And whose brilliant idea was it to destroy Libya which, with its problems, was still one of the most developed, stable and successful Arab states....?
32
Libya was once two states. It can be again.
I think the real message here is that the best thing the West could do is put a massive halt on immigration from the Middle East/North Africa and aggressively work toward energy independence. If the ME/NA wants to duke it out over who the hidden Imam is, I say we let them have at it and wash our hands of the entire region.
I think the real message here is that the best thing the West could do is put a massive halt on immigration from the Middle East/North Africa and aggressively work toward energy independence. If the ME/NA wants to duke it out over who the hidden Imam is, I say we let them have at it and wash our hands of the entire region.
5
Boy oh boy! That Arab Spring sure was something, eh?
Most every place where those "protests" erupted in 2011 has since devolved into chaos and lawlessness.
Makes me wonder whether al-Qaida helped organize and pull all those cell phone-toting young people together, knowing full well that the ensuing protests would topple governments and leave an opening through which terrorists could seize power.
Most every place where those "protests" erupted in 2011 has since devolved into chaos and lawlessness.
Makes me wonder whether al-Qaida helped organize and pull all those cell phone-toting young people together, knowing full well that the ensuing protests would topple governments and leave an opening through which terrorists could seize power.
16
We're finally taking about "power sharing?" We had a chance at power sharing in Iraq, and bungled that one miserably, giving rise to the disenfranchisement that fed ISIS. We had a chance at power sharing in Syria, but our president is so moralistic that he declared making a deal with the murderer Assad a non-starter. We know where this has led us--to a more fractious Syria and greater threat across the region. The last six years have unmasked a complete lack of foreign policy skills in this administration--from strategy to execution, from Susan Rice to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. We simply don't understand power sharing because we are viewing it as a form of democracy, which it is not. And we are not skilled at choosing the factions that can bring stability to the region. We need to send some people with real skills to this region, to decide what role we should play. Absent that, we should simply get out, and let the chips fall where they may. It can't be any worse than what we have done thus far with all our treasure spent and lives lost. What has really been lacking, from Bush to Obama, is real intellectual horsepower.
9
Unintended consequences will always trump the arrogant actions of war mongers.
8
Libya is unraveling because all of Middle East is unraveling. It is one of the final shots of WWI and WWII, final unraveling of artificial constructs that were created by colonial powers to serve their own interests. Overlaid with intense religious schism between Sunnis and Shiites, people in the Middle East have to find more natural lines of partition which reflect their religious and ethnic alliances. Chaos to a varying degree is likely for the remainder of this century or even longer, if European history is used as a guide. Religious tenets of Islam, which subjugates women and thus favors high fertility in the age of low mortality of the young is another problem that the region will have to cope with. Populations cannot double every generation without consequences.
9
Gaddafi was an murderous dictator who richly deserved to be pushing up daisies (or cacti) decades before his squalid end. We ought to have no problems with the administration intervening to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi.
On the other hand, refusing afterwards to fill the inevitable political vacuum left behind by Gaddafi's death was gross political malpractice, which leads directly to the door of then Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama ought to be held accountable. They had the debacle in front of them of Iraq, where then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that "Stuff happens" in the face of mass looting, after he had deployed too few troops to keep the peace after toppling Saddam Hussein -- directly against advice from then Secretary of State Powell. Then, Mr. Rumsfeld proceeded to ignore a growing insurgency for several years, always providing more resources a day late and a Dollar short.
That willingness of officials in Washington to ignore on-site advice that they didn't want to hear is the real lesson to be drawn from the assassination in Benghazi of Ambassador John Christopher Stevens. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were hearing from multiple sources that the place was coming apart but chose to ignore it because they didn't want to hear it, just like Mr. Rumsfeld.
We can't do stuff that leaves power vacuums in other countries and then doggedly ignore the dire reports back by our people on the ground, when we do too little to fill the vacuum.
On the other hand, refusing afterwards to fill the inevitable political vacuum left behind by Gaddafi's death was gross political malpractice, which leads directly to the door of then Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama ought to be held accountable. They had the debacle in front of them of Iraq, where then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that "Stuff happens" in the face of mass looting, after he had deployed too few troops to keep the peace after toppling Saddam Hussein -- directly against advice from then Secretary of State Powell. Then, Mr. Rumsfeld proceeded to ignore a growing insurgency for several years, always providing more resources a day late and a Dollar short.
That willingness of officials in Washington to ignore on-site advice that they didn't want to hear is the real lesson to be drawn from the assassination in Benghazi of Ambassador John Christopher Stevens. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were hearing from multiple sources that the place was coming apart but chose to ignore it because they didn't want to hear it, just like Mr. Rumsfeld.
We can't do stuff that leaves power vacuums in other countries and then doggedly ignore the dire reports back by our people on the ground, when we do too little to fill the vacuum.
7
The problem in Libya appears to be the same as much of the Middle East: enlightened minds and courageous hearts, while they no doubt exist, are too few to overcome the savagery of extremist elements. The result is that those societies have little or no capacity to govern themselves such that life and liberty are protected rather than threatened by governmental authority. Apart from another multi-national military intervention to impose order and buy time to establish functional governing institutions, there may be no solution. However, as in Ukraine, the primary responsility to act falls to the EU.
The Middle East (and by extension, Libya) had "PANDORA'S BOX" written on it in flashing neon lights, yet we just had to open it. Perhaps our leaders just need to brush up on their Greek mythology.
11
The American people are gullible. We bought the propaganda on Iraq and Libya "lock, stock, and barrel".
Libya provided its citizens with opportunity. The women were treated equally. Much more dignified than our ally Saudi Arabia. The populace was encouraged to attain higher education and the govt. supported such. Unemployment and lack of housing was virtually nonexistent.
There were internal issues, tribal, that didn't concern Western nations. We in America can't even prosecute a cop who committed a wrongful murder of an unarmed civilian. We would never tolerate intervention from any nation. Yet we have the temerity to intervene as did France who is guilty also (despite their claim of "liberalism"),colonized many un white nations.
Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of destroying Libya. Just as Bush and Cheney on Iraq. Both a debacle, and embarrassment for a nation that prides itself on "exceptionalism", which is now a cliche...
Libya provided its citizens with opportunity. The women were treated equally. Much more dignified than our ally Saudi Arabia. The populace was encouraged to attain higher education and the govt. supported such. Unemployment and lack of housing was virtually nonexistent.
There were internal issues, tribal, that didn't concern Western nations. We in America can't even prosecute a cop who committed a wrongful murder of an unarmed civilian. We would never tolerate intervention from any nation. Yet we have the temerity to intervene as did France who is guilty also (despite their claim of "liberalism"),colonized many un white nations.
Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of destroying Libya. Just as Bush and Cheney on Iraq. Both a debacle, and embarrassment for a nation that prides itself on "exceptionalism", which is now a cliche...
36
The Arab Spring began with a great deal of hope and passion, for oppressed people in a part of the world ruled by tyrants like Mubarak, Qaddafi, and Ahmadenijad. But the task was too tall - decades of neglect and hoarding of resources among the few left over 100 Million people without the wherewithal to improve their lives in a short span of time. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood squandered their mandate, and other cracks in the idea that all Arabs would benefit from the great uprising materialized. The unsettling effect of the uprising on the rich Arab States, Saudi, Qatar, and the Emirates yielded a response that they were not convinced that the changes would become permanent. They could have done much more, if not for their fear of having their own monarchies affected.
In retrospect, wasn't it a pipe dream to think that the plight of over 90 Million Egyptians, as well as millions of other Middle Easterners was going to change in a historical instant - absolutely. But the inability of the West to follow up with a level of aid which would have allowed these countries to gradually transition over a longer period of time to a more democratic environment with reasonable economies will probably go down as one of the lost opportunities of the century. Would it really have been possible - who knows? But throwing the baby out with the bathwater has yielded the situation that will eventually cost us all more.
Turning swords into plowshares was the way, and is the only way.
