Muammar Gaddafi: tyrant, pawn, or madman?
Whatever one's take on the besieged Libyan leader, his reign has suddenly taken on the dark, foreboding tone of another Arab dictator who just a few short years ago had his rule (and life) ignominiously punctuated by a hangman's rope.
Therefore, if there's stirrings inside observers of deja vu regarding this entire Libyan situation, such feelings are justified.
Once a stalwart ally of the Western powers against Iranian fundamentalism, Saddam Hussein's usefulness dried up. He was vilified, hunted down and unceremoniously executed while his country was reduced to rubble and sectarianism. And Iraq's oil, which remains one of the largest remaining reserves in the mideast, became for all intensive purposes the possession of the conquering powers. Iraq's people have yet to see a dime.
Was Saddam's end justified by his rule? No one would dare argue against that. However, his life, his rule and the events now transpiring in Libya suggest that a nefarious pattern of use-demonize-pillage is now in place for all nations possessing something the West considers of value, especially if that nation is run by a former geopolitical servant.
In 2003, an unforgettable year for many, the invasion of Iraq began with tears of 9/11 still stinging American eyes. However, a UN issued report dated September 20, 2006, stated that the cost of such an invasion, especially in terms of Iraqi civilian casualties, had been significantly under-reported. Such casualties were placed at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may in reality have been much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian causalities at over 600,000.
Knowing this, could one say that American occupation was good for Iraqis? It's a matter of great debate. Nevertheless, we're starting to see the exact same events that surrounded Iraq's disassembly now occurring in Libya, and if history has taught us a lesson, these events could lead to tragic consequences for the Libyan people.
Fast forward to 2011, and a recent UN vote has paved the way for Western Military action against yet another Arab regime, this time Libya, which to no surprise brought cheers and celebratory gunfire from the anti-Gaddafi Libyans currently in rebellion.
At this point, it's necessary to outline where many similarities between Iraq and Libya start to show themselves:
1) Libya holds the largest oil reserves in Africa, and that oil is sweet crude and more highly prized than, say, Saudi oil
2) Libya has a rebellious contingent wanting to separate from the dictatorial regime, in its case tribes, much like the Kurds and Shiites of Iraq, or even the various tribes of Afghanistan
3) Gaddafi was once a useful anti-Islamist dictator, much like Saddam Hussein, that is, until he started funding -- and this is stated with a pinch of exaggeration -- half the terrorist operations in the world;
4) Gaddafi is now being vilified as oppressive against his people, which he's always been, but now seems the opportune time for Western powers to point out this fact, much as Saddam was painted with fangs and beady eyes once his utility expired
5) The United States and other Western powers are gathering a new "coalition of the willing" to assist the rebels in their efforts to remove Gaddafi from power, beginning with a no-fly zone, much like Iraq's dismemberment began with a no-fly zone
Libyan rebels, having faced a seemingly impossible uphill climb to overthrow their dictator, are cheering at the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya and the subsequent military assistance that no will doubt follow. But are the rebels also aware that the resolution has allowed Western Forces to use "any measures necessary" to complete their mission?
Surely Gaddafi must go, and surely his people deserve freedom. But will Western airstrikes hit their proper targets unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will we once again be hearing of untold civilian casualties like in the two aforementioned countries? Will Libya be plundered of its oil like Iraq currently is, and like Afghanistan's vast mineral wealth soon will be? Will the rebellion be fertilized with the blood of women and children as in so many other Western operations of "democracy building"?
Who will lead the multitude of tribes in Libya once Gaddafi is gone, tribes that already despise one another? Why are only countries with oil and minerals assisted in their civil disputes, and not countries such as the Ivory Coast that is currently plunging headlong into an internal war? Are the people there of no value, or is it the country that's of no worth?
For other countries to enter into a civil conflict at this late stage with airstrikes over blurred front lines that could in turn main or kill innocent civilians is illegal, and if it may be said, no better than something Gaddafi would do due to the disruption and loss of life it would cause.
As one commentator aptly questioned, will a second no-fly zone be instituted to stave off a massacre of pro-government forces once the rebels seize power? Which side is the right side? Who determines that?
While the "coalition of the willing" is neither allowed to occupy the country, nor have they made calls for a land invasion, one can only eye the television set with suspicion when a Western leader makes a speech about securing the safety of freedom of the Libyan people while all that oil is bubbling below the surface.
If this no-fly zone is truly to help the Libyan people, and isn't simply a re-run of Iraq and Afghanistan, then the United Nations and Western powers need to start focusing their attention on the whole of Africa and the mideast where tyrannical events like those in Libya transpire on a daily basis, and whose peoples cry out for mercy and freedom just as loudly as those fearfully huddled in Benghazi.
Where Gaddafi is concerned, however, help and intervention needs to come without the overbearing price tag of blood, oil, and chaos, lest the Libyan episode becomes the third installation in a trilogy of tragedy and greed.
-- By Matt & Lynsey