We are in Libya for a reason, and for that reason it’s important to win — which means avoiding any trap that would allow the war to end with Moammar Khadafy still in power.
Over the weekend, the African Union set just such a trap. Led by South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma, an AU group arrived yesterday at Benghazi, the Libyan rebels’ stronghold, offering a “ceasefire” plan that Khadafy had agreed to a day earlier.
Of course, the rebels declined, vowing to reject any future “solution” that would fall short of Khadafy’s ouster. But the goal of Khadafy and his Pretoria enablers runs much beyond Benghazi — to splitting the international coalition that President Obama is so proud of forging.
Buckling now under pressure from Russia, China or Germany means forgetting why we joined the battle in the first place.
We entered the war amid a major regional upheaval, rightly or wrongly choosing the Libyan arena (as opposed to, say, Iran in 2009 or Syria today) to make a stand and tell Mideasterners that we won’t permit tyrants to massacre their peoples to stay in power.
What’s more, beyond the hazy stated cause, the underlined message to the region resembles what the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair told CNN on Sunday: The strategic objective, he said, is to “get a government in place in which the Libyan people have a say in Libya’s future.”
It’s democracy, stupid — which is impossible if Khadafy keeps power. If he even ends up controlling just Tripoli, the Arab Spring will be over. The message to rebels and tyrants alike will be oppres sion wins. Strongmen will edge out everyone else — including in places where rulers were toppled, like Egypt and Tunisia.
Some old-think “realists” may actually hope for such an outcome. After all, whoever takes Hosni Mubarak’s place in Egypt surely won’t be as reliable a Western ally. According to an International Peace Institute poll out last week, the leading presidential candidate is Amre Moussa — who called over the weekend for the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza. That would shield Hamas from Israeli retaliation for rockets launched against civilians — a parody of Libya’s no-fly zone that strongly suggests Cairo’s next leader, even a secular one, would be much more sympathetic to Islamist terror than Mubarak was.
It’s also unlikely that even the most enlightened candidate will rid Egypt of the religious fanaticism that allows the oppression of Christian Copts and other minorities — a crucial indicator of any liberal hope for the country.
Elsewhere, if the rule of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh ends (as is increasingly likely) a country controlling a strait crucial to the flow of oil may well descend into the kind of chaos that only al Qaeda could love.
Oh, and, yes, there are also too many al Qaeda sympathizers among the rebels we’re backing in Libya. So the critics are partially right: Anyone confidently predicting that emerging Mideast leaders will instantly be some kind of pro-Western liberal democrats is naive.
But then again — compared to what? The region’s political stagnation, as we’ve known since the end of the colonial era, can no longer be sustained. It has bred Islamic terrorism and hatred, and it can’t peacefully coexist with us — or even with many Arabs — in this age of information revolution. The Mideast needs a shakeup.
We can’t shape its future, but we can do our share by aiding and strengthening the weak and disorganized forces that advocate democracy. In the short run, even they might refrain from siding with us. But if and when they grow more confident, they’ll eventually hitch their wagon to a natural ally, the West, against internal rivals who either hope to enrich themselves by becoming tyrants or seek a return to some imaginary 7th century Muslim glory.
But first, these future pro-Westerners need to believe that it’s in our interest to empower them. If we let Khadafy win — and in the Mideast survival is winning — we won’t only lose a battle. We’ll lose the war for the heart of the region.
It’s hard to imagine anyone worse than the current leaders of Libya, Syria or Iran — but if we don’t genuinely choose sides, that’s what we’ll get everywhere in the Mideast.
So, with a wide coalition or without, in the lead or hiding behind France’s back, let’s help Libya’s rebels win — and on with the revolution.
beavni@gmail.com