In retrospect, wasn't it a pipe dream to think that the plight of over 90 Million Egyptians, as well as millions of other Middle Easterners was going to change in a historical instant - absolutely. But the inability of the West to follow up with a level of aid which would have allowed these countries to gradually transition over a longer period of time to a more democratic environment with reasonable economies will probably go down as one of the lost opportunities of the century. Would it really have been possible - who knows? But throwing the baby out with the bathwater has yielded the situation that will eventually cost us all more.
Turning swords into plowshares was the way, and is the only way.
11
"What Libya’s Unraveling Means"
It means that Obama's and Hillary's policies and actions in Libya were an utter failure. Another one. Does the article mention that or did Libya spontaneously combust?
It means that Obama's and Hillary's policies and actions in Libya were an utter failure. Another one. Does the article mention that or did Libya spontaneously combust?
39
These long time oil-dominated and dictator-run Middle Eastern countries (Ukraine aside) made their beds long ago (overseen by the colonial powers) and now they have single product economies and no mechanisms or trusted underpinnings with which they can do the hard work required by democracy. Dictators are easy, Oil is easy, Religious fanaticism is easy - and Easy Makes You Stupid!
11
"Libya could become a satellite of the Islamic State."
_________________________
The term "Islamic State" is a handy meme for the public to grasp but it's really a misnomer. It is only marginally Islamic and not remotely a state. The Middle East is in an inchoate period of rediscovering its identity now that it's undoing the social and political artifice applied to it by the West after WW1.
It will not return to the 8th Century.
_________________________
The term "Islamic State" is a handy meme for the public to grasp but it's really a misnomer. It is only marginally Islamic and not remotely a state. The Middle East is in an inchoate period of rediscovering its identity now that it's undoing the social and political artifice applied to it by the West after WW1.
It will not return to the 8th Century.
7
Well, it may not be returning to the 8th century but what exactly is it turning into? Is the Arab world doomed to be a center of warring religious factions for a foreseeable future? Will the only focus that will unite the region be opposition to Israel and America? Whose hegemony will create docility among these warring tribes? Will it be Iran or Saudi Arabia or Turkey? Too many questions. While all of this unrest continues the area grows darker for the humanity living there and for no legitimate reason other than religion.
5
In my opinion, this is all Susan Rice and Samantha Powers' fault since they were the most vocal advocates for U.S./NATO airstrikes in Libya back in 2011. It's interesting that neither "humanitarian" interventionist has uttered anything about Libya since it has devolved into anarchy and chaos. I guess it's part of their "strategic patience" foreign policy. President Obama should sack both of them before they do any more damage to "democracy" movements in the Middle East/Maghreb.
32
If one "actually" researches the 2011 intervention in Libya, it was motivated by France and Britain. For a month the two countries led the charge on intervention. A no-fly zone was created on March 17, 2011. The US appeared to be a somewhat "reluctant participant". In regard to Syria, the same was true. Libya, like Syria, is a "European issue". NATO should NOT be involved. Article 42 (Lisbon Treaty) of the European Union Charter (Common Security and Defence Policy) should be implemented for any future military intervention and/or economic recovery plan in Libya. The nations of the European Union have the financial resources, if enacted, to protect their interests in the region.
9
Does being a reluctant participant mean we lacked resolve, backbone, decisiveness? Does it in some way excuse us for our involvement? Does it mean we knew what the right answer was but failed to press it? And what have we learned from it? Isolation because it's a "European problem" had better not be what we learned. If it is we aren't very smart.
2
So here is the question. Do we continue to stand on the same principals that led our current President to support Ghadafi's ouster as we think about Syria? What about other "authoritarian" regimes that rule with what may be iron hands but in doing so prevent this kind of outcome we are seeing in Libya. What about all the people who are accusing Sisi in Egypt of being too authoritarian? We cannot export our form of democracy nor our values into these countries. On issues of values we need to pick our shots and be patient.
47
Libya, under Gaddafi, had the highest standard of living in Northern Africa. Today, three years after the US/NATO-led regime-change intervention, Libya is a failed-state basket-case on the Mad Max model. Like Iraq, like Afghanistan, like Syria -- each of which have also been treated to US "democracy-building" and "humanitarianism". What exactly is US foreign policy trying to accomplish?
109
" What Do Libya’s Unraveling Means?" How about a short narrative to understand why Libya became a failed state and where it probably is heading to?
America is attacked in 9/11/01 by a group of young Arab nationals, most Saudi citizens. In response, W./Cheney decides to invade Iraq/Afghanistan. A global war on Muslim terrorism becomes America top national security directive.
Authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world -- friends and foes of America alike -- become politically-socially destabilized. An Arab Winter of Death descend upon the Middle East.
The powers that be in DC sensing 'doable' regime changes -- a serious crisis cannot go to waste -- decide to go after old nemesis like Gaddafi, Assad and Iran mullahs. The latter a work still in progress. Mubarak's removal unintended collateral damage rapidly rectified by the rise of General Sisi as Egypt's new strong man.
In sum, the old order of ruthless authoritarian regimes in the Middle East have been replaced by ungovernability, chaos, anarchy and violence. Prime breeding ground for recruitment by the Islamic State and future vicious Muslim groups fighting America.
In a short period of time, Washington has destroyed the old Middle East geopolitical map drawn by French-British diplomats after WWI. Ruthless regimes have being replaced by chaos and violence unleashed by non state entities. This is Libya and most of the Middle East in 2015.
America is attacked in 9/11/01 by a group of young Arab nationals, most Saudi citizens. In response, W./Cheney decides to invade Iraq/Afghanistan. A global war on Muslim terrorism becomes America top national security directive.
Authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world -- friends and foes of America alike -- become politically-socially destabilized. An Arab Winter of Death descend upon the Middle East.
The powers that be in DC sensing 'doable' regime changes -- a serious crisis cannot go to waste -- decide to go after old nemesis like Gaddafi, Assad and Iran mullahs. The latter a work still in progress. Mubarak's removal unintended collateral damage rapidly rectified by the rise of General Sisi as Egypt's new strong man.
In sum, the old order of ruthless authoritarian regimes in the Middle East have been replaced by ungovernability, chaos, anarchy and violence. Prime breeding ground for recruitment by the Islamic State and future vicious Muslim groups fighting America.
In a short period of time, Washington has destroyed the old Middle East geopolitical map drawn by French-British diplomats after WWI. Ruthless regimes have being replaced by chaos and violence unleashed by non state entities. This is Libya and most of the Middle East in 2015.
48
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on CBSNews.com, regarding Moammar Gaddafi: "We came. we saw, he died."
Nice work, Madame Secretary. Is Libya (and the rest of the world) better off because the Administration took out the Libyan strongman?
I didn't think so. Please remind us of this misadventure when you are campaigning for President. This was a real foreign policy accomplishment.
Nice work, Madame Secretary. Is Libya (and the rest of the world) better off because the Administration took out the Libyan strongman?
I didn't think so. Please remind us of this misadventure when you are campaigning for President. This was a real foreign policy accomplishment.
74
The usual brigade of pro-Putin, pro-Khadafi admirers will roll out in the comments, never having seen better Leaders... There is no proof that Libya is worse now than under the dictator.
1
I'd say a murder rate 10 times greater than Yemen and a 40% decline in Average household income from 2010 and still falling would be proof that things are worse in libya than under its dictator. The place is in complete shambles.
17
And why is Libya "unraveling"? Because President Obama embraced the failed regime change policy of the Bush Administration with the same results. So, while it's easy to ramp up the fear of ISIS and another failed state harboring terrorists, until we move beyond toppling dictators with absolutely no vision and no commitment to a viable post-Gaddafi, post-Hussein, and now, in Iraq and Syria, a post-ISIS or post-Assad political solution we will continue to hemorrhage American lives and treasure in what has become an endless "War on Terror."
89
Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, an epidemic of national breakdowns.
