Libya: Where Do We Go From Here?

2011 has been the year of revolution, particularly in the Muslim nations of the Middle East and North Africa that once formed the core of the Islamic Caliphate. The world watched as dictatorships once thought completely secure were toppled virtually overnight, first in Tunisia and then in Egypt. Things got a little more complicated when other heads of state refused to bow to the pressure of the mob. In particular, Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi proved a little stubborn in the face of "rage and change." Now, thanks to military intervention by NATO, Ghaddafi has been kicked out of Tripoli and the rebels have seized control of the majority of the country. Yay us! Victory for the people over tyranny, and all that. What could possibly go wrong?

Since the beginning of NATO operations in Libya, one question has taken center stage (and refused to leave): why? Oddly enough, that seems to be the question that kept popping up during the NATO campaigns in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia in the Clinton administration. Say what you want about Afghanistan and Iraq, but at least the leadership of both nations actually considered themselves to be our enemies. Libya presented no true threat to any external power, certainly not to any member state of NATO. The only real reason presented was the "responsibility to protect" doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005. Libya has been the first practical application of this doctrine, which states that it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene on behalf of oppressed people in a civil war/genocide situation. Of course, you don't see any movement to protect the citizens of Iran or Syria, so I guess the international community is allowed to be picky about who they want to save. It is very possible that this same doctrine could be used against Israel, to "protect" the Palestinians, or even the United States if a politically favored group puts forth the claim that they are being oppressed. Is this idea a bit paranoid? Maybe, but we have plenty of enemies in the UN that would love to use such techniques against us at the first opportunity.

Another problem with the so-called "kinetic military action" in Libya (like the Obama administration had to point out that the military action was, in fact, moving) is that it exposes just how thinly stretched NATO forces are. Military equipment broke down with alarming regularity, and the European members of the coalition actually started running out of precision munitions within the first month of military operations. More recently, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle actually broke down and had to be withdrawn from the area of operation for repairs, putting a major dent in the French ability to project power to Libya. While the United States has not suffered problems anywhere near this magnitude (because, you know, we actually know what it takes to fight a war) the resources and manpower needed to stretch us out into a third theater of conflict are placing further strain on our military at perhaps the worst possible time.

Finally, there is little we can do but wait and see who will take over the oil-rich country. It has been widely known that the Libyan rebels were at least sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but just how sympathetic remains to be seen. It would be more than a little ironic for al-Qaeda, weak and on its last legs, to find a safe haven to rebuild in Libya thanks to the "brave" efforts of NATO. As the jails have been opened by the victorious rebels, hundreds of dangerous jihadists that were mingled in with the political prisoners have been released onto the streets of Tripoli. Of course, the Europeans don't care as long as they get access to exclusive trade deals with the new regime and access to Libya's oil. I guess as long as it's not an American conservative that wants to attack an oil-rich nation, it's completely fine with the international media.

It doesn't take a genius to realize there are forces at work with the situation in Libya that are unfriendly to the interests of the United States and her allies. That doesn't mean that the new rulers are necessarily worse for us than Ghaddafi. But we must be very careful regarding our next move, something the Obama administration has shown no signs of doing. Just one more domino in the Arab world, but one that could have profound consequences.