One week following the saddening murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Bengazi, Libya, the mystery of precisely what happened has not lifted. The claim of UN envoy Susan Rice that the violence was spontaneous in reaction to the American right-wing film about the prophet Mohammed is not convincing. But we need to look beyond the incident itself to what troubles Libya and some other Arab countries in transition, as nearly all agree it's a parlous moment.
This fragility has not constrained the usual suspects. Not only did Mitt Romney, Fox News, and the right-wing blogosphere try to disparage President Obama's handling of the fracas in Cairo and other cities, but Israel's foreign ministry piled on, saying the U.S. wasn't taking Arab radicalization seriously.
Even in the politically charged derision, there is food for thought. The Obama administration's reaction to the tumult of Arab spring has been measured and "managerial" rather than either a full embrace or a cold shoulder. It reflects Obama's own personality, it seems -- cautious, wait-and-see, let's get the facts. That is not a bad thing, really, in such revolutionary circumstances.
Caution is called for precisely because the inner tensions existing in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and other Arab countries are those that beset Libya. They will be the same kinds of tensions that will trouble Syria after Bashar al-Assad leaves Damascus for his retirement villa in Iran. As many commentators have said, the long-suppressed populations of those countries are angered by dilapidated economies and a fractious and repressive social and political environment. Enemies must be found, and the United States easily fits that bill.
But there's more than just boiling-over frustration and wanna-be Al Qaeda operatives stoking the fires. There is a narrative in Arab countries -- most Muslim countries -- that regards U.S. actions in the region as being mainly military and mainly harmful to ordinary Arabs and other Muslims. Yes, the United States has supported human-rights NGOs and health care practice and other development projects in many of these countries, but the big ticket items are military aid to Egypt and Israel. U.S. diplomatic muscle is flexed mainly on behalf of Israel. And, most important, are the million dead Afghans and Iraqis that died as a consequence of U.S.-instigated wars, as well as many millions more displaced or impoverished.
That the United States has approached the complexities of the region with blunt instruments is partially what the Arab street is reacting to. Blunt indifference was also on display in Romney's statements about the Palestinians -- that they don't want peace and do want the destruction of Israel -- which will be interpreted as what American elites really think, whatever their party. And if Israel foolishly attacks Iran, the turmoil in Arab streets today will look like a picnic by comparison to the reverberations throughout the Muslim world in that event. As Netanyahu incessantly says, "We are you [the U.S.], and you are us" -- and that's how many in the region see it, to our peril.
Just one indicator of that: In a recent survey, 63 percent of those living in the Middle East and North Africa said that the United States was not to be trusted to act responsibly in the world.
In Libya, the danger apparent in the murders of our diplomats is not the work of a marginal group of bad actors. Ansar al-Sharia, the fundamentalist militants who are the main suspects, is a jihadist group that may have as many as 5,000 members. Its leader told BBC this week, "Make no mistake, there is a massive American onslaught on Muslim countries. The crusaders want to occupy our countries and act as our guardians. They do not respect our sovereignty." Their actions have been linked to Al Qaeda, and may be the equivalent of a mafia hit in revenge for the assassination by a U.S. drone attack of an AQ leader, a Libyan, in June in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
While the intrigue of the killings links the tragedy to the war in Afghanistan, the broader picture in Libya is not reassuring. "Because the country lacks a fully functioning state, effective army or police, local actors -- notables, civilian and military councils, revolutionary brigades -- have stepped in to provide safety, mediate disputes and impose ceasefires," begins a detailed report this week from the International Crisis Group. "Central authorities have acted chiefly as bystanders, in effect subcontracting security to largely autonomous armed groups."
These militias are to some degree based on kinship, tribe, and the like, and those who were part of the effort to overthrow Qaddafi have seized the upper hand in many towns and cities. Revenge is exacted with varying degrees of violence. As in Iraq, the fragmentation of security is itself a source of insecurity. Violence begets violence. The months of civil war that brought down Qaddafi were bloody and traumatic, and while a different order or two of magnitude from Iraq's colossal carnage, some of the same dynamics are at work. Regime change that is imposed by outside powers almost always results in civil war, as the political scientist Alexander Downes argued in a Boston Review forum last year (for which I was a respondent), and one of the key reasons for that is the violence that is visited upon the country. Without a strong central state that can guarantee post-war order (and justice), the bad guys with guns will impose disorder to gain traction in the new political environment.
The news is not all bad from Libya. Elections held during the summer are bringing to power a fairly moderate legislature and government. Women, who feel coercive pressure from fundamentalists in the countryside, nonetheless won 16 percent of parliamentary seats. And of course Libya has oil, a mixed blessing, but compared with Egypt's lack of resources, a foothold for development and peace.
Republicans will persist in portraying the Libyan murders and turmoil elsewhere in Muslim countries as a consequence of U.S. "weakness" under Obama, and will persist, parrot-like, with their tiresome (and false) line about his apologies for American values. How this will wash in the election is anyone's guess. But the reality on the ground in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen is immensely more complex, and yields no easy solutions. It does argue for extreme caution with respect to Syria, however, where the bloody mix of sectarian strife and high civilian casualties will engender lasting bitterness no matter the outcome. The less the U.S. is involved militarily in this region, the better for us in the long run.
