Setting the Controls for the Heart of Libya's Sun

By Harrison Golden

In this, the day and age of blind imperial politics, the United States has become the sandbox bully. Metaphorically, of course, while nations such as France and Britain have their own sandcastle molds, with their own little grooves, shapes, and sizes, the folks in Washington want nothing more than to grab the closest, cheapest plastic one they can find and have their way with it.

As tensions rise in Libya, the United Nations has stepped up efforts to end the forceful and closed-minded reign of Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, imposing no-fly zones and planning out possible air and naval attacks. Many of those killed have only sought out to state their voices and represent themselves and their individuality.

“Thousands of lives are still at stake. We could well see a further humanitarian emergency,” said Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, to the Associated Press.

As of right now, roughly 330,000 people have fled Libya, 9000 are stranded at the nation’s borders with Egypt and Tunisia, and 250,000 more are expected to flee within the upcoming weeks.

With all these numbers in mind, it is clear that the people of Libya are tired of Gadhafi’s quarter-century stranglehold. Accordingly, from a humanitarian standpoint, the need for action in this region is undeniable. However, many of the world’s most crucial leaders, including Secretary General Ban and President Obama, are not doing nearly enough to clarify the details of this revolution.

While France and Britain took early engagements in the war, sending tornado jets and Eurofighter tycoon warplanes in to reinforce the no-fly zone, the United States is still insisting a position of higher ranking on the warfront. Furthermore, the United Nations and the Arab League both seem determined to get involved on a more militaristic level. Mr. Ban and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa met with foreign ministers in NATO just before the implementation of the no-fly zone, thus calling the various aspects of the conflict into question.

“It remains to be seen whether Ban Ki-moon will actually function as General Ban, with any influence over real-time military decision-making,” said Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

If nothing else, all of these fronts, including those in the diplomatic and military sectors, have one common goal—to allow for a peaceful, lawful Libya to exist. While this is clearly a benefit for all future activity in the region, we must not lose track of the details in-between, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, regrettably. For this reason, the United States must consider the overall benefits of backing away from the military-based aspects of this conflict, instead working to solve their own paralleling battles in other parts of the Middle East. In addition, the United Nations should also insist upon remaining consistent with humanitarian missions, rather than imposing on military officials, who are already busy enough trying to strategize to deal with sneaky, childish grabs for control.

The best option in maintaining relevance is to allow for Britain and France to continue and magnify their military lead in Libya, as they currently have the two largest army budgets within the European Union. Moreover, the EU maintains a strong “Mediterranean partnership” with many of the North African nations. Such a geographical relationship would make their involvement in ceasing the ongoing violence more fitting and constructive than any American or United Nations attempt would provide.

All too often, we forget the idea of what war should be—a carefully orchestrated replacement of a rule of force with a rule of law and reason. As violence surges against innocent protesters who want nothing short of a life of representation, the best way to do this is to clearly and confidently give them the honor of knowing who is, and isn’t, in control of their future.