Libya is Obama's Mess To Own

Libya's Lost Generation 

As his administration enters its twilight years, President Obama certainly has several key policy pieces he can proudly tout as his legacy; healthcare reform that eluded the Clinton administration, a resurgent economy as well as wins on several social issues.  Even his record on foreign policy, relatively muddled as it may be, holds several moves which in time could prove to be shrewdly negotiated wins.  The same cannot be said however, for how this administration has handled its involvement in the Libyan Civil War.  Given the renewed questions about potential American involvement in Syria due to Russia ratcheting up its support of the Assad regime, the time is now ripe to revisit the country’s last foray into a messy civil conflict in the region and see what lessons can be learned.    

in 2011, what began as a string of popular protests against the oppressive rule of Libya’s longtime strongman Moammar Gaddafi, inspired by similar movements in nearby countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain that later came to be collectively dubbed as the “Arab Spring”, turned bloody.  As the chorus calling for extensive reforms grew louder, Gaddafi initially cracked down in brutal fashion.  Perhaps remembering what happened the last time the West plead ignorance to flagrant atrocities being committed right under its nose, the United States led an effort to secure NATO a UN Security Council mandate to intervene by means of a no-fly zone in hopes of averting a potential humanitarian catastrophe.  President Obama would later say “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi -a city nearly the size of Charlotte- could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”  And so not long after receiving authorization in a tenuous vote where both the Chinese and Russians were convinced to abstain, NATO warplanes made the first bombing sorties over Libya.  Already facing pressure from a fractious alliance of several until-recently-largely-suppressed tribal and militant groups, now being armed by sympathetic countries both in the Gulf and the West (via Qatar), Gaddafi's forces didn’t stand a chance.  In a matter of months the tables turned dramatically.  By October, Tripoli had been overrun and Gaddafi summarily executed by a bullet to the head.  

Western analysis of the situation in the immediate aftermath of Gaddafi being deposed declared the intervention a success, having prevented large scale atrocities and seen the ultimate toppling of, by some accounts, a very brutal dictator.  The US’s representative to NATO even went so far as to pen an article where he declared the alliance’s involvement a victory and went on to call it a “model intervention”.  Now four years later this cheery assessment rings hollow, when the country’s internationally recognized government is now unable to exert control over its own ports and oil fields, Islamists and tribal groups run roughshod over large swathes of its territory and Libyan weapons ransacked from its armories have turned up in other hotbeds for Islamist terrorism across the region.

But before turning an eye towards the extent to which radicals have infiltrated the political and social fabric of Libya itself, it is important to consider the ripple effect of toppling Gaddafi, and what role it played in nurturing the Islamist insurgencies many other countries in the region are now grappling with.  Perhaps the most jarring example of illicit weapon flows from Libya fueling conflicts abroad however, can be found in Mali.  The first wave was caused by ethnic Tuaregs within the country’s security services taking their weapons and fleeing to Mali following the fall of the regime.  Hoping to assist the Tuareg minority in that country launch an insurrection of their own, it instead was hijacked by the Islamist groups such as Ansar Dine with whom they had formed an uneasy truce in hopes of driving Malian forces from the north of the country.  Indirectly or not, the Libyan rebels played a key role in the war, allowing weapons to be funnelled out of the country through Tunisia and Niger and into Northern Mali.  While ISIS made waves last summer when it declared the establishment of a “Caliphate” in parts of Iraq and Syria, Mali quietly gained the notorious distinction of being host to the largest swathe of sovereign territory controlled by a terrorist organization.    