Follow John Tirman on Twitter: @JohnTirman
Follow John Tirman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnTirman
this coming from the people who behead each other on a daily basis......oh, but they love to take our checks though
Libya is where our military was most directly involved, and it is where our ambassador was killed, but it is a mistake to draw a link to directly there. It is also where the US is the most popular among the countries that have changed their governments recently.
This does not mean that more military involvement will make us more popular. Rather it suggests that how and why we get involved matters more than whether it is just diplomatically or militarily.
Well, that's what Arabs don't seem to understand.
The US playbook as regards to Islamic fundalmentalist groups is to paint all as a terrorist groups or associates of terrorist groups. By doing this, the US media climbs on board to assure the American public is spoon fed this misinformation and disinformation. Secondly, by painting these groups terrorist whom are in opposition to western backs despots, give the US impetus to kill them outright by shouting 'terrorist' and Al Qaeda.
Many in US don't understand that many of the groups aren't after the US. They are not AQ! Many of these groups still ultize camels in desert and they want their country free of the west and their despots whom they keep in power. But, the US regards them all as terrorist.
These fundalmentalist groups like in Mali, where jail, beaten, killed, exiled by the despots with western help. And yet, the actions against these Tuaregs are not considered terrorism. Now that these groups have had enough, formed groups to protect themselves the US yells 'terrorist'!
It is prudent to investigate and use other sources of information than the traditional western media which is extremely biased and ignorant of Islamic matters.
And yet with misinformation they receive from their own govt and govt controlled media they are led to believe that the western world and specifically the US are the cause of all their problems, when that simply isnt true. Without a truly free media in these countries they will never achieve complete democracy.
They’ve backed brutal dictators, subverted governments, and invaded and occupied countries as it suited their agenda of “world leadership.”
The program included defying the will of the Iranian people (1953), backing the repressive Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian and Iraqi dictatorships, financing Israel’s wars against Lebanon and oppression of the Palestinians, and so much more.
It was bad enough that England and France had betrayed the trust of the Arabs after World War I and turned the Middle East into a colonial playground, with all the humiliation and repression that implies.
The U.S. government then compounded the crime by picking up the mantle of empire after World War II. Power and oil were the reasons. Were the brutalized and mortified people supposed to be grateful to the West?
We kid ourselves when we pretend that history began on Sept. 11, 2001. Can anyone say with a straight face that before that date America was minding its own business according to the non-interventionist guidelines set out by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?
Does American exceptionalism mean not having to know anything before dropping bombs on people and torturing detainees?
With impunity the U.S. government fires missiles from pilotless drones into Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, killing innocents.
Its occupation forces leave death and misery in their wake. Gen. Stanley McChrystal concedes that in Afghanistan
“We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.”
And in the latest incident, Israel killed people of Ghaza . How can this not come back to haunt us, Israel’s financiers?
U.S. policy — no matter who’s in power — couldn’t be better tailored to recruit terrorists. We can keep pretending we are innocent victims. Or we can finally put the responsibility where it belongs: in Washington, D.C.
Glad to see more people arguing with rationality and historic knowledge.
The weaker they BELIEVE you are the more EMBOLDEN they become and they will constantly and continuously check your limits. This is the reason that the talk between the Palsetinians and Israel are going nowhere, the more Israel will concede the more they will demand and put setup more pre-conditions…
The same goes with Iran, once the West agreed to talk, the Iranians will engage the West and talk aimlessly until you are blue in the face, yet will continue to develop their nuclear bomb ignoring the West and UN’s sanctions as a sign of weakness.
Only when you make a show of force and they know you are determine to follow suit they may back-off.
There is really no other problem, other than the base ignorance you feel so free to share with the world,
Obama did side with the dictator for too long in Yemen and continues to support the remnants of the old regime that took over, but most of the rebels there were openly allied with al Qaida, so I am unsure if condemnation is warranted... though I personally would have preferred we had abandoned the old regime and taken our chances.
Bahrain is the only example where US support for the old regime thwarted an Arab Spring uprising, and that clearly is mostly due to the Saudis with some concern about Iran gaining a new ally.
That doesn't make it right, as far as democracy goes, but until the Saudis face their own Spring, our options will be limited. That relationship will not be abandoned without certain success for a cooperative new regime due to oil based realpolitik.
This isn't just in our interests; any civilized government is threatened by actors of chaos and anarchy. It was easy for NATO to drop our bombs in Libya, but who is rebuilding that country now? The reason that Iraq has been so expensive and time-consuming is not because of the execution of the war, but from rebuilding the country afterward. This is a price we cannot afford not to pay.
Ok that may sound silly but why dont such voices get greater attention in the US of A?
I also wish to add that for years under the policy of so called 'Rendition' the US military handed over Muslim militants to a very willing Colonel Qaddafi in order to be tortured. The survivors were probably all set free during that tyrants overthrow and will act accordingly.
Also, I have to say that at times it appears Washington is run from Tel Aviv. Perhaps it is time to take a good look at our Middle East policy.
In fact there are 3 distinct reasons why US arent favorable in that region.
It stems from these points.
1. US support for israeli occupation
2. US constant warfare, sanctions, interference in their affairs
3. US support for dictators in that region
All 3 causing extremism, all three causing animosity against US interests.
US should therefore recognize palestine, end the support for israel and end the support for various dictators in that region, then will become more favorable.
The REAL cause of extremism is Islam, straight out of the Koran, the Ahadith and the Sira.
However, appearances are often deceptive, and so they are in this case.