EDITORIAL - Mr Obama's 'Iraq'

Mr Barack Obama, America's president, it is often remarked, is a student of United States (US) presidential history - but apparently, not if the presidency is recent.

Or, if that is not the case, Mr Obama has either not learnt, or has chosen to ignore, some of the lessons from the presidency of his immediate predecessor, Mr George W. Bush, especially with regard to the waging of war.

Indeed, during his campaign for the presidency, Mr Obama took pride in reminding voters that he had opposed Mr Bush's declaration of war on Iraq on spurious grounds, embroiling the US in the nasty sectarian fight that became the consequence of the wish of the neocons to oust Saddam Hussein.

Eight years on, the killing in Iraq may have lessened and America may be winding down its troops in the country, but Iraq is no paragon of democracy or peace. Iraq remains an unstable and violent place.

Launched missiles

This week, America's warships and planes launched missiles against Libyan government positions, giving muscle to a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the international community to take all necessary steps to supposedly stop the country's long-time leader, Muammar Gaddafi, from attacking his own people and enforcing a no-fly zone over the country. Apparently, after the Americans have shocked and awed the Libyan military and Gaddafi's supporters, the second- and third-ranked powers like Britain and France will do the gritty police work of enforcement.

Mr Obama has pledged that America "will not deploy any US troops on the ground". The British and French have hedged.

It, however, seems unlikely that such a promise can hold. Indeed, America and its supporters may be on the verge of another ideological war, akin to Iraq.

Libya is one of the North African and Arab Middle East countries where protesters have, in recent months, risen against long-time leaders, resulting in the ouster of the presidents of Egypt and Tunisia, largely through peaceful protests.

Bloody campaign

In Libya, the campaign to oust Gaddafi turned bloody. Security forces fought with protesters, some of whom took over towns and cities, having uprooted bureaucrats and Gaddafi's security forces. Or, more correctly, Libya was in the early rounds of a civil war in which the regime, having lost ground, appeared, with its advantage in weaponry, to be clawing its way back.

It seemed about to retake the city of Benghazi when President Obama issued his warning to Gaddafi, and the French and others, ostensibly at the urging of the 22-member Arab League, called for the protection of Libyan civilians. It is, of course, gravely ironic that several of the members of the Arab League are the very countries where uprisings by autocratic leaders are being squashed by security forces.

Gaddafi may be a nasty piece of work who we all dislike. But in this case, the evidence of his supposed extensive abuse of civilians, like that for the war in Iraq, seems spurious. The regime's declared intent to observe a cease-fire was given short shrift.

It may be easy to oust Gaddafi. But then what? Unless America and its allies suppose he has no support. It is worth remembering that Libya has more than 140 tribes and clans and that the country is already dividing along geographical lines. Things will possibly get worse - even than Iraq.

Having broken it, America, like with Iraq, will own it.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.