Ninety-nine times out of a hundred I find Mark Lynch’s work incredibly informative and uniquely insightful. His new article on Libya, however, isn’t one of those times.
The overarching theme of the piece is that Libya’s saga has become central to the narrative of Arab revolutions sweeping across the Middle East and thus deserves special consideration and (possibly) justifies special measures:
“If Gaddafi succeeded in snuffing out the challenge by force without a meaningful response from the United States, Europe and the international community then that would have been interpreted as a green light for all other leaders to employ similar tactics. The strong international response, first with the tough targeted sanctions package brokered by the United States at the United Nations and now with the military intervention, has the potential to restrain those regimes from unleashing the hounds of war and to encourage the energized citizenry of the region to redouble their efforts to bring about change. This regional context may not be enough to justify the Libya intervention, but I believe it is essential for understanding the logic and stakes of the intervention by the U.S. and its allies.”
I see three problems here. First, this statements is rather anachronistic. Did Saleh in Yemen, al-Khalifa in Bahrain, or al-Assad in Syria need a green light to start killing protesters? Who is even left to be deterred?
Second, there is little evidence to suggest that the U.S. would or even could intervene in the same way elsewhere. The Libya no-fly zone was made possible by an exceptional set of factors including Gaddafi’s international pariah status, the eagerness of the French and British to lead the diplomatic and military charge, and the support of the Arab League and the GCC. Consequentially intervention in Libya will do little to limit tyrants or encourage citizens in other countries. If the rebels continue to flounder and the U.S. becomes more deeply involved or pulls out abruptly, the prospects are even worse.
Third, U.S. and European intervention is by nature diametrically opposed to the wave of organic revolutions sweeping across the Middle East. The power of what happened in Egypt and Tunisia was that it had nothing to do with what America said or did and everything to do with the determination and grit of Egyptians and Tunisians. They stood up and did the unthinkable. The tragic reality is that the pro-democracy camp doesn’t always win and in Libya specifically there is little we can do ensure it does without becoming far more involved than we already are.
-Evan
The overarching theme of the piece is that Libya’s saga has become central to the narrative of Arab revolutions sweeping across the Middle East and thus deserves special consideration and (possibly) justifies special measures:
“If Gaddafi succeeded in snuffing out the challenge by force without a meaningful response from the United States, Europe and the international community then that would have been interpreted as a green light for all other leaders to employ similar tactics. The strong international response, first with the tough targeted sanctions package brokered by the United States at the United Nations and now with the military intervention, has the potential to restrain those regimes from unleashing the hounds of war and to encourage the energized citizenry of the region to redouble their efforts to bring about change. This regional context may not be enough to justify the Libya intervention, but I believe it is essential for understanding the logic and stakes of the intervention by the U.S. and its allies.”
I see three problems here. First, this statements is rather anachronistic. Did Saleh in Yemen, al-Khalifa in Bahrain, or al-Assad in Syria need a green light to start killing protesters? Who is even left to be deterred?
Second, there is little evidence to suggest that the U.S. would or even could intervene in the same way elsewhere. The Libya no-fly zone was made possible by an exceptional set of factors including Gaddafi’s international pariah status, the eagerness of the French and British to lead the diplomatic and military charge, and the support of the Arab League and the GCC. Consequentially intervention in Libya will do little to limit tyrants or encourage citizens in other countries. If the rebels continue to flounder and the U.S. becomes more deeply involved or pulls out abruptly, the prospects are even worse.
Third, U.S. and European intervention is by nature diametrically opposed to the wave of organic revolutions sweeping across the Middle East. The power of what happened in Egypt and Tunisia was that it had nothing to do with what America said or did and everything to do with the determination and grit of Egyptians and Tunisians. They stood up and did the unthinkable. The tragic reality is that the pro-democracy camp doesn’t always win and in Libya specifically there is little we can do ensure it does without becoming far more involved than we already are.
-Evan
