I am amazed at the current U.S. debate over Syria. Those urging intervention may be driven by humanitarian good intentions, to end the fighting and ease suffering. But whatever they are proposing--no-fly zones, safe havens, direct supply of weapons to rebels, etc—have they actually considered how four highly visible, recent precedents turned out?The 4 examples Rubin analyzes of US intervention in the Middle East are:
Finally, we have evidence that IsIamists and even al-Qaida supporters will play a central role in Libya’s new regime. Up to now there has been reasonable speculation that the U.S. government and NATO might be installing an anti-Western, Islamist government in Libya. Now there’s proof that this is so.
The actual government remains in the hands of non-Islamists, technocrats, ex-regime officials, and moderates. But the armed rebels who actually made the revolution have voted and their idol is…an al-Qaida guy. Political power, said Mao Zedong, grows out of the barrel of a gun and in Libya’s case this seems a very reasonable expectation.
By Barry Rubin
I'm interviewed by Katherine Jean Lopez (KJL) of National Review (Watching Tripoli: Arab Spring Dominos Falling?). The text here updates very slightly the published text.
KJL: Is there any question Qaddafi is going to leave Libya? How could that change things?
RUBIN: The latest trends in the fighting are against him. More than at any other time, the rebel advance threatens his survival. And as we saw recently with the British, the NATO allies are intervening more to help the rebels win, going far beyond protecting civilians.
Again, and this is not in any way to sympathize with Qaddafi, the NATO countries and the United States are doing nothing to protect civilians from the rebels. There is a lot of looting, wanton destruction, and human-rights abuses when they take over. No action or public protest comes from Europe or the Obama administration.
Another interesting development is the clear tribal divisions among the rebels and the emergence of a Berber movement that might seek some autonomy if Qaddafi is defeated.
But that war over who is going to rule Libya is a long way from being over.
KJL: What are you most worried about in Tripoli?
End of Gaddafi regime leaves US, Europe deeply concerned over future of Libya's massive chemical weapons arsenal; with steps already being taken to ensure WMDs don’t fall into wrong hands
As the world watches deposed Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi's forces take their last stand in Tripoli, western intelligence officials are trying to follow the trail of Libya's chemical weapons arsenal, and especially its mustard gas caches.
To begin with, President Obama’s supporters are praising him for having overthrown Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qadhafi at no cost in American lives. I predict that the situation will break down within months into factional infighting, atrocities against civilians, and become a general mess. The main likelihood is not of an Islamist takeover but of rather nasty anarchy. While Obama’s team are crowing today they will be eating crow–or more likely be blaming somebody else–by early next year at the latest.
In his column for NowLebanon, entitled “Qaddafi’s fall, Obama’s vindication,” Hussein Ibish gushes:
Libyan Blues
by Daniel Pipes
August 22, 2011
Many are ready to party about the political demise of the hated, eccentric, and foul Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi as rebel troops move into Tripoli. I am not partying. Here's why not.
1) Celebrating Qaddafi's defeat
The New York Times, which has had a history of shilling for the Qaddafi regime (that doesn't include this fawning profile of Aisha el-Qaddafi, Moammar's daughter, from April) is now celebrating Qaddafi's final hours.
For more than 40 years, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has dominated and terrorized Libya — his image plastered on what seemed like every wall and his goons posted on every corner. Late Monday, with rebel fighters in substantial control of Tripoli, he was nowhere to be found, and his regime seemed to be collapsing.
As NATO jets bombed the military positions of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, the watching rebels cheered, “Allah Akhbar!” Now that is a common Muslim expression, not just used by Islamists, and yet there is something symbolic about it. Allah did not bring the rebels victory, the United States and Europe did. Nevertheless, Allah will get the credit.Continue reading Libya: The Dictator Has Fallen! Long Live [Fill in the Blank]!
And that means the triumph will be attributed to the rebels’ piety rather than the West’s warplanes. In political terms, Islamism is likely to be more attractive than a pro-Western stance. But that doesn’t mean Libya will be an Islamist state; it merely means it won’t be a democratic, pro-Western one.
(seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East
(Wiley), and The Truth About Syria
(Palgrave-Macmillan). His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, to be published by Yale University Press in January 2012. You can read more of Barry Rubin's posts at Rubin Reports, and now on his new blog, Rubin Reports, on Pajamas Media
