Like this:

Well, the Libya crisis, at this moment, is still in the air.  Muammar Ghadafi is still hanging on to power despite a massive uprising.  Who knows how the crisis will be resolved?  Some commentators have said they don’t see how Ghadafi can hold on to power after all of this, but my feeling is that it is still unknown, or uncertain, and it could go either way.  Another possibility is that Libya would be split into two, with the West becoming one country, and the East becoming another.

The Obama administration’s reaction so far has been fairly mild.  While Hillary Clinton has made several fairly strong statements condemning the violence (as has just about every other country, except countries with far Left regimes), I don’t think the US has gone so far, for example, as to say that Ghadafi should resign.  Obama, in his first remarks on the crisis yesterday, said that his government  was considering all options, a very vague statement that leaves observers to interpret at will.

The main thing that the international community seems to be considering at this point is sanctions on the regime, which while it may be unpleasant for Ghadafi and his entourage, is unlikely to force him from power.  With NATO also meeting to discuss the crisis, some might speculate that military intervention is being considered.  I have no idea if they would consider that or not.

Especially some of the more extreme Left, are predicting that NATO is considering an invasion.  Of course, the extreme left often says things like this, because, like Hugo Chavez and  Fidel Castro, they would see military intervention as imperialism, rather than humanitarian intervention.  In the last few years, some elements of the Left have said that an invasion of Iran is imminent, but it has not materialized.

The Obama administration has been correct so far not to get too entangled in this situation.  The region has deep public sentiment against the United States already for a wide range of issues, including the Israeli Palestinian conflict, media manipulation inside these countries by state controlled media, possibly some other military interventions such as the Reagan administration bombing of Libya… etc., etc.  Because of this underlying negative feeling for the US, it would be unwise to get involved too much on either side.  Any indication that the Obama administration was really taking an overly anti- Ghadafi stance, would immediately be used by those who support Ghadafi, to try to show that the whole things was a plot by outsiders, or imperialism, or various similar stories.  The US could be used as a whipping boy for pro-Ghadafi propaganda.

While some Libyans might ask for US military intervention now, their feelings may rapidly change when the US would actually be on the ground.  Any incident, catastrophe, or embarrassing mistake on the part of the US military, could quickly make it difficult for the US.  In addition, the US could actually make the situation worse, unintentionally, by increasing the amount of violence or escalation, for example.

The George W. Bush administration was wrong to get the US involved in so many military conflicts.  The military adventure of Bush’s regime was a disaster.  The US is still fighting a major war in Afghanistan. Hence, I can’t see any justification for the US intervening militarily in Libya.

The Libyans, hopefully can work the problem out among themselves.  Or maybe some regional players can help out.  What about Arabs helping Arabs, instead of the US or former colonial powers getting involved so much?

Unfortunately, without outside intervention, the right, or correct side of such a conflict does not always win.  The winner of such a conflict does not always come from the side which has the best ideas, or is more fair and just, but from material conditions which pre-dispose the outcome.  In many cases, revolting groups, like those in Libya, need to overcome unbelievable odds in order to succeed.

But nevertheless, this should not tempt an external power to intervene militarily, just because they think one side is more “correct” than the other.

Cheers to Al Jazeera for the excellent news coverage.

Advertisement