And to make matters worse, it does not simply stop there; Libyan weapons have also been smuggled through Egypt and Lebanon and into the hands of militants everywhere from the Gaza Strip to Syria.  Of particular concern to arms control experts is the widespread proliferation of man-portable air defence systems, often referred to as MANPADs.  Light enough to be carried by individual infantry, they are capable of shooting down anything from a helicopter to a commercial airliner.  Approximately 15,000 went missing in the aftermath of the war, and a buyback effort by the United States has only managed to secure roughly 5000.  Perhaps even more frighteningly, a report on the subject added that several hundred of the missiles were still completely unaccounted for, potentially having wound up in the hands of groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria or Hamas in Gaza.  And any doubts regarding this assertion were shattered during 2012’s Operation Returning Echo, when an IDF helicopter was nearly shot down by a missile that subsequent investigations determined originated from Libya.  More recently, militants in Egypt successfully shot down a military helicopter using the missile.  Other Libyan arms have surfaced in arms markets frequently used by terror groups in places such as Yemen and Somalia.  That NATO intervened without seriously considering the intentions of the groups it would implicitly be backing, or made any effort to secure Gaddafi’s arsenals, instead trusting that the militias would agree to unilaterally disarm was foolish and naive on the part of the Obama administration and its allies.  Of course all the blame for what transpired cannot be placed upon the United States, for Gaddafi’s weapons represented just one stream of armaments that flowed out of the country following the war.  NATO’s mission was imperilled from the get-go by the actions of its supposed allies, who purchased billions in weapons for various militant groups that later went on to fuel other conflicts across the region.  It became incredibly difficult for participating states to credibly state that the reason for intervention was purely humanitarian in nature when moves by allies widely seen as being done in concert with NATO efforts were blatantly aimed at propping up one side in the civil war.  The Russian ambassador to the UN made note of this when he said “NATO forces frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called ‘no-fly zone’ over it they started bombing it too.”  Whether NATO expanded its mandate at the behest of Gulf state allies or if they intended to take sides in the conflict all along is up for debate, but regardless, doing so enabled the nearly uninterrupted flow of weapons to Islamist terror groups, who once rid of Gaddafi (a strong ally with regards to U.S counterterrorism efforts in the region) were now free to pursue their goal of fomenting instability in the region armed with billions in newly acquired weapons.

Due to the efforts on the part of the UAE and Qatar, who in defiance of an arms embargo supplied arms to several militias, most of whom later refused to disarm once the conflict was over, a fertile breeding ground for terrorist groups was created.  Many of these very same fighters and militias would go on to play significant roles in other terror hotspots in nearby countries, affiliating themselves with groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIL.  Qatar in particular, who continued to funnel arms to Libyan militias as late as September 2014 (two years after the attack on the American compound in Benghazi by a group nominally supported by Qatar), seemingly took no lessons away from Libya, for they continue to arm radical groups in Syria, constructing a potential post-Assad power paradigm that is increasingly likely be eerily similar to that which we now have in Libya.

The government which supplanted Gaddafi’s regime in the years since its fall can only be considered an unmitigated disaster.  This is the case for several reasons, chief amongst them being the totally outsized role played by the tribal militias who deposed Gaddafi.  As previously mentioned, upon the war’s conclusion just about every militia, rather than disarming, instead turned towards consolidating and expanding their territorial holdings.  As a result, the interim National Transitional Council that was appointed to oversee a speedy return to free elections had its hands tied.  Its largest source of funds, oil, was virtually cut off as the majority of the country’s ports, fields and refineries were in the hands of militias who refused the NTC’s demand that they disarm and stand for election if they wished to play a role in government.  Entrusting the momentous task of implementing regime change to a group of insurgents that the West did not seem to fully understand backfired spectacularly, especially when you consider how atrocities against civilians have still continued post-Gaddafi, with hospitals being the site of kidnappings and rocket attacks.    

 The narrative widely peddled in the media as to why intervention was necessary in the first place claimed that Benghazi was the site of an impending massacre by Gaddafi’s  forces.  And yet reexamining the regime’s actions in the months before intervention reveals a portrait of relative restraint.  While the actions taken by Gaddafi’s forces would not have been acceptable from Western forces, intervening only seemed to worsen the situation.  Initial reports on casualties seemed to vindicate NATO action; in September 2011 rebels claimed that 30,000 had been killed.  However the NTC’s subsequent investigations following the war poked several holes in this figure, revising the number down to 11,500 including regime and rebel fighters, as well as missing persons.  In the years since the conflict however, supposedly a period of peaceful transition towards democracy, 2012 and 2013 both saw low level conflict that is estimated to have killed roughly 500 a year.  2014 essentially saw the return of open civil war, and with it the deaths of over 2,750, three years removed from a supposedly successful intervention.

“Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.”

