end of the blame, especially as the president and the de facto leader of NATO at the time.

 

[the cac mamba]

Oh.

Oh.

Oh.

First result:

Why the president needs to be white, male and Republican: Glenn Reynolds

"With a black Democrat in the White House, those organs have often been loath to criticize the president themselves, and swift to assume that anyone who does offer criticism is partisan, and probably a racist to boot. But with a white male Republican in the White House, all criticisms will be presumed valid."

 

[thatrapsfan]

The problem is we can name many other interventions / regime change done by or heavily influenced by the U.S. and the West that had negative results. Liberia, Congo-Kinshasa, Libya (the most recent one). Liberia resulted in a long, long conflict. Congo-Kinshasa resulted in Mobutu being in power. We all know what happened in Libya. Those are just the ones on top of my head.

Yes, there have been some interventions by the west that produced some positive results, or at least very little negative results. Problem is when interventions go bad, they often go very bad and for a long time.

In Libya's case, we now have a failed state and an intervention/regime change that has long-lasting negative consequences for Africa, Europe, and the Middle East directly. Add the fact that this occurred not even 8 years ago and that it comes not long after Iraq and it'll rightfully overshadow positive interventions by the west for a long, long time.



America has a rep for interventions. It's been doing it for decades all over the world with often costly results for citizens of said countries and even US troops.

As for Syria, the U.S, Saudi Arabia and others were indirectly--and sometimes directly--trying to depose Assad. The U.S. in particular was in favor of Assad being out and made that quite clear. Meanwhile, Russia and Iran, neighbors of Syria with long ties with the Syrian government and the Assad family, were requested by Assad to step in, long after the war already started.

One side wants the local government gone, while the other sided with the local government, at the local government's behest. Add the fact that the war in Syria resulted in similar results like Libya for a while and thus many people don't consider Russia and Iran's actions the same as recent US interventions.

Biggest difference between Libya and Syria is that Russia and Iran prevented the Assad government from collapsing. If the opposite occurred, there's a possibility Syria could've turned into another Libya.

Good post, I’ll have more to add after I think about it when I’m at home but few more thoughts:

- The situation is almost reversed in Yemen compared to Syria, where the Saudis intervened to maintain the internationally recognized Government but again the responses to that intervention are very different than in Syria from left/antiwar circles. Yes the Saudi air campaign has been brutal and indiscriminate but so has Russia’s air campaign yet the former draws much more rebukes. Much like Iran/Russia the Saudis see Yemen as their sphere of influence and their motivations behind the intervention were almost identical, as was the way the intervention was initiated( Hadis government invited them). The retort often is is Hadis government wasn’t popular etc but the same can be said about Assad

-In my view Syria is just as bad as Libya. The country has produced many more refugees, caused much more deaths, lead to more destruction in infrastructre and the society is just as polarized and divided permanently. Regardless of how this war ends, an Assad “victory” will *not* lead to the reconstitution of a functioning country by any stretch of the imagination. Just the other day Iran appealed for the legalization of its militia presence in the country, indicating they see a long term permanent role in the country. This isn’t even touching what the future will hold for the Kurdish regions, for Idlib were populations opposed to Assad have been dumped etc The country is literally a shell and there’s little to be optimistic about compared to Libya.

-A lot of the proxy wars and interventions that shaped the Cold War era were disastrous and the US was indeed on the wrong side of many of those conflicts. That being said IMO Africa in particular and role of international powers there has changed a lot since that time.

Anyway I’ll add more later but thanks for the good reply.

 

[ZoeGod]

Ultimately there will be another strongman to take over Libya. Europe isnt going to allow Libya be 1990s Somalia of the Mediterranean because that will destabilize Europe and empower right wing white nationalist parties. General Haftar has support from Egypt,UAE,Saudi Arabia, Russia and some in western Europe(Macron). He has a strong army and is being equipped and trained by many of these nations. I predict once his army takes much of Libya he will run for president in Libya and with support of the military will be president for life.

