So far, the war in Lybia has been interesting to me for several reasons. The first is simple: It is a part of a regime change movement that seems to be sweeping through that part of the world - but which I think actually echoes recent events here in the US; the second is that it is an awkward situation and I want to know what is going to happen; and the third reason is because I find the US involvement to be an interesting dynamic change internationally.
Let me explain...
1) Echoes of the U.S.
For those who have not paid attention to the news, here is the simplified simple version: certain areas in the Middle East and Africa are undergoing everything from simple demonstrations to outright civil war. While each area has it's own special circumstances, most of them revolve around some similar aspects. Specifically (among other things) a pro-democratic movement (though pro-democratic must not be equated with a movement for westernization - something we forget sometimes), and a call for a regime change from primarily long standing rulers.
Now, why do I draw a parallel between that and anything that has happened recently in the US? We didn't go through a revolution where many people wanted more democracy lately. Or have we? I would say that, in our own special way, we have. We didn't have a civil war, or try to create a new government in the same sense that these countries are now doing, but we had some equivalencies.
The Bush regime (speaking of both the father and the son's differing regimes together) essentially led the country for 12 out of 20 years. It's 30 years shy of Gaddafi's regime in Lybia, but for a nation that is used to 4 - 8 years, it's still a bit of time. Towards the end of that time period, the approval rating for Bush dropped to an all time low. A form of media warfare (from twitter, to facebook, to the news) was waged against him and his regime. A challenger stepped up to the plate and promised "Change" - managing to unite members of the nation from all styles of life, religions, and political backgrounds. Protests were held where people wanted our government to undergo a restructuring of sorts, etc. The basic parallels continue without me writing them all down.
Perhaps it is a far cry from what is going on in other areas of the world, and I'm out on a limb. But I think it warrants at least a little bit of study to see what relationship may actually be there. If I decide to do so then I'll keep the blog updated about it.
2) The Situation
Now I, for simple reasons of time and space, can't write about everything that is going on that I find interesting. But let me hit at least a few of the high points...
Lybia, for example, isn't an easy situation. Why? Well... Read the news. First, we have a person in power who we don't want in power. Why don't we want him in power? Well, the list is rather long and includes everything from his tendency to take anger out on other nations by organizing terrorist attacks (officially he condemns terrorism now, but that is mainly just because it makes political sense for him to say that - not because he had an epiphany about how terrorism is wrong and he shouldn't do it); to doing things like broadcasting public executions of individuals who spoke out against his regime and said they want something else (like democracy). Just a look at how his military is acting right now (killing civilians for sport, raping women, etc) in their fight against the rebels says a bit about his regime.
So, we aid the rebels, right? Well, that probably isn't a good idea on several fronts. The U.S. has discovered through hard experience that the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. We have trained and armed rebels in other countries only to have it blow up in our faces when those rebels decide to do something like killing a lot of innocent civilians (among other things, go read some history for more examples).
To make matters worse, the rebels don't really have any group or structure. They are not a political party that wants to take over the country. They have no real aims or goals other than to overthrow Gaddafi. What will they do once they succeed? They are not currently equipped to run a nation - and leaving a nation in chaotic disorder would be worse than leaving Gaddafi in power.
Lybia has other concerns as well... Examples: A large number of Al Qaida members came from, and returned to, Lybia. Installing a new government would possibly put more Al Qaida members and sympathizers in power. But what if Gaddafi remains in power? How does he strike back against nations which assembled against him - especially those near him? Terrorism? What if we arm the rebels and the advanced arms we give them fall into Gaddafi's hands or worse yet, Al Qaida's?
The final big reason why we can't just "jump in" and fix things (setting aside feasibility issues) is the plain fact that we have discovered that such things don't always work very well (Iraq for example). It isn't as easy for us as we would like it to be, and, to be straight, most nations don't like it when we start acting Imperialistic, ignore such things as national sovereignty, and just jump in and tell other nations what to do.
So, we send in airstrikes and enforce a no fly zone so that Gaddafi can't just wipe out and terrorize the rebels and their supporters. And we let them fight it out. Supposedly. My personal opinion is that we won't just completely sit back and watch. We will try to fly under the radar as much as we can in an attempt to help the rebels, but we will help them (though I doubt that we will send any troops over there unless the situation changes). A new democratic regime is always going to be something that we will try to support and push for. I would guess that we will push the rebels a bit to gain cohesiveness - both as a fighting group, and as a political movement. We will help them win - but only as much as we absolutely must, and will try to get them to form some sort of governing body that can take over once the regime change has been completed (should it be successful). Of course, we really don't have an exact exit strategy yet - but that's my prediction.
The worst thing that could, in the end, occur? In my opinion, is chaos. Put a nation in chaos for long enough and eventually they will turn to whoever can add some order - and quite often that can be a group worse than the one just removed. In Lybia as in Yemen (Where a large group of Al Qaida (Al Qaia on the Arabian Peninsula - AQAP) exist), if they fight too long and are left in chaos then eventually someone will step in to save the day - and there are plenty of unsavory characters who would like to do just that.
3) The Status Quo
So, with the enforcement of the no fly zone in Lybia, came a rather interesting shift in the status quo and international relations. This is what I find the most interesting to be honest... We stepped out and let someone else take over. Seems simple enough, right? I seriously doubt it. Stepping out allowed for some seriously needed retake of soft power - or at least that seems to be the thought. Will it work? Perhaps. But I don't think it will just give us more soft power. I think there is going to be a bit of a give and a take. There are plenty of nations out there who have been itching to get out from under the thumb of the United States. Even some of the nations that have played along nicely would like to get the U.S. to back off. By backing off so easily, I am afraid that some of those nations will now get the idea that they can push the U.S. around. Some will be glad to step in and show that they can do the job without help from the U.S. I don't see anything wrong with that for the moment. But what about the nations that see this as a bit of a political retreat and think that they now have room to maneuver and start making demands of us? Some would say that this is a good thing. Some would say that the gain in soft power is worth it. I'm not sure about either. What I am sure about is that the status quo has changed. Some places will see a gain in U.S. soft power because of it, some nations may even become better allies because of it, but some nations will see this as a part of a turning point and will start fighting for the power that the U.S. left when it stepped aside - and those nations may make themselves a nuisance in the future. ...of course, I'm no political forecaster so feel free to ignore me...
On a Different Note
I didn't want to blog to terribly much about the Quran burning and the protests and deaths which resulted, but I have to say, who in their right mind thought that this was a good idea? Let's attack an entire religion why don't we (while some may argue that it wasn't a religious attack, I don't see how they have a foot to stand on, what else was it if not a religious attack?). The thing I think is most interesting is what the Quran was "found guilty" of: "Crimes against humanity"; "the death, rape and torture of people worldwide whose only crime is not being of the Islamic faith"; and the promulgation of terrorism.
Now, I'm no expert, but I do read my bible every day, and I think that few biblical scholars could argue with me when I say that the bible would probably be found guilty of the same basic things. Look at the history of Christianity and tell me that it isn't filled with such acts. That is not how Christ taught to act... but then again, He did teach things like: Brotherly love; turning the other cheek; praying for those who hated you; etc. And, while I do not recall any time that Christ taught that we should burn the things that our neighbor feels are sacred, I do recall him teaching such things as loving your neighbor and reaching out to him. I have a feeling that if this group had reached out in some way to, say, a nearby Muslim group, it would have done far more to promote Christlike values. Instead, we have protests to worry about and burials to attend.
My suggestion? Let's not do stupid things like this anymore... We can do better.
Sean
You spelled Libya wrong. And there is a difference between its and it's.
ReplyDelete