As the legacy of Western intervention in the country becomes more clear, so is just what really happened.  An alternative narrative has emerged, that Libyan nationals in Switzerland, sympathetic to the rebel forces who were on their last legs in Benghazi, leaked false information pertaining to a potential massacre of the besieged troops and civilians in the city.  Regardless of how true this claim was, their plea for help worked; NATO swiftly intervened and completely reversed the tide of the war, handing the rebels who were previously on the brink of defeat a stunning victory.  Lending credibility to this story are the numbers from Syria.  Before the Libyan intervention commenced in March of 2011, protests had been largely nonviolent and the regime response, criminal as it was, had not yet morphed into the all out war on its citizens that it would soon become.  But by that summer, it is not unlikely that the Syrian opposition took up armed insurrection in hopes of provoking a regime response that would trigger NATO involvement similar to what transpired in Libya.  What did occur was a drawn out war with no end in sight four years after the fact.  And now as the Russians seem intent on taking a more active role in the war there, it's concerning that the only lesson President Obama took away from Libya was that the United States and its allies didn’t intervene enough.  In an interview with the New York Times last year he said “I think we underestimated the need to come in full force.  If you’re going to do this there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies.”  If NATO had more carefully studied the conflict it entered, there might not have been any need to rebuild in the first place.  

Russia (Unofficially) Invaded Ukraine

As of this morning, reports have been filtering in from Ukraine that Russian forces have begun slowly entering Ukraine.  And unlike what unfolded on the Crimean Peninsula, these aren't just Russian troops with no insignias.  Vox reports that some of the assets Russia has moved into the region include "Russian artillery, Russian tanks, Russian-trained irregular forces, and even uniformed Russian soldiers".

At around the same time this was reported, Fox was able to report that pro-separatist forces had opened a new front in the conflict by attacking the strategically important city of Novoazovsk, a resort town of approximately 12,000 which borders Crimea.  Leaving aside questions of how a group who just a few weeks ago was on the brink of defeat in Donetsk now have the logistics and manpower to attack elsewhere, what makes this move suspect is that Novoazovsk, should it be taken would leave a clear path to Mariupol, a city through which runs a road that serves as the only land connection Crimea has (via Ukraine) with the rest of Russia. Photographs of the besieged town showed plumes of smoke rising from the eastern Ukrainian city (pictured), due to what residents described as a heavy artillery barrage.  Interestingly enough, a quick Youtube search reveals that back in March when Russia began the process of annexing Crimea, it brought along with it heavy artillery not unlike those which the pro separatist "rebels" are currently pounding Novoazovsk with.

Shelling in Novoazovsk (Associated Press)

Taken in tandem with a videos that surfaced which purported to show the ten Russian paratroopers Ukraine had claimed to have captured admitting to being Russian military personnel under orders to invade Ukraine, it should leave no doubt in the minds of NATO that there is much more to Russia's role in this conflict than the bystander it claims to be.  And thankfully, that seems to be the case.  The Canadian government has taken quite a hawkish position on seeming Russian interference in the affairs of Ukraine, culminating in sending military aid earlier this month.  It made its position on this latest incursion known immediately, issuing a tersely worded tweet earlier today:

Geography can be tough. Here’s a guide for Russian soldiers who keep getting lost & ‘accidentally’ entering #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/RF3H4IXGSp
— Canada at NATO (@CanadaNATO) August 27, 2014

Meanwhile the United States, which has has been letting Germany take the lead on Ukraine as of late, has not been totally neglecting the crisis unfolding there.  As the New York Times reported:

"Analysis by Western officials indicates that Russia is orchestrating a multipronged offensive against Ukrainian forces. Russian forces have been trying to help separatists in eastern Ukraine break the siege of Luhansk, one of the main rebel-held cities, and open a corridor to another, Donetsk, from the Russian border"

The United States role can be best described as the good cop to Canada's bad cop, with its more nuanced criticism of Russia and focus on gathering intelligence to discredit Russian claims of non-interference in the country.  In fact, earlier today the US finally broke their relative silence on Ukraine, in a statement accusing Russia of reinforcing faltering rebel efforts. "These incursions indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway in Donetsk and Luhansk," State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters. And so given the recent escalation in the conflict, expect an announcement soon from the President on potential military aid in the form of advisors and equipment for the Ukrainian military, as well as a possible beefing up of NATO presence within the borders of regional members.  But make no mistake, Russia and Ukraine have all but formally gone to war, with Russia seeking to strengthen its grip on the vital defence industries present in Eastern Ukraine, as well as carve out a land strip connecting it to the currently largely isolated Crimea.  Should they succeed, it would destabilize an already precarious situation in Ukraine, and would prevent a democratic government from exerting control over all of its territories.  