A rearrangement of unnaturally drawn borders, or the result of the intense imbalance between populations and resources?
A rearrangement of unnaturally drawn borders, or the result of the intense imbalance between populations and resources?
1
Where is NATO now? This game of breaking up a country and let it fend for itself is not acceptable. It should be if you break it,you own it. NATO has to go in again on the ground and establish peace.
I am afraid Tunisia may have to pay a heavy price now that its own crack heads will find ways to make more alliances with the Terror groups next door. At least somebody must help Tunisia keep itself safe,if we should assume that Libya will be a failed state for decades to come. As if one Somalia was not enough.
I am afraid Tunisia may have to pay a heavy price now that its own crack heads will find ways to make more alliances with the Terror groups next door. At least somebody must help Tunisia keep itself safe,if we should assume that Libya will be a failed state for decades to come. As if one Somalia was not enough.
4
Clear display of the value of past EU and US intervention in Libya. Clearly not an improvement on Muammar.
1
And thats why you don't lie to the world and say you are only protecting civilians, when you depose and kill a dictator you don't like. Additionally what foolish dictator will give up his nuclear program/weapons after seeing what U.S./Europe did to Qaddafi. Stop being the policeman of the world and screwing everything up.
11
What do you mean Libya's Unraveling? In the last 100 years Libya has never raveled. Whether it was the Ottomans, Italians, Germans, King Idris, or Muammar Gaddafi, the country has always been a mess.
4
SO Libya is a mess because of their being invaded and messed about by the West and so that is THEIR fault???
And it has always been a mess so, in your typical dismissal of an African nation (after all it's only a whole African nation of millions plunged from peace and high standard of living into hell, civil war and warlords) and not something important like a racist Islamophobic French cartoonist consciously and deliberately whipping up race hate in a false campaign of free speech supported by our own Western leaders doing their very best to remove what rights, free speech or liberty we have left (Snowdon, Assange anyone??).
I do sometimes despair at the 'logic' shown by others
And it has always been a mess so, in your typical dismissal of an African nation (after all it's only a whole African nation of millions plunged from peace and high standard of living into hell, civil war and warlords) and not something important like a racist Islamophobic French cartoonist consciously and deliberately whipping up race hate in a false campaign of free speech supported by our own Western leaders doing their very best to remove what rights, free speech or liberty we have left (Snowdon, Assange anyone??).
I do sometimes despair at the 'logic' shown by others
5
For what reason did NATO/USA destroy Libya?
15
"As this oil-rich nation veers toward complete chaos, world leaders would be wise to redouble efforts led by the United Nations to broker a power-sharing deal among warring factions." It is sad to see impressively intelligent people, the NYT Editorial Board, President Obama and many other "worthies" supporting "power-sharing" in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Would you share power with your neighbor after they have been killing your relatives for years? It AIN'T gonna happen!
Let them break up into their homogeneous pieces and then help them get rid of al Qaeda, etc. Democracy is a bridge too far, probably for our lifetime.
Let them break up into their homogeneous pieces and then help them get rid of al Qaeda, etc. Democracy is a bridge too far, probably for our lifetime.
4
"What Libya’s Unraveling Means" is that we should not have bombed Libya in the first place.
20
You would have thought that after the debacle in Iraq that we would have known better than to helped oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafie. Unfortunately President Obama owns this one.
53
As an Obama supporter I hate to agree with you but it's true. Even though there was great pressure as part of the UN for Obama/USA to be involved he should have thought it through. I did hear Obama admit in an interview that our involvement in Libya was a mistake since there was no plan to transition the country after Gaddafi was killed. That said he still owns it.
4
Nicholas Pelham's essay LIBYA AGAINST ITSELF (The New York Review of Books, Feb. 19, 2015) is worth reading: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/feb/19/libya-against-itself/
1
Much of sub-Saharan Africa pleaded with Obama not to bomb Libya. Instead he listened to the Europeans and this is what we have as a result.
34
Chaos in Libya? Gosh, I wonder how that happened.
45
What Libya's unraveling means is that the ONE place that the Obama Administration decided to dig in and seek to make a difference in the Islamic world ... represents an utter failure of that effort.
It also should be noted that Libya was Hillary's baby, although she did need to answer to a president who called all the important shots. When Gadhafi was assassinated, the country fragmented into warring interests and became a natural entry point for ISIS, which hasn't lost any time establishing itself.
That will be brought up in 2016 to Mrs. Clinton's disadvantage; and it won't matter that much of the blame may be the president's, as he's already run his last election. The blame will be aimed by Republicans at Hillary.
But it's been over two years since she stepped down as Secretary of State, and what has been done by us in Libya since then to stabilize the chaos and counter ISIS? Nothing. In two years. There's only one person to blame for that.
And we have hopes for a good outcome in Iraq and Syria? WHENEVER we decide to actually engage ISIS seriously? In Iran? What could possibly be the basis for such hopes?
It also should be noted that Libya was Hillary's baby, although she did need to answer to a president who called all the important shots. When Gadhafi was assassinated, the country fragmented into warring interests and became a natural entry point for ISIS, which hasn't lost any time establishing itself.
That will be brought up in 2016 to Mrs. Clinton's disadvantage; and it won't matter that much of the blame may be the president's, as he's already run his last election. The blame will be aimed by Republicans at Hillary.
But it's been over two years since she stepped down as Secretary of State, and what has been done by us in Libya since then to stabilize the chaos and counter ISIS? Nothing. In two years. There's only one person to blame for that.
And we have hopes for a good outcome in Iraq and Syria? WHENEVER we decide to actually engage ISIS seriously? In Iran? What could possibly be the basis for such hopes?
9
Moammar Qaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, was a vile murderous tyrant, who was sometimes our ally, and sometimes our enemy...but always a thoroughly effective keeper of the "peace" in the Middle East.
9
Jon Davis@
"Moammar Qaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, was a vile murderous tyrant,"
To attempt to associate both of these men is oversimplification. The same distortions used to sell to the American people reasons to bomb Libya. We haven't tried to bomb North Korea, and they are a real menace.
Between the media and the CIA, along with the Obama admin. the overwhelming reason for going into Libya and bringing down that regime was nothing but "hubris". We lost a U.S. official and other personnel in Benghazi, as a result of our intervention in Libya.
We reaped what we sowed......
"Moammar Qaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, was a vile murderous tyrant,"
To attempt to associate both of these men is oversimplification. The same distortions used to sell to the American people reasons to bomb Libya. We haven't tried to bomb North Korea, and they are a real menace.
Between the media and the CIA, along with the Obama admin. the overwhelming reason for going into Libya and bringing down that regime was nothing but "hubris". We lost a U.S. official and other personnel in Benghazi, as a result of our intervention in Libya.
We reaped what we sowed......
5
Be careful what you wish for and the law of unintended consequences has never had more meaning for U.S. and the western world’s “freedom and democracy” agenda in the Middle East over the past decade. In every nation that we toppled or tried to topple a dictator, such as Iraq, Libya and Syria, was subsequently at least partly taken over by the Islamic State or ISIS, which is a far worse outcome for those nations from a western perspective.
The only reason Egypt has not suffered a similar fate is because we kept our nose out, when its dictator was toppled and replaced by the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood party, which was seen as a dangerous precursor to ISIS by the Egyptian army, whose leader then staged a coup and took over. Recently, Houthi rebels, a Shia group that is an enemy of ISIS, have ousted Yemen’s government. If we keep our nose out of there, it might turn out to be a more stable nation like Egypt?
So the lesson for us on Libya at this stage is “if the diplomatic effort that is underway doesn’t get traction within weeks,” let’s just get our noses out of there as well.
The only reason Egypt has not suffered a similar fate is because we kept our nose out, when its dictator was toppled and replaced by the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood party, which was seen as a dangerous precursor to ISIS by the Egyptian army, whose leader then staged a coup and took over. Recently, Houthi rebels, a Shia group that is an enemy of ISIS, have ousted Yemen’s government. If we keep our nose out of there, it might turn out to be a more stable nation like Egypt?
