Libya was Destined to be a Mess

When people criticize Hillary Clinton, many point to her judgment, especially on foreign policy. She voted for the Iraq War, she wanted a reset with Russia, and most notoriously, she wanted to intervene in Libya.

On the first two, remember that Obama voted for Iraq, and that Donald Trump is recorded supporting it as well (in the beginning). And the Russian reset was with President Medvedev, who was quickly scrapped in Russian policy for weakness. It is President Putin you can blame for that going south.

But Libya is the one that most people like to point to. One, apparently Obama was pushed into it by Hillary's suggestions. And two, Libya did eventually lead to the even more famous Benghazi attack.

So why did Clinton want intervention in Libya? Looking back, most people can clearly see it was a mistake. The government currently controls only the capital, and the rest is held by roving tribes, many affiliated with ISIS.

And you could question Clinton's judgment, pointing out how Iraq was a case of intervention fixing nothing. Clinton looks like she learned nothing from that war, blindly stumbling into a new conflict because "Hoo-ra, the U.S. army rocks!"

None of these criticisms actually point out why the intervention was suggested in the first place.

So I will set the scene; it is 2011, and the Arab Spring is unfolding. In most of these countries these protests would fail or turn into very different movements. Egypt removed its President, elected an Islamist, and removed him in a coup. Syrian protesters were fired upon, and the protesters became rebel fighters. Only Tunisia truly succeeded, becoming a parliamentary republic.

In Libya, the protesters aimed to remove their President, Muammar Qaddafi. He had a reputation for being a hotheaded dictator, and once considered funding a nuclear weapons program. So when the protests started, he declared them "drugged" linked to Al-Qaida, and that he would rather be a martyr than leave the country. The army fired on protesters, and soon half of the country fell to the rebels. Qaddafi had the army march out to retake these areas, and pictures of tanks in the desert reached Western news.

Now think about the consequences to the West. Similar developments were happening in Syria, though not as quickly. But unlike Syria, Libya was a pressing and immediate issue. Libya is only a short boat ride from Italy. That country and France (which has imperialist ties to Libya) openly advocated a no-fly zone and intervention. Civil war so close to Europe was seen as simply unthinkable.

So the no-fly zone was set up, and a coalition of Western powers (led by Italy and France, with the USA as a simple contributor) launched airstrikes on military targets. The rebels took Tripoli, found Qaddafi himself in a drainpipe, and beat him to death.

A parliament was set up in Tripoli, which failed to exert control outside of the city, leading to the chaos in the country today.

Now imagine that there wasn't an intervention. It was widely believed Qaddafi was going to defeat the rebels, with his superior army and tanks. But as we've learned in Syria, the dictator with the army doesn't always win (Assad hasn't lost either, but five years of civil war are definitely not a win). If Qaddafi had triumphed, and done so quickly, maybe the intervention could be considered pointless.

But let's say Qaddafi didn't immediately win. Let's say he ran into the same problems as Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, with the rebels hanging on to key cities, with major components of the army defecting, and no end in sight. Neither side is willing to back down, and the country spirals into every worsening civil war.

Syria has led to a mass refugee exodus, triggering crisis in Europe. It has become a haven for terrorist groups, and ISIS controls part of the country. Libya is far closer to Europe. Any terrorists and refugees would find exporting their problems to Italy and Europe much easier than Syrians did.

Now maybe if the Italians and French had been interested in creating a stable Libya rather than just toppling Qaddafi, they would have recognized that military action alone would not create lasting peace. But they didn't, and the US didn't push them to, so the current situation exists.

Nobody remembers how Libya actually started down this path to chaos, and nobody says how much worse it could have gone. But then, that wouldn't make a very good talking point, would it?