But interestingly enough, Russia's continued "whodunit" approach to engaging with its neighbours may be having negative ramifications for its foreign policy ambitions.  Putin's Eurasian Economic Union pet project is starting to look like an abject failure.  Despite all the transformations this conflict has undergone, its important to remember it was first ignited by then-President Yanukovych moving towards joining Putin's attempt at a counterbalance to the EU.  Since then, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have all been reluctant to draw themselves into Russia's sphere of influence again after seeing it's messy divorce with once-close ally Ukraine, and even those who have agreed to ascend are causing Russia significant headaches.  Kazakh fears over potential Russian aggression have lead to the severing of several mutual defence treaties, and it forging its own foreign policy route.  It blocked Armenia, a major recipient of Russian aid, from ascending, and along with Belarus refused to join Russia in banning food imports from the West.  It'll be interesting to see if in the long term the antagonism Russia is breeding ends up manifesting into something more than just a healthy skepticism of Russian intentions, but right now it is imperative that Western countries come to the aid of Ukraine before Russia is able to tear it in two.

Zero Sum Game: Putin's Imperial Crusade

Russian troops in Crimea

Things have moved very fast in Crimea.  Following the results of a widely condemned referendum in the Crimea where results showed that over 97% of voters chose to secede from Ukraine and instead join the Russian Federation.  While the results were almost immediately disavowed by a large majority of the international community, claiming that the referendum was conducted under intimidation and suppression by both Russian troops and the Crimean (as well as those from other nations) militias loyal to them, that did little to stop Russia from recognizing it.  Since then, Russia has solidified its de facto control of the region, with Ukraine withdrawing its 25,000 troops from the peninsula in an implicit sign that Kyiv recognizes its rather limited ability to assert control over the breakaway region.  The very next day, Russia’s lower house voted in favour of formally annexing it.  With Crimea in the Russian camp for the long term at the very least, what implications does it have for the rest of the former Soviet sphere?

Putin’s obsession with empire building is well documented.  Reasserting control over the former Soviet sphere has been an increasingly prominent policy goal of the Kremlin over the past decade.  But any doubts that remained should have been dispelled by Putin’s March 18th address to Parliament.  Denouncing what he deemed a centuries-long conspiracy by Western powers to suppress Russia, Putin heralded the dawn of a new era of Russian dominance, which was later christened by the Duma the very next day, who voted in favour of annexing the Crimean peninsula.  With its new doctrine of intervention on behalf of ethnic Russians that worked so successfully in the Ukrainian crisis, where will Putin go next?  Many point to Transnistria, a heavily industrialized breakaway region of the ethnic hodgepodge that is Moldova.  In response to the Duma vote to annex Crimea, the Transnistrian Parliament in turn passed a motion  to join the Russian Federation.  Some speculate that Russia may turn to Estonia and Latvia, both countries with substantial Russian populations in hopes of bringing them into its orbit or at the very least carving out Russian exclaves within them.  Regardless of whatever move the Kremlin does make, it’s fairly certain they will not stop with the Crimea.  Despite drawing strong condemnation from the international community and potentially alienating UN ally China, the biggest provocation in recent memory drew little in the way of firm consequences for Russia, and damaging sanctions do not seem likely any time soon.  Europe is heavily reliant upon Russia for energy, and that will not change anytime soon especially as many European countries move away from nuclear energy.  Russian-American trade is so diminutive that sanctions would have a rather limited impact.

