Obama’s rite of passage

Obama would have retained his credibility had he confined the US to extending support to Libyan rebels.

Long admired as a cerebral person with moderate and progressive ideas, US President Barack Obama appears to be succumbing much too often to pressures of powerful interest groups that wield enormous influence over American politics. Increasingly, he is reverting to policies pursued by those he had criticised, which explains the deep disappointment among his core supporters.

But nothing could demonstrate this more painfully than his surrender to the hawkish foreign policy and national security lobbies on the issue of Libya. He is the one who castigated his predecessor for having invaded Iraq on false charges, holding this decision as having given a fresh lease of life to the terrorists. Riding to the White House as an anti-war candidate, he vowed to transform relations with the Muslim world through a policy of “mutual interest and mutual respect”. And yet, he has now followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, who did not shy away from launching armed attacks against foreign countries on grounds that are less than credible.

After having adopted commendably restrained and responsible policies on Tunisia and Egypt, wherein the US encouraged genuine popular uprisings against long-entrenched dictatorial regimes, he seems to have lost his way on Libya. While Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s murderous assault on his people can neither be explained nor condoned, other than because of his egomaniacal nature and his disdain for human life, the eagerness with which the West assumed guardianship of the ‘freedom fighters’ raises many questions. Moreover, Qaddafi’s track record should have cautioned the US not to expect him to walk away, a la (former Tunisian president Zine El Abidine) Ben Ali or Hosni Mubarak. But in adopting a muscular policy advocated by his European allies, in particular French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron, who have long despised Qaddafi and looked at Libya’s huge oil wealth with avaricious eyes, Obama has stepped into choppy waters that are likely to lead to unforeseen consequences for America’s standing in the world.

The Security Council resolution authorising UN members “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas”, was purposely vague though it “excluded a foreign occupation force of any form on any part” of Libya, but it provided adequate latitude to would-be interventionists. Admittedly, Qaddafi’s words that his forces would be warring the rebels of “tracking them down and searching for them, alley by alley, road by road” did not help his cause. But the western powers, in particular France and Britain, who have long viewed Qaddafi as a thorn in their side, even though his son engineered a rapprochement with them, had already decided to cross the Rubicon.

The US is trying to portray itself as a somewhat reluctant participant in the operation, insisting that it was the Arab League endorsement that “changed the diplomatic landscape”, while trying to cajole even a couple of Arab states to join in to give the operation some semblance of legitimacy. Secretary Clinton is also feigning humility, insisting that the US is not taking the leadership role in the operations. These pretensions notwithstanding, Qaddafi’s claim that it is “a colonial crusader aggression” is likely to intensify anti-American sentiments in the region. Moreover, if the fighting results in a stalemate, or worse, in a division of the country, it could embolden the ‘militants’ to take advantage of the ensuing chaos.

A military invasion of a third Muslim state in a decade, especially at a time when the entire region is in a state of unprecedented upheaval and while a brutal crackdown in Bahrain is being ignored, raises all kinds of awkward questions for the US. Obama would have retained far greater credibility had he confined the US to extending political and diplomatic support to the Libyan rebels, while squeezing the Qaddafi regime by economic measures. But then, like his predecessors, Obama too needed to go through his rite of passage. One can only hope that it is not as traumatic and destabilising for the region as the Iraq war.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 23^rd, 2011.