With the Libyan unrest now a full-fledged civil war watched by the entire world, idly standing by is no longer an option.
The war between an all-powerful dictator and a ragtag group of rebels, whose motives range from tribal loyalties and religious fervor to dreams of democracy, is fast becoming the Mideast’s equivalent of last century’s civil war in Spain.
Remember that? There were good reasons for America to stay out of the Spanish conflict, including the fear that if Gen. Francisco Franco lost, the communists would take over Spain. In hindsight, Franco’s victory clearly emboldened his allies, Hitler and Mussolini, and helped to usher in the bloodiest decade in human history, which ended only with the defeat of Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan — and with half of Europe in Communist hands.
As in Spain, both sides in today’s Libyan war are pulling in foreign sponsors. The Arab press is full of reports on Saudi arms deliveries to Libyan rebels and Syrian weapons sent to Khadafy’s loyalists. Even Egypt, despite its own turmoil, is rumored to have sent troops in to aid the war against Khadafy, a longtime rival.
Cairo, Damascus and Riyadh deny those reports, but the region’s sympathies are undeniable and the lines in the sand are drawn: Are you with Khadafy or against him?
OPEC is divided, too: America’s Gulf allies, led by the Saudis, urge an increase in oil production to reassure markets nervous over disruptions in Libyan supply. Iran and its allies, including Khadafy’s buddy Hugo Chavez, yearn to humiliate the oil-hungry West and dream of prices much beyond $100 a barrel. (Cash-hungry Russia, incidentally, is in the latter camp.)
Even the Europeans, normally a sanguine bunch, are making noises about joining the battle, and with a military intervention no less: Britain and France have already prepared “elements” for a Security Council resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. Given opposition from veto-wielding China and Russia, European diplomats tell me they’re looking out for a “trigger” that would make them present the resolution for a council vote. One such “trigger,” they say, would be a major Khadafy-perpetrated massacre, which would horrify the world and force it into action. (The death toll so far, estimated in the low thousands, is apparently chump change.)
In reality, the signal they’re waiting for won’t come from Libya, but from Washington, where President Obama continues to “debate,” “consider” and “weigh” all our options, even as he leaves all of them “on the table.”
Early on, there were many compelling reasons for America to stay out of the Libyan conflict: Tripoli doesn’t sell us much oil; al Qaeda might take over post-Khadafy; our military assets are stretched thin, and so on.
(We need to keep an eye on Iran, too: This week’s International Atomic Energy Agency’s report that detailed Tehran’s nuclear advances all but disappeared in the noise coming out of the rest of the region).
Yet the future of the whole region is increasingly tied to the Libyan crisis. If Khadafy survives, the signal to other tyrants will be: Forget the kind of restraint that America demanded, and got, from Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Mubarak. If you want to stay in power, shoot to kill, like Khadafy.
The same lesson would also be etched in the minds of would-be opposition forces, in Iran and elsewhere.
The United States can’t keep delegating responsibility in this crisis to the Europeans, the Arab League or the United Nations.
We can no longer afford telling Libyans and the region that we love democracy but we won’t lift a finger to help it materialize.
Just as with the Spanish Civil War, our failure to act now will only leave us with a much bigger mess down the line — one that will cost far more in blood and treasure to repair. beavni@gmail.com