One president, multiple faces: Barack Obama's standards are all over the place in the Middle East. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
It started yesterday, on the eighth anniversary, to the day, of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, what was then called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." It hasn't panned out that rosily.
There's no reason, and no history, to suggest that the operation in Libya will be any better, though doing nothing was no longer an option, and there is a significant difference between the military action against Libya and that against Iraq. Both the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council approved the action against Libya. Neither had approved the invasion of Iraq.
In the United States, they're calling this one "Operation Odyssey Dawn." The British are calling their part of it "Operation Ellamy," the French "Opération Harmattan." Whoever comes up with these names plays too many video games. The names have a portent that sounds invariably menacing, as names of military operations usually do, for psychological reasons, though the menace in this case could backfire. The attack's target is much clearer than those it aims to defend. There's yet to be a leader rising out of eastern Libya, someone, or a group of someones, the United Nations could declare the legitimate , official opposition to Qaddafi. Fears that al-Qaeda will infiltrate the country, that the place will suddenly become a terrorist haven, are overblown, as always. If al-Qaeda hasn't been capable of turning Somalia or Yemen, let alone Afghanistan or Iraq, into operational annexes, it's not about to make much of Libya. There isn't much to al-Qaeda at the moment, and every democracy movement in every Middle Eastern country is one more nail in al-Qaeda's coffin.
But western intervention in Libya means another mass of western bombs and missiles on Arab territory. Whatever the legitimate concerns, that has not played well lately. It's not likely to play well again, unless Arab planes are among those doing the bombing. That, too, would be a strange irony. Arab planes from where? Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar have agreed to be part of the coalition attacking Libya. But Saudi Arabia itself is highly compromised, having just invaded Bahrain to do there what Qaddafi is doing to his people in Libya. The Egyptian government isn;t yet well defined. Qatar is an interesting case. It's liberalizing. But it's still a tyranny like all the others, as illegitimate, for not being elected, as the rest of the Arab Peninsula's leadership, and the leadership of just about every Middle Eastern country, with a couple of exceptions, from west Africa to the borders of Pakistan.
Who, in this mess, hasn't been compromised, up to and including the United States? It is all a big salad of double standards.
Every Friday I provide a radio station in Florida a commentary. This week's was devoted to Obama's double standards. You can read it here: "Libya, Bahrain, Obama and Double-Standards."
See Also:
Comments
I admire your choice of words by calling it “operation double standard”. But I think this is just another chess game we have to play, like always, but this time in the middle east. We basically have to decide on our next best move to protect “our strategic interest” – democracy and stability. And to do that we have to pick the path of least damages to stability and yet still be successful in promoting democracy. This would mean stimulate changes to countries that are of no immediate important impact like Libya (an isolated country, far from Saudi Arabia, and small oil only being sold to Europe not us), Egypt (no oil but good guinea pig for democracy and future friendly voice in the middle east), and any other future countries of no important, and slowly instigate changes in countries of important like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, etc.. If you think about it, Libya is just another Iraq case but at a much smaller scale and far easier this time because we are more experienced the world of diplomacy.
“Gaddafi is like a chicken and the coalition is plucking his feathers so he can’t fly. The revolutionaries will slit his neck,” said Fathi Bin Saud, a 52-year-old rebel carrying a rocket propelled grenade launcher and surveying the wreckage.
Sorry Pierre, I feel compelled to comment.You just cannot equate Bahrain and Yemen with Libya. The King of Bahrain is not a tyrant. Qaddafi is. Qaddafi has been persecuting his people since 1969. He ordered the execution of thouands of opposition figures. Academics and intellectuals were hanged in the eighties. He ordered the assasination of dozens of Libyan dissidents in Europe. He ordered the blowing up of the Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland. Just one internl example might be sufficient to convince you. On June 28th 1996. Gaddafi sent his brother-in-law Abdulla Senussi to deal with a prison revolt against the sub-human conditions at Abu Salim Prison in Tripoli. Abudlla Senussi supervised the execution of over 1200 prisoners. This operation took 4 hours to complete successfully. Gaddafi is a murderer, King of Bahrain or King of Saudi Arabia are not. Qaddafi and his irresponsible sons squandered the oil revenues and Libya is a poor third world country despite the immense oil and gas wealth. Each case is different so there is no fit all solution.
There are historical differences Nehad, I agree. Qaddafi has been in a league by himself. But if we are to look at matters since the beginning of these revolutions, the violence perpetrated by these regimes toward their people is different only in degrees, not in intentions. I concede as well that we have different interpretations of the word tyranny. Mine is an expansive definition that essentially adds up to what is power’s potential as well as its actual use. The potential is always there for Bahrain’s king to be a tyrant, and he has exhibited tyrannical reactions. In the end, the essential difference is not to what extent a tyrant does or does not exercise his powers, but to what extent are the people enabled to exercise autonomy and power of their own. It’s clear that the people have no power at all, at least not institutionally, not politically. From that perspective, no matter how benevolent, all power that devolves on the people is ultimately tyrannical.
yes it is a double standard, they pick and choose who they want to attack. the left attacked Bush for invading Iraq, a country that never attacked us, but they say almost nothing at all about Obama and Libya. Saddam Husien was just as bad or even worse than Gaddafi. in Yemen its already been reported several times dozens of people/protesters being shot and killed by there own brutal dictator whos been in power for almost 30 years. political prisoners, executions the whole deal. OH! but we have a naval base in Yemen and also in Bahrain.
Thanks Pierre. I note what you say and understand your line of reasoning. Just a few observations if I may; What distinguishes the tyrannical Qaddafi (Gaddafi) from say the King of Bahrain, the former is prepared to see hundreds of thousands of Libyan killed so he and his sons could cling to power. Muammar Qaddafi is like Saddam, blood thristy, ignorant and does not give a fig about the fate of his people. Husni Mubarak of Egypt and Ali Zein Al-Abdeen got the message and departed gracefully. The Libyan dictator like Saddam is prepared to plunge his country in war and bloodshed just to stay in power. I expect Abdullah Saleh of Yemen to go within days. If he doesn’t a civil tribal war will erupt with unforseen consequences.
It’s been nice to ‘re-discover’ you, Pierre, through a couple of friends of Sanford who as they told me ‘… he used to write for The News-Journal…’ I immediately knew who were they talking about. ‘Some years ago I, and a friend of mine, went to his Daytona Beach office and I talked with him about the Colombia situation…’, I replied. Ok, sorry for the personal distraction.
On this interesting topic you wrote about, first of all I’m glad these countries are fighting for their freedom and democracy, thanks especially to the youthful and communication technologies. Second, they don’t need our lessons of democracy, we better need to remember it before we’re in danger of loose it here, and even learn something about it from their fights. Third, public opinion is discovering more about American hypocrysy in foreign politics: many of those dictators and authocrats have been in power thanks to The U.S. support. Fourth, the reason Yemen and especially Bahrein are so especial now for American government is because it is negotiating the biggest selling of weapons by more than $62 billions! So, yes I consider there’ve been and there will be double standard.