The Hypocrisy Of American Involvement In Libya

NATO, with America at the helm, is becoming increasingly involved in Libya under the guise of a humanitarian mission to protect the intentional killing of civilians opposed to the Libyan government. President Gaddafi has proven he is willing to murder his own people in order to stay in power and his removal from power may bring about a more democratic government and open society. However, what are the real reasons America and its allies have become so invested in Libya, given the unrest, uprising, and repression going on across the Middle East?

Consider the following: recent statistics place the civilian death toll in Libya at approximately 6,000. However, there are far worse scenarios in which the US did nothing and current humanitarian situations where the US continues to do nothing. In the early 1990’s, the Rwandian genocide claimed the lives of 800,000 people (20% of the countries population at the time), and yet we did nothing. It took 5 years of civil war and several years of on-the-ground reporting of massacres in Yugoslavia for NATO to act decisively. Meanwhile, regimes across the Middle East (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, and Yemen) have had massive protests that have ended with respective armies mowing down unarmed civilians. What has suddenly motivated the US and its allies to consider the Libyan situation worthy of active intervention?

The obvious answer is that Libya is the largest oil producer in Africa and the ninth largest in the world, producing 1.8 million barrels a day in 2006. Well-informed citizens understand the pattern here: our so-called “humanitarian missions” tend to happen in oil rich countries. Secondly, Libya is largely on the outskirts of the American sphere of power. Much like Saddam or Chavez, Gaddafi operated internationally by presenting himself as a revolutionary anti-imperialist outside of Western manipulation. The United States does not have to sacrifice a strategic partner or ally in removing Gaddafi; in fact, the US will most likely gain another government complacent to American interests:

The United States and its allies have already expressed their opposition to President Gaddafi, so it would be very difficult to negotiate or mediate in the case of the rebellion failing. The US and NATO have opted to establish a no-fly zone over Libya in an attempt to help level the playing field between the two forces, though concerns are arising that even with the no-fly zone in effect, the rebel armies will still be defeated. They simply lack the manpower, training and weaponry that Gaddafi’s forces possess. Talk has begun of arming and training rebel forces in an effort to help them further.

The real question then becomes what will happen if the rebels succeed in ousting the current government? With similar interventions in the past, the US ended up funding and arming groups that would inevitably be against American interests. In the 1980s, the US armed and trained anti-Soviet Union Afghan rebels in an effort to prevent the spread of communism, which would eventually morph into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. US Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis has already been quoted as saying that intelligence shows “flickers of potential al-Qaeda” in the rebel forces fighting Gaddafi.

Even with defeating Gaddafi, there are many issues. Removing him entirely will result in a power vacuum, which could potentially result in further fighting, as there was in Rwanda after President Juvénal Habyarimana’s plane was shot down, or in Burundi when democratically-elected president Melchior Ndadaye was assassinated. America wants to intervene to prevent Gaddafi from remaining in power but runs the risk of further alienating Middle East allies and moderates, and potentially funding groups opposed to US interests.

Matt Goldman is a pre-law Creative Writing Major and Political Science Minor at Western Michigan University. He is a contributor to Prose Before Hos and is currently working on a satirical science fiction novel.