Is History Rhyming in Libya?
Let’s hope not.
As the Obama Administration continues its delicate balancing act between fecklessness and inertia in Libya, it’s probably too much to expect any positive good to come out of the White House. But it would be nice if they at least didn’t compound the problems of the anti-Gaddafi rebels.
Alas, that may not be the case, according to the State Department, where P.J. Crowley (the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs) said earlier this week that the U.N.’s arms embargo on Libya (which the Administration has hailed as a triumph) precluded the sale of weapons to anyone in Libya. There have been continued questions throughout the week as to whether this is the proper interpretation of the embargo, but the fact that the White House hasn’t effectively clarified is itself telling.
If it is the case that the embargo shuts off weapons flows to the rebels as well as the Gaddafi regime, we may be about to relearn a lesson that was tragic enough in its first iteration.
In 1991, the UN imposed a similar embargo throughout the former Yugoslavia. The result? Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian forces – who had an overwhelming advantage in the possession of existing arms – were able to perpetrate widespread brutality on the Bosnians and Croats.
It took four years for Congress to throw out the embargo – but a stitch in time would have saved thousands of lives. Let’s hope the Obama Administration takes the lesson – and remembers that equality is not a virtue when applied to a butcher and his victims.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Is History Rhyming in Libya?
Do you really believe that this will happen??
Nov '10
Re: Is History Rhyming in Libya?
I just did a Google on "Obama" and "feckless" and got more than 99,000 hits.
There appear to be a lot more out there than those on ricochet who have this opinion.
To bad recall is not an option for the POTUS.
Re: Is History Rhyming in Libya?
Troy, your historical parallel is illuminating -- and frightening. My impression, like yours, was that the State Department hasn't completely resolved the question of whether they would embargo all arms sales or only those to Qaddafi loyalists.
But here's a devil's advocate question: Libya is practically anarchic right now. In the past, when unstable regimes have fallen (e.g., Uganda and Iraq), its weapons have made their way into black markets and into the hands of terrorists. So (1) how could we be sure in anarchic Libya that we could certainly direct all arms inflows to anti-Qaddafi forces and (2) even if we did, is it worth the probability that they will end up on black markets eventually?
Re: Is History Rhyming in Libya?
(1) We can't be sure. In fact, I'd bet good money that some portion of the weapons aid ends up in places we'd prefer it didn't. I don't think a sovereign government can effectively enforce gun control without a tyrannical level of force, let alone a country that's just providing foreign aid.
(2) It is worth it, in my judgment, despite the risks. Considering the alternatives, I'm sure any untoward groups that got the weapons would eventually get them somewhere else anyway. If the choice is thus between armed radicals and an armed Libyan resistance or armed radicals and an unarmed (or, more accurately, less armed) Libyan resistance, I'll take the former. Not pretty, but probably realistic.