What Next for Libya? Various Opinions on the Future of a U.S.-Backed Civil War


Yay? Wait--what?

After six months of protracted fighting, U.S.- and NATO-backed Libyan rebels are finally days, not weeks, away from taking Tripoli and ousting the Gaddafi clan. Now that the initial fighting appears to be over, what happens next in this choose-your-own-adventure novel? Do we stay involved for a decade or two in order to build a successful Western-style Democracy, a la Iraq Afghanistan Grenada? Do we "cut and run"? Does President Obama get to eat cake? The blogosphere has some suggestions. Let's start with the hawks! 

American Enterprise Institute uber hawk Michael Rubin writes at Commentary that the U.S. should resist "flooding" Libya with aid (in a post at AEI, he calls for the U.S. to prioritize re-capturing Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi and securing Gaddafi's papers): 

In the name of reconstruction and development, the Pentagon, State Department, and USAID flooded both Afghanistan and Iraq with money–spurring not progress, but massive corruption. Terrorism may make headlines, but corruption has a far more corrosive effect on society. Aid and assistance can actually do more harm than good.

The State Department and USAID may want to prove their relevance, but they should also do what's right: Send the diplomats back, but keep aid to a minimum. 

NRO's Stanley Kurtz is relieved, to say the least, but still angry at Obama for "leading from behind," (one of the worst things an Obama staffer has ever said about his boss, on or off the record): 

Above all, President Obama prolonged this war by his conscious decision to "lead from behind" — to assist and orchestrate NATO's efforts, but without providing the close-in air support that could have ended the conflict far sooner. In part, Obama's policy stemmed from a reluctance to see American casualties, since low-flying close-air-support planes could have been shot down. And in part, Obama was determined that Libya should stand as a precedent for multilateral interventions under United Nations auspices, fought according to U.N. rules of war, and, implicitly, subject to the authority of the International Criminal Court.

So Qaddafi has been toppled, but only after a notably weak and unnecessarily prolonged campaign. If this is what it takes for America and its allies to dislodge an unpopular dictator in open terrain, our more dangerous potential adversaries cannot be feeling much fear right now.

At the American Spectator, John R. Guardiano argues that wars in failed or failing states aren't actually "over" until those states are stable and democratic:

[T]his, in turn, requires much-derided "nation building."

Of course, no one likes to admit that. We Americans especially prefer quick, neat and tidy wars, with a clear beginning and a clear ending. The real world, though—the world that we now live in—doesn't work that way.


[H]istory has accorded the Libyan people little opportunity to develop democratic habits and mores. And that is why, I think, it is imperative that the United States act with dispatch to aid and assist the Libyan people. "Leading from behind" won't cut it; America needs to set the example and show the way.

John Glaser at (along with Salon's Glenn Greenwald and the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney, whose opinions Nick Gillespie noted here, and Adam Serwer of The American Prospect whose post I'll note in a second) steps way, way, way back from this weekend's news to point out that American involvement in Libya is still illegal: 

More than just a military triumph, the US-NATO also lays claims of victory over the intentions of this war. That is, regime change. The US has done it again, managing to hold out long enough for everybody to forget that this war was waged in violation of the law. The US-NATO almost immediately abandoned their stated goals of protecting civilians from Gadhafi's attacks, switching to ousting him.

(Glaser also has some thoughts on nation building, which you can read here.) 

At WaPo Adam Serwer compares premature celebrations over Gaddafi's ouster to the fetes that followed Saddam Hussein's ouster from a dirty spider hole. At The American Prospect, Serwer writes

No matter how things work out in Libya, nothing will vindicate the Obama administration's decision to ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Pentagon and the Attorney General that congressional approval wasn't required for war in Libya. That decision may have serious longstanding consequences when future presidents decide to push the line even farther, pursuing far riskier and more perilous military interventions relying on the precedent Obama has set. Whatever the long term consequences of intervention in Libya, Obama has made it easier for his successors to unilaterally start wars without congressional approval.