So the lesson for us on Libya at this stage is “if the diplomatic effort that is underway doesn’t get traction within weeks,” let’s just get our noses out of there as well.
41
All you do is desire more of the same failures as we have now. We HAVE always been supporting dictators, and that is the problem. WE should be neither making or destroying other nations. They hate us for good reason because of this.
Egypt is a hell hole after 30 years of US backed military support. Yet you blame the problems of that nation on the only 1 1/2 years of non dictatorship. The only time torture was not in mass use. Your idea of 'in the interests of the West' are short term colonialist thinking. The very material the mess in the ME is made of.
Egypt is a hell hole after 30 years of US backed military support. Yet you blame the problems of that nation on the only 1 1/2 years of non dictatorship. The only time torture was not in mass use. Your idea of 'in the interests of the West' are short term colonialist thinking. The very material the mess in the ME is made of.
5
Remember? Hillary Clinton, John McCain, London and Paris were all for this. Look what has happened - and nobody takes any responsibility. Another blooming democracy which did not happen. Yet nobody of the people who advocated the Western intervention in Libya pays any price. Hillary Clinton, Senator McCain and all the warmongers should be ashamed. Sen. McCain in particular has become a Dr. Strangelove for our times.
6
With the growth of ISIS, I see nothing unusual about the "unraveling of Libya". I spent time there, on and off, many years ago and, even then, someone with the intent could simply reach down and pull on a thread, then stand back and observe an "unraveling". The individual countries of the "Middle East" are the very worst enemies of the whole region which we refer to as "The Middle East". As an old showman once observed "You ain't seen nothin' yet"!
4
Wonder who is going to bomb whom in Libya next to fix this mess now!
Sure, in principle we want freedom for everyone, but really ... were not Iraq and Libya better off with Saddam and Qaddafi respectively? Is this why we decided not to bomb Syria after Assad had crossed the red line?
Do policy makers in this country ever ask what comes after the bombs? Or will they keep repeating the pattern of failure and chaos that is now clearly evident because they have no other viable answers or any realistic solutions other than repeating the mantras of "terrorism" and wars that will be a "long hard slog" wherever any terrorists lurk?
In the meantime, Russia and China are no doubt going to benefit from the chaos created by "the indispensable power".
Sure, in principle we want freedom for everyone, but really ... were not Iraq and Libya better off with Saddam and Qaddafi respectively? Is this why we decided not to bomb Syria after Assad had crossed the red line?
Do policy makers in this country ever ask what comes after the bombs? Or will they keep repeating the pattern of failure and chaos that is now clearly evident because they have no other viable answers or any realistic solutions other than repeating the mantras of "terrorism" and wars that will be a "long hard slog" wherever any terrorists lurk?
In the meantime, Russia and China are no doubt going to benefit from the chaos created by "the indispensable power".
Another argument for yet another misguided military intervention with not a word about how we got here. Here's a clue you can find the reason in the previous sentence.
6
the NY Editorial board has done a service in focusing on these serious problems in Libya that may only hold together for a couple of more months. Writing about it in the NYTimes hopefully will bring more light to this urgent problem. I hope the UN can provide assistance to find sensible unity and leadership.
Excellent editorial, excellent topic. About time too,
What is amazing here, not one word on how this came about. The Obama team which made Libya possible gets a complete free pass. Turkey and Qatar two countries most responsible for Libya of today, not one mention. The larger issue, confronting Islamism, the core issue is too hot even for this bold editorial team. This effort to portray Libya as an anomaly is a mistake.
What is amazing here, not one word on how this came about. The Obama team which made Libya possible gets a complete free pass. Turkey and Qatar two countries most responsible for Libya of today, not one mention. The larger issue, confronting Islamism, the core issue is too hot even for this bold editorial team. This effort to portray Libya as an anomaly is a mistake.
7
Why Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have received such a free pass on this foolish decision is beyond me.
You can draw a direct line between the end of Gaddafi and the pipeline of arms fuelling sectarian violence in Syria and Iraq.
This was a war of choice for the Obama Administration. It increasingly appears the choice made was as catastrophic as the one made a few years before on Iraq.
You can draw a direct line between the end of Gaddafi and the pipeline of arms fuelling sectarian violence in Syria and Iraq.
This was a war of choice for the Obama Administration. It increasingly appears the choice made was as catastrophic as the one made a few years before on Iraq.
22
I am ashamed that my country helped destroy Libya--and spread its arms all over Africa and the Mid East.
13
I still recall one of Gaddafi's rhetorical questions during one of his last speeches to the Libyan people before his chaotic overthrow : 'who do you prefer, listening to the man with a beard?' Even though the colonel was far from being an admirable statesman, I am deeply ashamed with the Sarkozy regime's self-interested zeal in removing Gaddafi from power with a total absence of any orderly transition towards democracy. The Libyan people are suffering immense hardship and violence as a result of myopic and selfish Western interest groups idiotically dreaming of setting up lucrative beach resorts or exploiting the failed state's petroleum resources. Unfortunately, the backlash inspired by the IS nihilist thugs looks like a tsunami waiting to hit the European shores with a vengeance....
6
It comes across a little strange to me that the editorial board of the "paper of record" implies it has no control over the topics covered in the Times: "Largely overshadowed by the crises in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, Libya’s unraveling has received comparatively little attention over the past few months."
I agree Libya has been dropped from the press docket inexplicably. Since the regime change in Libya was initiated by President Bling Bling of France, launching bombers as allies assembled for a luncheon to discuss the course of action; and Dave Cameron demanding a no-fly zone" for which he has no military hardware to implement such; maybe we leave Libya to those two countries to clean up? Our military is still very busy handling the mop and bucket brigade for Shrub II's world wide debacles, still spinning off madness from the thousands he tortured in his Crusades redo.
I agree Libya has been dropped from the press docket inexplicably. Since the regime change in Libya was initiated by President Bling Bling of France, launching bombers as allies assembled for a luncheon to discuss the course of action; and Dave Cameron demanding a no-fly zone" for which he has no military hardware to implement such; maybe we leave Libya to those two countries to clean up? Our military is still very busy handling the mop and bucket brigade for Shrub II's world wide debacles, still spinning off madness from the thousands he tortured in his Crusades redo.
3
Another factor to consider is that emerging loyalties to ISIS by some militias becomes a threat to the Maghreb region. With the chaos in Tripoli and the vacuum left by most western embassies vacating the capital, the prospect of a failed state emerges.
Tunisia is right next door and it shows the greatest promise for democratic change; perhaps the most democratic of any Muslim majority nation. Yet, Tunisia must deal with it's rather large numbers of fighters going off to Syria and Iraq(probably crossing through Libya) with potential to return and cause chaos in their country.
Libya is very important.
Tunisia is right next door and it shows the greatest promise for democratic change; perhaps the most democratic of any Muslim majority nation. Yet, Tunisia must deal with it's rather large numbers of fighters going off to Syria and Iraq(probably crossing through Libya) with potential to return and cause chaos in their country.
Libya is very important.
1
The US has in recent history, contrary to State Department propaganda, frequently tolerated and supported dictatorships whose interests are aligned with its own. This unholy alliance with brutal dictators both secular and religious is at least partly responsible for the Islamic backlash fueling ISIS today. The chaos in Libya is a sad reminder of an experiment gone wrong when a dictator is removed and the geniuses in Washington and Brussels have no plan B to fill the power vacuum. This incompetence is however, more breathtaking when considering that lessons in Iraq were apparently dismissed, with neo-cons clinging to the delusion that democracy would naturally flower where the dictator falls.
Framing regime changes under the guise of promoting liberal democracy has been nothing short of an abysmal failure in the Middle East, and in Ukraine the stakes of meddling could be much higher. The "pivot to Asia" to contain China is another futile attempt to preserve US military hegemony in the Pacific. When will Americans tell their politicians that enough is enough?
