The Libya Mess

As the military intervention in Libya by the “coalition of the willing” led by Britain, France and the US moves towards its second week, all of the divisive issues inherent in such an adventure are starting to appear. The support (however tepid) from the Arab League and the UN Security Council, which was garnered through diplomatic groundwork by the US and its western allies, is starting to splinter. This was eminently predictable as no amount of war planning survives the first contact with the enemy.
The Obama administration was clearly reluctant to resort to military intervention in support of the rebel factions allied against Muammar Qaddafi and his nasty regime. They were wrestling with legitimate and difficult questions about the availability of resources, the reaction of the Arab and Islamic world to another western attack on an Arab/Muslim country, the effectiveness of a “no fly zone” and the possibility that even a successful military campaign would result in a positive political outcome. In Washington the political pressure to “do something” (In this case fanned by the same neo-conservative hawks who got us into the Iraq mess.) is intense. Faced with this growing pressure Obama decided to move forward with the military option.
As the initial “shock and awe” campaign rapidly devolves into a stalemate, these questions, so far unanswered, still remain. The US is attempting to resolve the resource problem by rapidly turning the lead responsibility over to Britain and France. They, however, have grown used to the US bailing them out and are quickly getting cold feet. As civilian casualties (real and manufactured) are mounting, the Arab and Muslim support is fading.
The “no fly zone” appears to have hampered Qaddafi’s military capability and reenergized the rebels allowing them to make up some lost ground. There is no sign, however, that they will be able to defeat Qaddafi’s forces and drive him from power if he is determined to remain. Absent the coalition committing substantial ground forces to the conflict, it appears that we are in for a long ugly mess.
One possibility for resolving this is to persuade Qaddafi that he has stolen enough money from the Libyan people and can go off to a comfortable retirement. He could even take his female bodyguards, his five star Bedouin tent and his personnel masseuse with him. Even this outcome is problematic as Qaddafi has destroyed all Libyan civil society and will leave behind no institutions capable of filling the power vacuum. As a result, all of the tribal, sectarian and ethnic rivalries will come to the surface.
As the Obama administration considered their policy options they forgot, or chose to ignore, the fact that these interventions are a lot easier to get into than they are to get out of.

Photo by Al Jazeera English

Technorati Tags: Libya,Middle East

Wave of Change II

As the democracy movement moves like a tsunami wave across the Middle East and North Africa, observers of the regional dynamics are asking themselves “Where next”. While I was traveling through the Arabian Gulf region over the past 2 ½ weeks, this question was particularly relevant. The answers impacted our travel plans as stops in Bahrain and Salalah, Oman were canceled as a result of unrest and pirate activity.
To understand the dynamics influencing these dramatic changes, it is helpful to look at the common factors that are driving the uprising and they are many. The most identifiable factors are:
· Large youthful populations
· High unemployment – particularly among the youth
· Corrupt, autocratic governments
· Controlled press with no freedom of expression
· Harassment of opposition leaders and fraudulent elections.
As these youthful populations have finally said “enough is enough” and risen up to demand change, the autocrats have reacted in similar ways to the challenges to their entrenched regimes.
Step one – Ignore the protests
Step two – Send in thugs
Step three – Crack down on media
Step four – Make ridiculous concessions
Step five - Blame outside forces
Step six – Leave
In an effort to balance support for democracy (which will lead to governments unfriendly to US policy) with support of so called “moderate” Arab autocratic governments, the US has also reacted in similar ways to the uprisings.
Step one – Call for both sides to be peaceful
Step two – Call for dialogue
Step three – Call for reform
Step four – Call for peaceful transition
Step five – The dictator must leave
This balancing act has succeeded in making everybody mad. There have been two early indicators of this change in attitude toward US policies in the region. Shortly after the military government took power in Egypt and attempted to respond to the demands of the protesters, Iran asked for permission for warships to transit the Suez Canal. Under the Mubarak regime, Egypt would have responded to US/Israel labeling this request “provocative” by denying permission. The new government promptly approved it. A week later, the Palestinian Authority submitted a resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlement building. In the past the US would have asked its friendly autocrats to quietly withdraw the resolution and not force the US to be embarrassed by vetoing its own policy. The Arabs refused and the US was forced to veto the resolution in a 14-1 vote. These indicators show that, whatever the outcome of the uprisings, life will be more difficult for US policy makers.
(Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera)

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Egypt