Looking away from Libya
Three years after U.S. and NATO forces helped liberate Libya from the dictatorship of Moammar Gadhafi, the country is beginning to look a lot like another nation where an abrupt U.S. disengagement following a civil war that led to chaos: Afghanistan in the 1990s. In Libya, heavily armed militias are battling for control of Tripoli and Benghazi, as well as the international airport. The United States, France and other Western governments involved in the 2011 military intervention evacuated their diplomats and abandoned their embassies. A U.N. mission that was supposed to help broker political accords also left.
Last month in Benghazi, the Ansar al-Sharia militia, which has ties to al-Qaida and was involved in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault that killed the U.S. ambassador there, stormed a military base and then declared the city the seat of an “Islamic emirate.” That’s what the Taliban called Afghanistan. According to The Post’s Karen DeYoung, some U.S. counterterrorism officials think Libya’s Islamists could seek to align themselves with the Islamic State, the al-Qaeda offshoot that controls western Iraq and eastern Syria. Whether or not that happens, it’s not hard to foresee eastern Libya becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks against nearby Europe or even the U.S. homeland.
U.S. and Western responsibility for this mess is heavy. Having tipped the outcome of the war against the Gadhafi regime, NATO quickly exited Libya, which was left with no army or political institutions but was awash in weapons. Repeated Libyan requests for assistance in restoring security were brushed off; a small-scale NATO training program based outside the country was little more than symbolic. As in the case of Afghanistan, Congress rejected the Obama administration’s aid requests.
Libya’s attempt to establish a working democracy, meanwhile, was overtaken by infighting among militias, which slowly polarized along an Islamist-secular divide. Libyans appear to prefer secular government: Islamists fared poorly in a parliamentary election in June. But their military forces, which include a militia from the coastal city of Misurata as well as Ansar al-Sharia, are formidable.
The Obama administration has done its best to ignore Libya’s collapse, even as Republicans in Congress obsess about conspiracy theories surrounding the 2012 Benghazi attack. Administration officials continue to peddle the empty line that “Libya’s challenges can really only be solved by the Libyans themselves,” as Secretary of State John F. Kerry put it last week. Officials point to the newly elected parliament, which convened in the eastern city of Tobruk last weekend, as a possible vehicle for a political settlement.
That’s hardly likely. Pacification of Libya would probably require another Western intervention and a peacekeeping force, coupled with a far more robust international mediation mission. The chances such an intervention will be mounted, of course, are minuscule; the Obama administration would almost certainly not endorse it.
Of course, the notion that the United States should intervene against the budding al-Qaida menace in Afghanistan during the 1990s also was dismissed as fanciful. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, recriminations were plentiful. Yet, the lessons of Afghanistan seem to have been lost in U.S. policy toward the contemporary Middle East.
— Washington Post
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Stephens Media LLC is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.