Framing regime changes under the guise of promoting liberal democracy has been nothing short of an abysmal failure in the Middle East, and in Ukraine the stakes of meddling could be much higher. The "pivot to Asia" to contain China is another futile attempt to preserve US military hegemony in the Pacific. When will Americans tell their politicians that enough is enough?
12
Not so long ago just about everyone was cheering the US-led 'humanitarian' intervention in Libya by NATO fighter jets and wondering how anyone could oppose it. No one seemed concerned about the affiliations of the various rebel groups, supposedly fighting for freedom. Regime change can be a very unpredictable thing and this one has turned into a disaster that is bad both for the LIbyan people and the world in general. War is not the solution to all problems.
80
Libya should mean that the US was unwise to violate the UN SC and kill Qaddafi. Now they have a worse mess than if they had left Libya alone. What is happening in Libya now is all the fault of the US and its constant, never-ending appetite for Regime Change.
Regime Change never works out for the US they way it is planned. It only creates a bigger mess. Will new never learn from our mistakes.
The only solution to Libya which we have destroyed it to make two states out of it. We need to give up the "borders are scared" concept and realize that often situations on the ground mean that border changes and new countries work out better than clinking for dear life to old borders. The US seems to fail to understand this.
Border changes are needed in Iraq also - when will we give up on the outmoded Sykes Picot Line?
Regime Change never works out for the US they way it is planned. It only creates a bigger mess. Will new never learn from our mistakes.
The only solution to Libya which we have destroyed it to make two states out of it. We need to give up the "borders are scared" concept and realize that often situations on the ground mean that border changes and new countries work out better than clinking for dear life to old borders. The US seems to fail to understand this.
Border changes are needed in Iraq also - when will we give up on the outmoded Sykes Picot Line?
2
It's unfortunate that the GOP's anti-Obama sentiment and obsession with the Benghazi incident left the President with no residual support at home to help remake Libya after Qaddafi. The vacuum left after Qaddafi was overthrown could have been filled if the international community had been able to organize a sustained effort to form new political institutions in Libya. The shortsighted political gains made by Republicans over Benghazi came at the expense of a long-term vision for Libya's future.
1
Of course our President sees the events in Libya as random.
I am sure that he considers today's attacks in Copenhagen against freedom of speech and against a synagogue as purely random. So many coincidences but Barack Hussein Obama sees no link.
I am sure that he considers today's attacks in Copenhagen against freedom of speech and against a synagogue as purely random. So many coincidences but Barack Hussein Obama sees no link.
7
Congratulations to the NATO group of France, Britain, and America for taking a basically stable country (albeit one with a leader that they didn't like), and turning it into a serious mess. Our leaders could not botch things more than they did. This is what comes of a habit of incessant warfare.
7
The Center is not holding. Every band-aid is followed by ten new cases of cancer. Sadly, sometimes the band-aids of the West are, themselves, carcinogenic.
1
What Libya's unraveling shows is that an incompetent American president and Secretary of State will have real world consequences. A dictator had given up his WMD program because of effective leadership by GWB. A new administration with absolutely no thought about what would come next supports his overthrow. Chaos ensues. Here we are. The person other than Obama most responsible for this fiasco wants to be president. This paper supports her, so hush....
6
We really screwed this one up. A country may have a bad leader. The next one might be worse.
5
Back on March 29, 2011, the New York Times editorial board said that President Obama "made the right choice" in deciding to intervene in Libya, in what you called a "war of choice."
What a great gift you've given us, editorial board. Libya is now made up of a patchwork of violent forces armed to the teeth, and is fertile ground for the influence of Daesh (the so-called "Islamic State").
When will you -- and the rest of the leadership in this country -- learn that we don't create peace in the world by incinerating people with bombs, injecting arms into civil wars, or backing repressive regimes?
Maybe you can learn this lesson before any further escalation in the war in Ukraine. While Russia may not be an admirable player either, the government of Ukraine has been making use of what are basically armed groups of Nazis (e.g. the Azov Battalion). Do we want to provide arms and a training ground for every right-wing, white-supremacist fanatic in Europe, as they flock to Ukraine to fight alongside its government?
While there may be threats in the world, America's perpetual war of the past 14 years has shown that a violent response only makes those threats stronger. The cycle of violence will never stop until we develop a culture of strategic nonviolent resistance, and start living up to the America's professed values of democracy and liberty.
What a great gift you've given us, editorial board. Libya is now made up of a patchwork of violent forces armed to the teeth, and is fertile ground for the influence of Daesh (the so-called "Islamic State").
When will you -- and the rest of the leadership in this country -- learn that we don't create peace in the world by incinerating people with bombs, injecting arms into civil wars, or backing repressive regimes?
Maybe you can learn this lesson before any further escalation in the war in Ukraine. While Russia may not be an admirable player either, the government of Ukraine has been making use of what are basically armed groups of Nazis (e.g. the Azov Battalion). Do we want to provide arms and a training ground for every right-wing, white-supremacist fanatic in Europe, as they flock to Ukraine to fight alongside its government?
While there may be threats in the world, America's perpetual war of the past 14 years has shown that a violent response only makes those threats stronger. The cycle of violence will never stop until we develop a culture of strategic nonviolent resistance, and start living up to the America's professed values of democracy and liberty.
10
Prosecute those American and Western leaders that created this havoc in Libya. Take them to an open court of Justice. Let we the people hear their lies why they chose to smash Libya. Let us not loose focus on who created this mess.
I know, I'm dreaming, these powers will never be prosecuted until there is a new world, not in my life time. I feel sorry for all the people of Libya.
Qaddafi could easily have been removed from power without destroying Libya.
I know, I'm dreaming, these powers will never be prosecuted until there is a new world, not in my life time. I feel sorry for all the people of Libya.
Qaddafi could easily have been removed from power without destroying Libya.
6
I remember that the NYT was one of the most influential voices, arguing for sending weapons to the libyan rebels and advocating for military forced.
More reasonable voices were shouted down by the whole editorial board of this newspaper. Presidential female security supervisors advocating for war were heralded as heroines.
And now, the same song is played for Ukraine, Syria and so on.
Wouldn´t a more balanced approach be more appropiate?
More reasonable voices were shouted down by the whole editorial board of this newspaper. Presidential female security supervisors advocating for war were heralded as heroines.
And now, the same song is played for Ukraine, Syria and so on.
Wouldn´t a more balanced approach be more appropiate?
16
Libya's is just another chapter in the relentless pandemic of the Theology of Radical Islam sweeping the globe, to which Western Civilization has no real response. Obama is letting the house burn down, instead of putting out the fires.
3
This was not a civil war.
The NATO air forces and navies, with some help from hangeron client states, destroyed Libya's defense forces.
Now it is ruled by tribes with flags.
This as another Humpty Dumpty, and we haven't a clue how to put it back together.
This war on terror seems to be a war to create terror.
Obama turned out to be Bush 3 with a better lay up.
Let the Libyans settle it among themselves, because at the end of the day they have to live there.
And should you be a minority, leave. Learn from the Jews in 1933
The NATO air forces and navies, with some help from hangeron client states, destroyed Libya's defense forces.
Now it is ruled by tribes with flags.
This as another Humpty Dumpty, and we haven't a clue how to put it back together.
This war on terror seems to be a war to create terror.
Obama turned out to be Bush 3 with a better lay up.
Let the Libyans settle it among themselves, because at the end of the day they have to live there.
And should you be a minority, leave. Learn from the Jews in 1933
7
We have to stop trying to export Western-style democracy to the East.
By dethroning Quaddafi and Saddam we have succeeded in destabilizing the entire Mideast, creating chaos, and opening opportunities for radical Islamists.
Does anyone really believe that inhabitants of these lands have a better life now than before their leaders and their governments were deposed?
By dethroning Quaddafi and Saddam we have succeeded in destabilizing the entire Mideast, creating chaos, and opening opportunities for radical Islamists.