 

[ZoeGod]

Good post, I’ll have more to add after I think about it when I’m at home but few more thoughts:

- The situation is almost reversed in Yemen compared to Syria, where the Saudis intervened to maintain the internationally recognized Government but again the responses to that intervention are very different than in Syria from left/antiwar circles. Yes the Saudi air campaign has been brutal and indiscriminate but so has Russia’s air campaign yet the former draws much more rebukes. Much like Iran/Russia the Saudis see Yemen as their sphere of influence and their motivations behind the intervention were almost identical, as was the way the intervention was initiated( Hadis government invited them). The retort often is is Hadis government wasn’t popular etc but the same can be said about Assad

-In my view Syria is just as bad as Libya. The country has produced many more refugees, caused much more deaths, lead to more destruction in infrastructre and the society is just as polarized and divided permanently. Regardless of how this war ends, an Assad “victory” will *not* lead to the reconstitution of a functioning country by any stretch of the imagination. Just the other day Iran appealed for the legalization of its militia presence in the country, indicating they see a long term permanent role in the country. This isn’t even touching what the future will hold for the Kurdish regions, for Idlib were populations opposed to Assad have been dumped etc The country is literally a shell and there’s little to be optimistic about compared to Libya.

-A lot of the proxy wars and interventions that shaped the Cold War era were disastrous and the US was indeed on the wrong side of many of those conflicts. That being said IMO Africa in particular and role of international powers there has changed a lot since that time.

Anyway I’ll add more later but thanks for the good reply.

Comparing Hadi to Assad is a bit of a stretch. Hadi was and is widely unpopular. And he was vastly unpopular in the south where he was from. Assad just like his father created a coalition of minorities to back him(Alawites,Druze,Christians) plus he had massive support from the Sunnis buisness class. Did they like Assad? Hell no but they feared the sunni opposition more.
Hadi's support base is rather pathetic. He has support in a minority of the Yemen military (majority of the Yemeni military sided with the Houthis), Yemen Muslim Brotherhood ragtag militias who don't care about Hadi and South Yemeni secessionist movement(who want independence). Hence why the Saudis are struggling to win in Yemen while Russia and Iran were sucessful so far in Syria. Assad has a support base. The battle of Aleppo showed that. The rebels were from the Aleppo countryside and slums but couldn't make a dent into the regime controlled West Aleppo even before Russia intervened. Hadi in the other hand was widely hated by everyone. Even the pro Hadi fighters hate him. In Syria the Alawites and Christians truly believed they were fighting a war of survival.

 

[thatrapsfan]

Comparing Hadi to Assad is a bit of a stretch. Hadi was and is widely unpopular. And he was vastly unpopular in the south where he was from. Assad just like his father created a coalition of minorities to back him(Alawites,Druze,Christians) plus he had massive support from the Sunnis buisness class. Did they like Assad? Hell no but they feared the sunni opposition more.
Hadi's support base is rather pathetic. He has support in a minority of the Yemen military (majority of the Yemeni military sided with the Houthis), Yemen Muslim Brotherhood ragtag militias who don't care about Hadi and South Yemeni secessionist movement(who want independence). Hence why the Saudis are struggling to win in Yemen while Russia and Iran were sucessful so far in Syria. Assad has a support base. The battle of Aleppo showed that. The rebels were from the Aleppo countryside and slums but couldn't make a dent into the regime controlled West Aleppo even before Russia intervened. Hadi in the other hand was widely hated by everyone. Even the pro Hadi fighters hate him. In Syria the Alawites and Christians truly believed they were fighting a war of survival.

Sure Hadi was unpopular but I’m not sure that does enough to account for differences in analysis/reaction. My fathers family is from Aden (South Yemen) and I can tell you for a fact that majority of South is pro Saudi-UAE intervention, even though they also dislike Hadi. Yet you will never hear anyone mention this in defense of their intervention, as people do in Syria with Assad’s pockets ignored support. In fact the UAE in particular probably is the most popular political actor in South Yemen right now because theyve been aligning with secessionists and local admin throughout the region. Point being the support and opposition of the intervention is as complex as it is in Syria, yet very diverging analysis.

 

[88m3]