In an incredibly morose (and shouldn't we all be?) but thoughtful post, Cato's Christopher Preble raises concerns similar to Serwer's that a loosely defined victory in Libya will forever change America's criteria for when it's acceptable to war: 

What does U.S. intervention in Libya signal for the future of U.S. foreign policy? Will U.S. warplanes soon be flying over Syria? Will U.S. bombs soon be raining down on Iran? Or on any other country that has the misfortune of being ruled by an incompetent or venal government? Once, the answer was clearly no; now we just don't know.

When President Obama chose to intervene in Libya, with authorization from the UN Security Council, but not from the U.S. Congress, he violated nearly every one of the principles of the venerable Weinberger-Powell Doctrine: the war didn't advance a vital U.S. security interest, and it lacked public support, a clear military objective, and an obvious exit strategy. It will be unfortunate if the likely outcome of the war in Libya — Qaddafi's ouster — is used to repudiate the W-P doctrine once and for all. If it does, we are likely to see even more U.S. interventions, in a whole host of places that have not even the slightest connection to U.S. national security.

Writing at Counterfire, John Rees sees Gaddafi's ouster as the perfect opportunity for NATO forces to demand safe haven for Western oil companies and military bases, and that concerned citizens in the U.S., Britain, and France should all 

immediately demand that the imperial powers live up to their own propaganda: Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama all said that this operation was simply about saving civilian lives. The course of military operations proved this false. But, nevertheless, the NATO powers should now get out of Libya. Their task, by their own definition, is over. It should be left to the Libyan people to determine their future. William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, has talked of sending troops to 'keep the peace' in Libya. That should never happen: Iraq surely shows us the kind of failure that awaits any such scheme.

More Reason on Libya

NEXT: Libya, End Zone Taunting, and the Success Curse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Maybe a Libyan back U.S. civil war?

  2. I am not immune to petty revenge fantasies. I would like to fire up the Goggle News some morning and read that the American Enterprise Institute was suddenly consumed by fire, with all hands lost.

  3. As I suggested after the conquest of Iraq, we should make Libya a state. The only real question is what it should be called. I suggest “East Dakota” or, perhaps, Gaddatucky.

    1. Gaddafichusetts


      New Clusterfuck

    2. West West Tex-Muslimo

    3. Leptismagnalahoma.

      1. Too tongue-twisty… MEGA-LAHOMA!

    4. Obamafornia.

      1. Barrackansas

    5. Libby-Yeah!, East of Java.

    6. Alobama

    7. Biden. Just call it “Biden.” Then whenever anyone says the name of that new state, Joe Biden will look around and go “Aroo?”

      1. While achieving the same effect, I prefer Heyfuckhead

        1. Nah, too many fuckheads ruin the dish. If we called it “HeyFuckHead” so many people would “Aroo” that the nation would grind to a halt.


    8. Let’s not jump the gun. It will need to be a territory first.

      I suggest “Puerto Jihado”.

      1. US 72 Virgins Island?

      2. Screw it. Let’s just rename all of them (Iraq, AG, Libya, wherever else we’re headed) to:

        US Minor Outlying Hellholes

    9. Pro Libertate, your suggestion is interesting. Perhaps we should let the Libyans vote to be a USA state, commonwealth, or independent in a year. If we set the precedent that conquered nations get to be state on equal footing with the current 50, we might temper the urge to conquer.

  4. I’m sure our support for the victorious rebellion will be positive the same way it was when we aided Ho Chi Minh, and the anti-Soviet Mujahadeen. The One is so wise, he can see all ends.

    1. Which country is the Cambodia analogue here?

        1. The Ioway Rouge.

          1. “The wheat of Iowa will be nourished with the flesh of the counterrevolutuonary.”

            1. Seems about right

      1. I think Egypt may be auditioning for the role.

        Give it time. A military dictatorship, in cahoots with Islamonutters, may find it irresistable to give their Islamonutter buddies help next door.