Does anyone really believe that inhabitants of these lands have a better life now than before their leaders and their governments were deposed?
24
We are seeing a Third World War unfold, whether Americans, so elated over the fall of gasoline prices, want to admit it or not. While we fuss about the ACA and binge-watch "House of Cards" the real house of cards collapses.
How long can all this continue without bringing down the global economy? Stay tuned, bored American viewers. That's coming next season.
The Arab Spring has become The Arab Winter.
How long can all this continue without bringing down the global economy? Stay tuned, bored American viewers. That's coming next season.
The Arab Spring has become The Arab Winter.
6
Europe needs to handle this. They lobbied for weeks to get Nato to enforce a NFZ in Libya to keep oil flowing to Europe. They can negotiate a deal.
3
"Taking advantage of the lawlessness, smugglers who use Libya as a way station in moving impoverished sub-Saharan Africans and Syrian refugees to Europe have become increasingly brazen and reckless in their tactics, sending hundreds to their deaths."
My heart breaks when I think of the lives destroyed by this lawlessness. Now is not the time to blame others, but for people to sacrifice in order to deal with this tragedy. We also need our leaders to be honest about what is required. Americans and Western Europeans have such wealth, and yet they complain that they don't have more (and that applies both to conservatives and liberals). I hope we take the steps necessary to help these poor people.
My heart breaks when I think of the lives destroyed by this lawlessness. Now is not the time to blame others, but for people to sacrifice in order to deal with this tragedy. We also need our leaders to be honest about what is required. Americans and Western Europeans have such wealth, and yet they complain that they don't have more (and that applies both to conservatives and liberals). I hope we take the steps necessary to help these poor people.
1
There has to be an English word to describe the extent of the offensive hypocrisy of those in Europe or the US who are now decrying the chaos in North Africa and the "Middle East." This foreseeable crisis was created by the West when it forced its way into those places and used these very same Islamist groups to overthrow and kill the "dictators." Maybe the simple phrase "crocodile tears" is all that needs to be said.
9
This is more fallout from the reckless intervention by the Obama administration in 2011 in order to help in the toppling of Gaddafi. It encouraged and exhorted rebels to overthrow this stable but dictatorial government, and used American jets, ships and pilots in an unauthorized military action. Secretary Clinton and her advisors played a large role in pushing the US to engage in yet another civil war abroad with stellar results.
Scarcely ever has our unique reverse midas touch; the ability to turn gold to lead, been more shamefully executed by an imperial presidency.
Scarcely ever has our unique reverse midas touch; the ability to turn gold to lead, been more shamefully executed by an imperial presidency.
12
Libya was already in the midst of a civil war when American military power was brought to bare. We intervened because Qaddafi's forces were going after civilian targets in Benghazi. Yes, there was chaos then and there is still chaos now, but the American military did not bring it on.
2
Missing from this analysis of the Libyan unraveling is acknowledgement that "nation states", as we've come to understand the concept, are a recent invention. In terms of that region and the people living there, it cuts across the cultural grain.
During Antiquity, areas like Libya were usually incorporated into neighboring empires. Allegiance to clan or tribe, to tribal and clan chieftains, was the paramount social link. Clans and tribes vied for local supremacy while paying tribute or taxes to the empire but otherwise resisted assimilation. In Libya's case that societal history is more convoluted still by it having been part of no fewer than ten empires during the past four thousand years:
- Greek/Phoenician;
- Persian;
- Nile Valley Egyptian;
- Nile Delta Egyptian (Delta Egypt ruled by Libyan tribes);
- Ptolemaic Egyptian;
- Punic/Carthaginian;
- Roman;
- Vandal;
- Byzantine;
- Islamic (various);
- Spanish;
- Ottoman;
and, finally, Italian.
The independent Libyan nation-state that has supposedly failed only came into being during the postwar decolonization period (1951) and one can argue it didn't really exist even then. King Idris, its first ruler, who styled himself an absolute monarch, led the Senussi tribe. Muammar Gaddafi, who overthrew him, was an al-Qaddafa, a branch of the Houara. Like Saudi Arabia, Libya is a tribal collage. Unlike Saudi Arabia, one tribe hasn't imposed its rule over the others through bribery and sheer bloody-minded ruthlessness.
During Antiquity, areas like Libya were usually incorporated into neighboring empires. Allegiance to clan or tribe, to tribal and clan chieftains, was the paramount social link. Clans and tribes vied for local supremacy while paying tribute or taxes to the empire but otherwise resisted assimilation. In Libya's case that societal history is more convoluted still by it having been part of no fewer than ten empires during the past four thousand years:
- Greek/Phoenician;
- Persian;
- Nile Valley Egyptian;
- Nile Delta Egyptian (Delta Egypt ruled by Libyan tribes);
- Ptolemaic Egyptian;
- Punic/Carthaginian;
- Roman;
- Vandal;
- Byzantine;
- Islamic (various);
- Spanish;
- Ottoman;
and, finally, Italian.
The independent Libyan nation-state that has supposedly failed only came into being during the postwar decolonization period (1951) and one can argue it didn't really exist even then. King Idris, its first ruler, who styled himself an absolute monarch, led the Senussi tribe. Muammar Gaddafi, who overthrew him, was an al-Qaddafa, a branch of the Houara. Like Saudi Arabia, Libya is a tribal collage. Unlike Saudi Arabia, one tribe hasn't imposed its rule over the others through bribery and sheer bloody-minded ruthlessness.
2
While I generally think the Obama administration has abdicated the leadership role I believe we should be taking in world affairs, I have a different opinion with respect to Libya. Libya is primarily a problem for Europe and the Europeans have been taking advantage of the US defense umbrella for decades. Let the European countries pay for their own defense and take care of the threats to themselves. If they have to cut back on their welfare states to do so, so be it.
3
Libya used to be, at least, stable. Then the current commander in chief decided to go to war saying he didn't need Congress. And here we are. One more bumbling failure in an administration full of them.
10
The West is transforming itself into a fortress under the premise that it is being invaded by ‘black African hordes’ seeking economic opportunity. As a result, the Mediterranean and the waters between Indonesia and Australia have become graveyards for refugees seeking protection. The closing of legal channels of movement has meant a rapidly growing industry in the smuggling of human bodies as your testimony confirms. The derogatory phrase ‘asylum shopping’ is used to describe asylum seekers from Africa and the underdeveloped world trying to enter the West. The underlying implication is that these asylum seekers are not genuine. Rather, they are looking for economic opportunities under the pretext of fleeing political persecution. Had they been true asylum seekers, it is claimed that they could remain within the ‘first country of arrival’ in the neighboring countries to seek asylum.
This rationalization allows Europeans to let Africans drown in the Mediterranean and abandon life saving activities. A Mediterranean-wide search-and-rescue system to respond more quickly to boats in distress and is the minimum required. Yet The EU's Triton operation has a limited mandate and budget. The replacement of the Italian operation Mare Nostrum by Triton which has fewer ships and means is cynical. The humanitarian impulse and political will to do more is simply lacking. So the "civilized" West lets Africans die in the Mediterranean. Could this occur if the victims were Europeans?
This rationalization allows Europeans to let Africans drown in the Mediterranean and abandon life saving activities. A Mediterranean-wide search-and-rescue system to respond more quickly to boats in distress and is the minimum required. Yet The EU's Triton operation has a limited mandate and budget. The replacement of the Italian operation Mare Nostrum by Triton which has fewer ships and means is cynical. The humanitarian impulse and political will to do more is simply lacking. So the "civilized" West lets Africans die in the Mediterranean. Could this occur if the victims were Europeans?
2
The big problem is that the 'west' gets mixed up with the moslem to moslem violence. Why not let the various factions just kill each other? They become fewer and may leave the 'west' alone. Find oil elsewhere, build better alternative energy.
2
It seems chaos is inevitable in much of the Middle East without a repressive military dictatorship. The Arab Spring hopes of democracy, peace and prosperity can rapidly evaporate in the desert sands of nascent Caliphates, just miles from the shores of Europe.
