US intervention in Libya?
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, has recently announced that the U.S. military is getting ready for a possible extended operation in Libya. He said the operation would be conducted in coordination with the Libyan government. Dunford said the operation's aim will be to destroy DAESH; and in order to achieve that, the U.S. military will probably have to stay in Libya for quite a long time.
This was an interesting statement. The Americans are saying that they are currently negotiating with the new Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) to eradicate DAESH. You may recall that the organization's name indicates its real target, however, Iraq and Syria. So why is the priority country for destroying DAESH Libya and not Iraq and Syria?
The U.S. probably will not claim that the Syrian and Iraqi governments do not need help, but Libya does. They cannot suggest that DAESH is stronger in Libya than in Syria or Iraq either. Maybe they will say that they were able to get the support of local groups against DAESH in Syria and Iraq, but that has not been possible in Libya. In any case, it will be hard to explain why the U.S. is sending its troops to Libya after having called them back home from Iraq.
There seems to be no reasonable answer the U.S. administration would be able to give to these questions. Fighting DAESH has become something akin to a slogan to justify post-modern expansionism. Everyone says they are fighting DAESH, but no one seems to be able to eradicate them. In the meantime, countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya have turned into a chessboard for the great powers.
During the Arab insurrections in 2011, NATO intervened in Libya despite Russian protests. NATO justified its operation through the U.N. Security Council resolution stipulating that Libyan civilians should be protected from violence. What about Syrian civilians? Besides, the NATO operation did not solve anything in Libya, the country has completely collapsed, and been divided in the hands of diverse rival groups. Everyone saw once again that foreign military operations will not bring about democracy. Of course, the military operation has allowed Western oil companies to get lucrative contracts, and the EU got the opportunity to show its charitable side by donating 30 million euros.
We remember the NATO operation in Libya was essentially carried out by European allies. We also remember, and it has been true since the Yugoslavian wars, that every time the Europeans try to play "their game," crises just get worse. Then the U.S. comes as the ultimate savior and frees Europeans from their obligations.
The U.S. army has probably not forgotten what happened in Somalia in the 1990s and it hopes to succeed in Libya like it did in Kosovo. The Kosovo example is important, because it implies Russians, too. Is the eventual U.S. operation in Libya a response to Russia's military presence in Syria?
One may ask why the U.S. is not intervening in Syria if it wants to counterbalance Russia, as it would be easier and more direct. The point is the U.S. does not want to engage in any direct fighting against the Russians. In fact, these two leading powers have some kind of agreement: They want to shape the future of the Middle East together, in other words, without the Europeans.
Libyan oil is of critical importance for Europe's economy and now the U.S. wants to send its military there to control the oil flow. A number of European countries still refuse the U.S.'s global strategic planning. As long as they insist on refusing, there will be many more interventions of this kind to see.
This was an interesting statement. The Americans are saying that they are currently negotiating with the new Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) to eradicate DAESH. You may recall that the organization's name indicates its real target, however, Iraq and Syria. So why is the priority country for destroying DAESH Libya and not Iraq and Syria?
The U.S. probably will not claim that the Syrian and Iraqi governments do not need help, but Libya does. They cannot suggest that DAESH is stronger in Libya than in Syria or Iraq either. Maybe they will say that they were able to get the support of local groups against DAESH in Syria and Iraq, but that has not been possible in Libya. In any case, it will be hard to explain why the U.S. is sending its troops to Libya after having called them back home from Iraq.
There seems to be no reasonable answer the U.S. administration would be able to give to these questions. Fighting DAESH has become something akin to a slogan to justify post-modern expansionism. Everyone says they are fighting DAESH, but no one seems to be able to eradicate them. In the meantime, countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya have turned into a chessboard for the great powers.
During the Arab insurrections in 2011, NATO intervened in Libya despite Russian protests. NATO justified its operation through the U.N. Security Council resolution stipulating that Libyan civilians should be protected from violence. What about Syrian civilians? Besides, the NATO operation did not solve anything in Libya, the country has completely collapsed, and been divided in the hands of diverse rival groups. Everyone saw once again that foreign military operations will not bring about democracy. Of course, the military operation has allowed Western oil companies to get lucrative contracts, and the EU got the opportunity to show its charitable side by donating 30 million euros.
We remember the NATO operation in Libya was essentially carried out by European allies. We also remember, and it has been true since the Yugoslavian wars, that every time the Europeans try to play "their game," crises just get worse. Then the U.S. comes as the ultimate savior and frees Europeans from their obligations.
The U.S. army has probably not forgotten what happened in Somalia in the 1990s and it hopes to succeed in Libya like it did in Kosovo. The Kosovo example is important, because it implies Russians, too. Is the eventual U.S. operation in Libya a response to Russia's military presence in Syria?
One may ask why the U.S. is not intervening in Syria if it wants to counterbalance Russia, as it would be easier and more direct. The point is the U.S. does not want to engage in any direct fighting against the Russians. In fact, these two leading powers have some kind of agreement: They want to shape the future of the Middle East together, in other words, without the Europeans.
Libyan oil is of critical importance for Europe's economy and now the U.S. wants to send its military there to control the oil flow. A number of European countries still refuse the U.S.'s global strategic planning. As long as they insist on refusing, there will be many more interventions of this kind to see.