        1. Ye gods, can’t we just leave all of this alone?

          1. Sure, but I doubt the Egyptians will.

            1. I say give Egypt back to the Greeks.

        2. Considering that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to take over Egypt’s foreign policy through violence, you may be right R C Dean.

          From the linked article:

          Hundreds of demonstrators surrounded the embassy Monday as armored military and police officers prevented them from repeating Saturday night’s incident when rioters broke down the gate. One firebomb smashed through a front window of the embassy’s office.

  5. Whether the new regime will be any better than Ghaddafi remains to be seen. In the short term, I expect it will, but in the long term it is an open question. At best, I expect it to be similar to Lebanon’s regime, dominated by corrupt rent-seekers making deals with corrupt clerics. At worst, we could be longing for the Colonel and his merry madmen.

    In any case, I do not expect the new regime’s good feelings to the west to last any longer than it takes for the aircraft carriers to get out of range.

    So we are left with the question: Was it worth the lives of the Ghaddafi loyalists and the rebel fighters? More: Was it worth the lives of the poor souls caught in the middle who wanted nothing more than to earn their daily bread and have pita with the family around the TV while watching Dallas reruns but instead lost their lives, their families and their homes?

    1. At best, I expect it to be similar to Lebanon’s regime, dominated by corrupt rent-seekers making deals with corrupt clerics clerks.

      Speaking of New York City …

  6. Uh, the Lockerbie bomber did not escape from British custody, so snatching him off the street would not be a “re-capture”, it would be a kidnapping. He already did his time in accordance with the laws and criminal justice system of the jurisdiction in which he broke the law.

    1. Kill him with a drone, then. That’s apparently legal.

    2. True.

      But I still would weep to find him hanging from a lamp-post some morning.

    3. He killed Americans. Can we not try him for that?

      1. R C Dean, I think the international rule of thumb is to try the crime only in the jurisdiction where it took place unless that jurisdiction is run by an unjust government. The UK has a just legal system, so I don’t think we should try him again.

  7. I eagerly await the day when China files the serial numbers off of the “regime change doctrine” and reduces Taiwan, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam, to rubble just to bring them under the control of the PRC.

  8. Meet the new Boss, say as the old boss!

  9. This “uprising” was in all likelihood a joint US-UK intelligence community operation. Little is known of the “rebels” and their ideology. However, a permanent NATO presence and access to oil by the multinationals seems quite likely. Whoever they are, they will still need to sell the oil. somehow.

    1. Um, the West already had access to the oil under Gaddafi.

  10. Let the oil conspiracy theories begin.

    1. The Libral rule of thumb is simple: If a Republican president starts a war, it’s because the president is evil. If a Democrat president starts a war, it’s because of oil.

  11. Libya should be partitioned and the west half, including Tripoli, folded into Tunisia. The remainder ceded to Egypt.

    1. Oh yeah! That’ll keep everyone peacefully contented.

  12. Wha we should do is pretend Lybia is Tunisia or Egypt, and stay out of it.

    Yes, the rebels wouldn’t have won without our help, but remember this all started as part of the “Arab Spring”.

    It’s just a much longer, more bloody, more protacted springtime than occured elsewhere.

    The best thing to do is to quickly forget about the bombing campaign and the involvement of NATO and the US, and put this back on track as part of a larger Arab revolt.

    1. + 10 to Hazel Meade

  13. A Mr Kurtz has something to say derogatory to say about Africans?

    I’m shocked!

    Or is it Col. Kurtz telling us how to effectively wage a rogue war?

    The horror! The horror!

  14. Would be nice if we got some lower gas prices out of the deal!

  15. In the name of reconstruction and development, the Pentagon, State Department, and USAID flooded both Afghanistan and Iraq with money?spurring not progress, but massive corruption.

    I guess we could have predicted the results of the stimulus packages from the results of Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s reconstruction.

  16. The opening speeches at the UN General Assembly this September are going to be awkward. What if the rebels don’t capture Gadaffi and he shows up like the uncle you purposely didn’t invite to your wedding?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.