3
Could the Americans who precipitated the idiotic regime change, deposal, and killing of Khadafi whose rule, though deeply flawed, was far, far better for Libyans, America, the mideast and the world than the vicious chaos that has followed please have the decency and patriotism to resign--or at least acknowledge their misjudgment and irresponsibility? No, I suppose not.
2
Every editorial or opinion piece on the wider MIddle East basically advocates the the US to get involved one way or another; military support, diplomatic support, economic support; not in that order necessarily. It is a paradigm that we have to be engaged, not as the last, but as the first resort. And that always has seemed out of line; if the house is burning, you'd think the neighbors are most concerned, because their house could catch fire too. In Iraq and Syria, there are plenty of neighbors who have the means to fight; Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others in the neighborhood. Last, not least, Europe, which looks a lot more a neighbor than the US. It should be a principle, and we would not get involved in every war in regions that beyond oil have nothing to offer, if we would look at ourselves as the last backstop, and only of neighboring countries have been unable, not unwilling, to win. If they are unwilling, then we perhaps should take a clue, and conclude it perhaps is not that important to us, if those in the immediate vicinity think it is not so important to them. All the while we neglect those areas of the world that are truly strategically important, namely Asia.
1
Libya is no different than Ukrain, Iraq or Afganistan. The West is patiently pursuing an agenda of power expansion . Iran and Syria are on the take over list. Nationalised oil is an important marker for 'regime change' but not the only one . Western expansion is quite apparently not halted by its disastrous effects on the populations of these states. It is not only the US that is initiating these take overs, see for instance France. It opposed the conquest of Iraq but was first in line in the take overs of Lybia and Mali for its own reasons ( oil and uranium). The 'war on terror' seems to be the system of legitimation that works , coupled with 'bringing democracy'. Nowhere 'terror' has been mitigated, and nowhere the West has indeed introduced democracy. Will the electorates in the West be able to halt this expansionist spree? They better try, because the export of chaos may boomerang.
1
Recent articles try to make the case there may be 'nicer' ways to 'topple a dictator'. As in connection with the matter of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, no articles are written without referring to him as a tyrant. This has been a fact: how the U.S. media has taken a very hard line even when appearing to be mollifying its ideas as to what U.S. policy should amount to.
It is supposed to keep reinforcing the idea that: (I) tyrants are bad,
(II) there needs to be a replacement,
(III) it is alright, even a good idea, for the U.S. or any other democratic nations to participate in that process, even as nations may not have asked for anyone elses' help, and: (IV) they can name a leader, and one after the other, and they are then by definition, bad tyrants, lending justification, and: (V) our leaders cannot, won't be held responsible, instead will receive commendation for any wars and resulting destruction and troubles ensuing
from the decisions. We are slowly learning who is behind this. Yet they continue in it, and congressmen, senators, and cabinet officials, presidential aides, advisers, and heads of departments must march to the beat of their drums. If they don't, they are let go. The wars proceed, the killings of millions, destruction of nation after nation continues. Our friends in Europe, and 'free' nations, and friends of the 'free', like Saudi Arabia. U.A.E., Qatar & Israel too, back this kind of leadership in the 'civilized' world as it has become.
It is supposed to keep reinforcing the idea that: (I) tyrants are bad,
(II) there needs to be a replacement,
(III) it is alright, even a good idea, for the U.S. or any other democratic nations to participate in that process, even as nations may not have asked for anyone elses' help, and: (IV) they can name a leader, and one after the other, and they are then by definition, bad tyrants, lending justification, and: (V) our leaders cannot, won't be held responsible, instead will receive commendation for any wars and resulting destruction and troubles ensuing
from the decisions. We are slowly learning who is behind this. Yet they continue in it, and congressmen, senators, and cabinet officials, presidential aides, advisers, and heads of departments must march to the beat of their drums. If they don't, they are let go. The wars proceed, the killings of millions, destruction of nation after nation continues. Our friends in Europe, and 'free' nations, and friends of the 'free', like Saudi Arabia. U.A.E., Qatar & Israel too, back this kind of leadership in the 'civilized' world as it has become.
The picture is not as dark as it is shown here. Libyan students in the US still receives their monthly stipends and and their scholarships are being paid on time. If this is the case, then the state is still functioning and is still functioning well. I believe the problem is more of a political problem than a security one. We should not forget that the Muslim Brothers movement was behind all this violence from the beginning when the people of Libya decided they, the MB, do not fit to rule. It was the MB who also was behind the violence in Egypt and threatened with it in Tunisia.
What does Libya's unraveling mean? It is further evidence that most Arab nations are not ready for Western style democracy and may not be ready for hundreds of years. It will be further evidence of the West's ignorance in foreign affairs and blindness when it comes to important cultural differences that separate the Middle East from Western nations.
Western governments should realize that in many parts of the world including the Middle East, loyalty is to a tribe, a town or a religion. It is not to a nation state. Equality and civil rights are foreign concepts to these parts of the world. Governments in many Muslim countries stay in power, not because of free elections, but because of bribery, corruption, and iron fisted rule. Might makes right.
In many parts of the Middle East, freedoms that Westerners cherish such as freedom of speech, freedom to choose one's religion and equal rights for women are rejected concepts.
The faster the US and Europe understand this, the better. Indeed, Europe already has a problem on its hands since many Muslim immigrants are now living in Europe, hence the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen. It will only get worse.
Western governments should realize that in many parts of the world including the Middle East, loyalty is to a tribe, a town or a religion. It is not to a nation state. Equality and civil rights are foreign concepts to these parts of the world. Governments in many Muslim countries stay in power, not because of free elections, but because of bribery, corruption, and iron fisted rule. Might makes right.
In many parts of the Middle East, freedoms that Westerners cherish such as freedom of speech, freedom to choose one's religion and equal rights for women are rejected concepts.
The faster the US and Europe understand this, the better. Indeed, Europe already has a problem on its hands since many Muslim immigrants are now living in Europe, hence the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen. It will only get worse.
9
Who have been the ones in our government who either planned on, or refused to acknowledge they anticipated, the terrible results that have followed from the demise of formerly cohesive nations like Iraq, Libya, and now Syria?
In the name of promoting democracy, the terrorists who in the case of Iraq, followed in the wake of destruction of Iraq's government, the so-called 'freedom-fighters' of Libya, and then of Syria, have turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing (if they ever could have in truth been so perceived).
It is the wolves of war in the West who have posing in the sheep's clothes, while it is the people who have been led like sheep to the slaughter by these wolves of war.
They lead us on, those who continue to aid these so-called freedom fighters, while they been starving and denouncing those governments they so decry. They blame any country, even Russia now, by piling upon those nations hurtful policies, then blaming them for the trouble they endure; and use that trouble, caused by those policies most inimical to them, as further excuse to say their governments are bad.
But no matter how much they endure this injury and insult, the terrorists we covertly support, then in trying to replace those governments, (all in the name of democracy, because we, as a supposedly democratic nation, try yet to support that lie), we continue thereby a support for far worse kind of dogmatism ... than a Saddam Hussein or Joseph Stalin ever imposed upon their people!
In the name of promoting democracy, the terrorists who in the case of Iraq, followed in the wake of destruction of Iraq's government, the so-called 'freedom-fighters' of Libya, and then of Syria, have turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing (if they ever could have in truth been so perceived).
It is the wolves of war in the West who have posing in the sheep's clothes, while it is the people who have been led like sheep to the slaughter by these wolves of war.
They lead us on, those who continue to aid these so-called freedom fighters, while they been starving and denouncing those governments they so decry. They blame any country, even Russia now, by piling upon those nations hurtful policies, then blaming them for the trouble they endure; and use that trouble, caused by those policies most inimical to them, as further excuse to say their governments are bad.
