How Not to Intervene in Libya

Pundits and politicians are promoting all kinds of dangerous ideas for taking down Qaddafi. Here are five rules Obama should consider before plunging in blindly.

BY DIRK VANDEWALLE | MARCH 10, 2011

Take it slow. Because of Qaddafi's evisceration of all political and social institutions, Libya will be severely lacking in even the basic understandings of how modern, representative governments work. The natural impulse of Westerners will be to insist on elections, as soon as possible. But elections without the prerequisites for a modern democracy in place -- and here Libya will be found profoundly deficient -- are hollow and counterproductive. Thoughtful Libyans are unlikely to be impressed with calls for early elections in a country where even the most basic checks and balances to make a democratic system work are not yet in place. Better to take things slowly. And with its vast experience of political capacity-building through a large number of government agencies, the United States is in a unique position to help create a sustainable network of civil, social, and political institutions that could help build the foundations of a democratic Libya.

Human rights matter... The United States should obviously support all humanitarian efforts the international community organizes on behalf of Libya, as well as all multilateral efforts to hold the Qaddafi regime responsible and accountable for the crimes it has committed against its own citizens. The military airlift of refugees currently underway is a positive sign, as is the International Criminal Court's involvement. But the United States could go further and advocate the early establishment of a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the country once Qaddafi is gone. Libya is a tribal society. Such societies have long memories, and 40 years of Qaddafi's rule made some collaboration with the regime virtually unavoidable for almost everyone. In thinking about helping to rebuild Libya, any actor who can help prevent the settling of scores will be seen as a valuable interlocutor.

... and so does oil. The economic reconstruction of Libya's economy after four decades of inefficient state management and cronyism could provide a final focus for U.S. expertise. Almost 95 percent of Libya's current income is derived from oil (and natural gas). Oil, and how the proceeds from oil sales are distributed, will be crucial for all sides, no matter how Libya is rebuilt. This will require a number of creative solutions to keep the country unified. The United States could be helpful in mediating and suggesting a number of ways out of the conundrums Libya will encounter in this regard -- perhaps by suggesting a federal formula that provides incentives for the different provinces and tribes to work together, rather than go their own way.

For the first time since independence in 1951, Libyans at the end of their war of attrition will be asked to create a modern state, one that provides checks and balances between its citizens and those who rule over them. Four decades of fragmentation of the country's society and the competition for the country's massive oil reserves will make a consensus around such a creation exceedingly difficult. The United States can help immensely by providing wise council and expertise. Anything beyond that will eventually be seen by most Libyans as self-interested, no matter how selfless or in the greater interest of Libyans the United States may attempt to portray it.

Oli Scarff/Getty Images

 

Dirk Vandewalle teaches in the department of government and at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. He is the author of A History of Modern Libya.

OLIVER CHETTLE

9:41 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Here's an idea: why doesn't

Here's an idea: why doesn't the United States just do whatever it thinks is right, without considering its "national interest"? It would be such a refreshing change, and might win some friends. Given that Libya is a tiny country (in population terms), that is nowhere near the United States, and is not even a significant direct supplier of oil to the U.S., what does it have to lose from adopting this radically different mental framework? If things work out well, the U.S. will benefit indirectly from the resumption of the flow of Libyan oil onto the global market regardless of whether Exxon et al get the pick of the deals.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

2:44 PM ET

March 11, 2011

Getting emotionally involved

Getting emotionally involved with regard to IR on a national level is how mistakes are made. You say, hey we are doing it because it's right. You think we've never done that. Uh, were you alive in the 90's? That's when we gave your theory a shot: Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...we had no national interest in those places, we intervened, we got bogged down, and, in particular, Somalia became a template for "here's what we never need to do again". Our experiences in those places is why we didn't go into Rwanda, and it's why we shouldnt go into Libya. Intervention worked fairly well in the Balkans, where we had alot of experience, alot of support, and almost everyone was onboard...oh, and it was ACTUALLY A GENOCIDE. Libya is NOT A GENOCIDE

 

XEYNON

10:10 PM ET

March 10, 2011

What if Gaddafi wins?

Your assumption is that if the situation is left as is, the rebels will eventually prevail. Given events over the last few days, in which pro-Gaddafi forces have succeeded in recapturing Zawiya and pushed the rebels first out of Bin Jawad, and now out of Ras Lanuf, it appears it could be a dubious one. If General Clapper's assessment is correct, and Gaddafi's superior firepower allows him to suppress the rebellion the results could be very, very bad - a Saddam-circa-1991 style massacre against regime opponents in Libya, followed by increased repression at home and greater anti-western agitation abroad (including possibly a return to sponsoring terrorism - after all, if we don't have the stomach to help topple him now, he'll probably figure he can get away with a few Lockerbie-style provocations in the future). Gaddafi's not going to just going back to being a reliable if unsavory business and anti-terrorism partner after the west attempted to push him off the ledge without getting their hands dirty. He may also decide he wants WMDs after all, so as to better crush the next rebellion. The result will be a new Saddam-era Iraq on Europe's southern doorstep.

There's a good chance that we're not facing a choice between allowing the rebels to do it themselves and staying clean, or getting involved and possibly dirty. Rather, the choice may be between getting involved and possibly dirty, and allowing Gaddafi to climb back onto his throne over a mountain of corpses, after which he will be newly emboldened and once again motivated to lash out violently at the west. That last scenario is not only a humanitarian nightmare, it's also really bad for American/western interests. I don't support a heavy military intervention as of now, but having committed rhetorically to the notion that Gaddafi has lost legitimacy and has no future, we need now to do everything we can materially to assure that that's the case, because I fear we'll be made to rue it if we don't.

 

ASGOLD25

11:05 AM ET

March 11, 2011

Well said

My thoughts exactly.

 

XMASTER4000

11:38 PM ET

March 10, 2011

One little problem though

This article assumes that the good guys will win easily, which is something quite debatable given recent opposition setbacks around the country, along with the own assessment of the US intelligence community.

Let's face it, Libya will not be easy to handle, the bad guys will crush the rebellion and the international community will have to make a choice between leaving the people of Misrata, Zarawiyah and Benghazi to face the dictatorship's revenge all by themselves, or step up to put an end to it. And that's gonna require military assets of the kind most countries are weary of committing.

It seems like a lose-lose situation with millions of things that could go wrong, yet in my opinion the greater cause of justice is indeed in the national interest of every single legitimate nation, and should guide policy decision making in a way that leads towards a better future for all. The world will notice the West actions- but specially its omissions- as long as Gaddafi keeps killing its people without remorse.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

10:13 AM ET

March 11, 2011

Politicians will oppose Obama now matter what

If Obama chose more direct intervention, the politicians will definitely sing a different tune. Next year is an election year and politicians need to differentiate themselves from others.

 

NICOLAS19

10:28 AM ET

March 11, 2011

the hawks haven't forgotten, nor learnt anything

Oh, yeah, another military intervention that is bound to succeed by simply following 5 easy steps. How many steps it takes to succeed in Afghanistan? Or in Iraq?