Confidently commenting on the execution of Libya’s long-time dictator, Barack Obama stated that “the death of Moammar Qaddafi showed that our role in protecting the Libyan people, and helping them break free from a tyrant, was the right thing to do.” About his own decision to pull all U.S. troops from Iraq in two months’ time, Obama asserted that “in Iraq, we’ve succeeded in our strategy to end the war.” He then drew triumphalist conclusions from these developments, bragging that they show “the tide of war is receding” and “we’ve renewed American leadership in the world.”
How handy: As Obama’s disliked domestic policies (especially concerning health care and employment) sink his popularity, he now claims foreign-policy successes. Democratic Party flacks tout his international achievements: “Terrorists and dictators,” says one, “lacking the filibuster, have no effective defense against Barack Obama.”
But the Middle East teaches caution; much will probably go wrong in Libya and Iraq. Obama, I predict, will rue his rash boasts.
Advertisement
In Libya, it is unclear who will emerge dominant in the National Transitional Council attempting to rule the country. Two figures represent the likely alternatives. Mahmoud Jibril (b. 1952; also known as Mahmoud Gebril ElWarfally) served as the NTC’s interim prime minister. He earned a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Pittsburgh, where he taught strategic planning. He has published ten books, including the well-received Imagery and Ideology in U.S. Policy Toward Libya, 1969–1982, and founded a professional-training and management-consulting company.
In contrast, Abdel-Hakim Belhaj (b. 1966), Tripoli’s military leader, went to Afghanistan in 1988 to fight the Soviets, served as leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and was arrested in 2004 by the CIA which turned him over to Qaddafi, who jailed him until 2010.
Differences between the two could hardly be starker: One Libyan leader held a prestigious academic post in the United States while the other claims to have been tortured by the CIA. One wants to integrate Libya into a Western-led order; the other dreams of a revived caliphate.
While Belhaj has stated his loyalty to the TNC under Jibril, he has also resisted its efforts to take control of the military units. As Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times delicately put it, “How exactly the relationship between the civilian leadership and the disparate military units will work remains unclear.” More troubling yet, Jibril announced his resignation on Sunday, just as the NTC chairman called for a constitution “based on our Islamic religion.” If Libya goes Islamist, Obama would pine for Qaddafi.
In Iraq, Obama’s claim about ending the war reminds one of George W. Bush’s much-ridiculed “Mission Accomplished” speech of May 1, 2003, when he prematurely announced that “in the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed” just as the real war had just begun. With U.S. forces now pulling out, Tehran can begin in earnest to take over the country and turn it into a satrapy.
Despite American warnings, Tehran already interferes in Iraq’s politics, sponsors militias, supports terrorism, and has sent its own forces into the country — and is preparing to do more. As Max Boot writes, the withdrawal of American troops means that the “risks of a catastrophic failure in Iraq now rise appreciably. The Iranian Quds Force must be licking its chops because we are now leaving Iraq essentially defenseless against its machinations.” Baghdad tries to appease Iranian threats; for example, its chief of staff proposed a regional security organization with Tehran.
If Iranian efforts succeed quickly, they might do significant damage to Obama’s electoral prospects a year from now. “Who lost Iraq?” could become a potent Republican battle cry. That Obama declared American efforts to stabilize Iraq a “complete failure” already in 2007 sets him up to take the blame for that very failure.
Even if Iraq holds until the U.S. elections in 2012, I predict that, in five to ten years, the American effort in Iraq (and, similarly, in Afghanistan), with all the lives lost and money spent, will have been for naught. When future analysts seek what went wrong, they might well focus on Obama’s clueless statements.
As Belhaj will likely prevail over Jibril, so will Iran over Iraq. If so, Obama and the Democrats will regret today’s myopic overconfidence.
When Obama proves wrong, he'll fall back on "it's more complicated than we thought" and "it's because of what Bush did when he was President". No matter the possible veracity of these items, they sound lame. If everything is more complicated than he thinks, he is the wrong person to sit in the Oval Office. I think American voters have a lot of tolerance for someone who does what they instinctively feel is right, even if it goes wrong in the end. They have less tolerance for someone who claims to know better and refuses to take the blame when it goes badly.
It's hard to say how the Libyan edition of the Arab Spring would have played out in the absence of American participation in the NATO attacks. Looking back at the fecklessness of the Libyan military and police forces, it seems likely that the end would have been the same, with or without our participation. Be that as it may, this was not America's affair and we would have done well to have stayed on the sidelines completely. To the extent that President Obama minimized our participation, he did well. To the extent that he committed American military power, he did poorly.
What comes next is also hard to say. The most likely result is that Libya's various tribes, now armed with Qaddafy's arsenal, will take up their favorite occupation, the settling of scores. (There are also the 20,000 surface to air missiles on the loose, some of which are likely to be coming soon to -- or *at* -- a commercial airliner near you.) Radical Islam is the only available source of trans-tribal unity. Men of ambition, lacking standing in their tribal hierarchies, will join forces under this banner. If the radical Islamists come out on top, we will have another Gaza or Iran. If they do not, we will have another Somalia. The most likely result is a mix of the two. However uncertain the result may be, one thing is certain, that this snake pit will be located just 300 miles from Europe. Mission accomplished indeed.
Regarding Iraq, President Obama is merely following the SOFA agreement negotiated between the United States and Iraq during the Bush administration. The ultimate triumph of Iran in Iraq was baked in the cake when the first bombs fell in March 2003. It was the Bush administration which committed this grave error, to get involved in a land war in a Muslim nation. Unfortunately, as President Obama's adventures in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan are showing, we have not yet learned the lesson.
The mission accomplished sign in Bush's speech was not about the Iraq campaign, but the ship he was on mission. This has been wrongly and deliberately used for far too long and it needs to stop. A mission is not a campaign or a war. Ask anyone that ever served in the military.
You lie! Iraq (and the Middle East) will thrive and prosper because of Obama's wise move. They will have to fend for themselves and work with our remaining advisors. Obama is right to take out the military and use them in other areas where American interests are threatened, like Uganda and the Congo, fighting Lord Resister's Army. Don't forget: Obama got Osama AND Gaddafi -- Bush didn't. Bush did not even try. Bush needed a boogeyman with which to sell his war plans with Cheney, and Haliburton. Especially to shovel billions to their political favorites -- Haliburton.
That is the funniest satire of liberal talking point spouting I have ever read! You sure made people who do post things like that look stupid! Keep up the good work.