But no matter how much they endure this injury and insult, the terrorists we covertly support, then in trying to replace those governments, (all in the name of democracy, because we, as a supposedly democratic nation, try yet to support that lie), we continue thereby a support for far worse kind of dogmatism ... than a Saddam Hussein or Joseph Stalin ever imposed upon their people!
1
What is the next stable non theocratic state in the Islamic world that we are going to overthrow?
It might work out well this time, maybe?
With oil being cheap we could get off the addiction with a small tax dedicated to research.
A nation driving affordable Tesla like vehicles, but with range.
Real energy standards in new construction that would save homeowners real dollars every day. .
If that part of the world wishes be as it is we could respect their cultural heritage. And sell them whetting stones. And nothing more advanced in weaponry.
It might work out well this time, maybe?
With oil being cheap we could get off the addiction with a small tax dedicated to research.
A nation driving affordable Tesla like vehicles, but with range.
Real energy standards in new construction that would save homeowners real dollars every day. .
If that part of the world wishes be as it is we could respect their cultural heritage. And sell them whetting stones. And nothing more advanced in weaponry.
Some people, including the media, were so thrilled when some of the authoritarian leaders in the Middle East went down. Unfortunately, what has replaced them has not been in our best interest. Perhaps this fact should cause us to contain our excitement about replacing Assad?
7
I couldn't believe it when America participated in the Ghadafi (who I despised nonetheless) overthrow. The Arab Spring has turned into an extremist nightmare. The sudden 'awakening' of the NYT when within days there were videos of pickup trucks of surface-to-air missiles being carted off from unguarded Libyan military depots is a pathetic too-little-too-late response. I don't know where to turn - the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. Is there nobody with common sense who saw this coming aside from us in the street? Is there no perspective on what will happen elsewhere if we continue to pursue these disastrous interventionist foreign policies? It's all very well to say well what's done is done and what are we going to do now, but it becomes a recursive, iterative exercise leading us to even worse places in the future. It is just bizarre that me - a nobody in the street - could foresee where this was going and the johnny-come-lately astonishment of all those actually in a position to have done (or not done in this case) something. While the real moral is that intelligence, power, and sophistication have tragically deep and fatal limits, we are facing what is literally a new and completely unexpected type of World War III - one that we are scarcely prepared for at all.
53
Why is partition of Libya a disaster? Why do we care if there is one state or two? Admonitions to "settle your differences" are pretty ridiculous when it's apparent Libya has already broken in two. This editorial identifies no reason it can't function as two states. It once was two states.
The unfortunate thing is that the guys with guns will not respect elections. But then, there certainly was no democracy under Khaddafi.
The international community (and their media referees) need to be open to the potential partitioning of Libya, if that offers the prospect of creating governments that have the means and incentives to control their borders and restore peace and opportunity to their people.
The unfortunate thing is that the guys with guns will not respect elections. But then, there certainly was no democracy under Khaddafi.
The international community (and their media referees) need to be open to the potential partitioning of Libya, if that offers the prospect of creating governments that have the means and incentives to control their borders and restore peace and opportunity to their people.
38
America's war on terror under Bush and Obama has certainly transformed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. We can only hope it will soon do the same in Syria.
11
This one falls squarely in Obama's lap: $1billion spent in covert operations. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-...
10
Bombing Libya was a bad idea on its face. Chaos was the result.
64
What is to be done?
Recognize that it is a crazy policy to overthrow a stable, anti-Islamic, secular ruler like Kaddafi. He or Saddam can't be brought back, but shift to support a similar ruler in Syria. Shift to an alliance with a virulently anti-Islamic Putin who supports secular leaders.
Of course, the Netanyahu lobby would scream, and we would have to force the corrupt leadership of Ukraine to accept the Canadian-like federalism that Putin reasonably proposes.
Of course, these are nasty leaders, but so was Elizabeth I who killed a lot of people and was one of the great positive figures in English history. The unlamented Charles I had a brilliant colonial policy that was the base of American success. George III was a dictator similar to Hussein in Jordan. It took 200 years for England to evolve from a harsh dictator like Elizabeth I (or her father, the great Henry VIII) to a milder one like George III.
The Times needs to break with the Netanyahu lobby and its chief spokesman, Tom Friedman, and start thinking of development with some historical perspective.
Recognize that it is a crazy policy to overthrow a stable, anti-Islamic, secular ruler like Kaddafi. He or Saddam can't be brought back, but shift to support a similar ruler in Syria. Shift to an alliance with a virulently anti-Islamic Putin who supports secular leaders.
Of course, the Netanyahu lobby would scream, and we would have to force the corrupt leadership of Ukraine to accept the Canadian-like federalism that Putin reasonably proposes.
Of course, these are nasty leaders, but so was Elizabeth I who killed a lot of people and was one of the great positive figures in English history. The unlamented Charles I had a brilliant colonial policy that was the base of American success. George III was a dictator similar to Hussein in Jordan. It took 200 years for England to evolve from a harsh dictator like Elizabeth I (or her father, the great Henry VIII) to a milder one like George III.
The Times needs to break with the Netanyahu lobby and its chief spokesman, Tom Friedman, and start thinking of development with some historical perspective.
124
If the Islamists force us to support rulers like Kaddafi or Saddam, then they have essentially won. They have blocked us from supporting secular or moderate religious rulers, since we are supporting tyrants who are against such people. And the rulers we do support are not stable in the long run; when they die, no one knows what will happen but a transition from one strongman to another, as happened in Syria, is unlikely.
23
Those strongmen are so repressive for a reason: they know their adversaries and the means that they are prepared to use. They know that if they appear weak they will be taken advantage of. And those that replace them will be at least as oppressive.
It is well known that many around Assad criticize him for not having been oppressive enough in the beginning. He should have known the outrageous behavior of the Brotherhood in its uprising around 1980. If he had crushed the present uprising when it started he would have prevented a civil war.
A fundamental requirement for democracy is that people are tolerant and prepared to solve their conflicts with peaceful dialogue. With an armed uprising (and even with an unarmed one) you achieve the opposite: on both sides the people who are prepared to use violence come to dominate.
Check what happens to all those countries that underwent a US sponsored color revolution. After a couple of years they are typically deeply corrupt. And in addition some of them become so destabilized that they fall into a civil war.
It is well known that many around Assad criticize him for not having been oppressive enough in the beginning. He should have known the outrageous behavior of the Brotherhood in its uprising around 1980. If he had crushed the present uprising when it started he would have prevented a civil war.
A fundamental requirement for democracy is that people are tolerant and prepared to solve their conflicts with peaceful dialogue. With an armed uprising (and even with an unarmed one) you achieve the opposite: on both sides the people who are prepared to use violence come to dominate.
Check what happens to all those countries that underwent a US sponsored color revolution. After a couple of years they are typically deeply corrupt. And in addition some of them become so destabilized that they fall into a civil war.
11
2sdavid, I appreciate your idealism, but the problem in the Muslim Middle East is that there are few, if any, moderate or secular leaders. Furthermore, Middle Eastern culture is not fertile ground for Western style democracies. They don't work there. I dislike tyrants as much as you do, but we must accept that in some parts of the world, the only way a person or entity can rule is through brutality. It is the way it is.
7
First, we had the Bush crowd removing a brutal but stable dictator thus handing over Iraq to Iran on a silver platter while totally destabilizing the Region in one fell swoop. And then to add insult to injury, we then had the Obama/Clinton gang follow up by going around destabilizing the rest of the Region by flushing out the remaining flawed but stable autocrats thus allowing anarchy to prevail.
Seems as if we are the fanatic's best friends when it comes to doing their dirty work for them.
Is it any wonder why so many Americans are totally fed up with everything about the Middle East?
And yet, at the same time, we won't demand energy independence here at home and so we remain addicted to a Region for our energy supplies which indirectly requires us to get sucked back into the fray at every turn.
Somebody needs to make up their mind........If we wish to divest ourselves of this Middle East madness we had better decide where we are going to get our next fill up from.