So how do the events of recent weeks affect Moscow’s geopolitical ambitions?  The Russian dominated antithesis to the EU, the Eurasian Union, is set to become reality on New Year’s Day next year, with membership currently consisting of Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan, with Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan all potentially joining as well.  While Russia’s annexation of Crimea provides it with the framework to take over other so-called “frozen” conflict zones, it also runs the risk of alienating other former Soviet states who may have been eyeing the union with wary interest.  While some states such as Poland and Lithuania voiced their desire to remain outside of any sphere of Russian influence by forging closer ties to NATO and the EU, countries such as Moldova and Armenia that could be compelled to join may look elsewhere, as evidenced by the rather lukewarm statements they issued in response to the annexation vote.  Russia’s newfound aggression is not the spontaneous combustion of a cocktail of nationalistic fervour at home and instability abroad but rather the culmination of a decade’s worth of meticulous planning.  Putin orchestrated various factors to create “the perfect storm” that would enable him to push his foreign policy agenda of restoring Russian domination in the region.   Harnessing the influence that the Russian Orthodox Church wielded over the population  in order to stoke nationalistic sentiments, rebuilding the Russian military as an effective fighting machine with a global reach, and influencing the affairs of other states in the post-Soviet sphere were all elements which enabled what unfolded on the peninsula to happen.  Putin took a calculated risk by invading Crimea, as its capture was an easy sell to the international community due to its traditional history as part of Russia as well as a litmus test of western appetites for Russian provocations.  It could not have hoped for a better result, and now count on the consolidation of Russian interests in the region to accelerate.

The picture does look particularly bleak, but what should the west do?  Sanctions may not be as effective as they have been in Iran (until recently), but the U.S and its allies do have a unique asset in NATO.  While it has seen a decade of general neglect, the 28-member military alliance is maybe the one tool in the U.S’s arsenal that Putin does fear.  When Poland, Latvia and the Czech Republic joined in 1999, Russia was wary of what it perceived to be creeping western influence beginning to encroach upon its own sphere of influence.  The U.S has dispatched naval forces to the Black Sea and a few days ago along with France announced it was sending sending air assets to Poland.  John McCain has stated that he wanted to see military equipment sent to Ukraine, and with leaders of former eastern bloc states becoming increasingly nervous about Russian activities, such a move would be easily defensible.  In fact, it might be prudent as ten day old Russian military exercises have led to a military buildup that NATO’s top commander described as “very, very sizable and very, very ready."  While it is desirable to avoid a “hot war”, it should not be avoided at all costs, lest the dovish policies of blind appeasement that failed spectacularly in the 1930s make a return.  While the situations are in no way parallels, there are some disturbing similarities that offer insight into how a potential conflict could be avoided.  

While on paper NATO countries (excluding the U.S and Canada) spent $269.736 billion on military expenditures and account for a significant chunk of global military spending, this is set to change with cuts to the militaries of most members.  The United States accounts for 70% NATO spending, and with some European members cutting spending up to 40%, it isn’t exactly unusual to hear some of the more fiscally conservative members of Congress complaining about how their European allies have been shoving the burden of defending them increasingly on the United States.  In the meantime, Putin has gone ahead with a vast and sweeping modernization program for the military that is estimated to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $770 billion dollars and will oversee the expansion of the air force, navy, special forces and intelligence capabilities.  While there has been some criticism about the realisticness of such an ambitious plan, such as the effect of corruption that is almost synonymous with massive projects in Russia, it nevertheless demonstrates the sincerity of Putin’s pledge to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy.  Hearkening back to 80 years ago, one of the biggest draws of the upstart Nazi Party was its goal of restoring Germany to its former stature as a world power.  While illegal rearmament had begun from almost the moment that the Treaty of Versailles was signed, it was ramped up in the 30s under the direction of Hjalmar Schacht (notably never a member of the Nazi Party and later jailed at Dachau), the Reich Minister of Economics at the time.  Schacht successfully managed to create dummy companies that shielded rearmament efforts from prying Allied eyes.  From a force that was limited to a 100,000 ground army with no tanks, no air force and a navy of just 6 ships with no submarines, it was transformed in short order into a well oiled military machine that 20 years later would roll across Europe in a deadly “lightning war”, or Blitzkrieg.  

Now there are some stark differences in these situations (namely the Treaty of Versailles), but remaining oblivious to the military buildup occurring to the east is not a plausible or realistic plan of action for European countries seeking to avoid conflict.  While placing boots on the ground would be an obvious provocation and carries the risk of spilling over into armed conflict, NATO allies should begin by pledging to immediately provide Ukrainian forces with both arms and training in how to use them, as well as signing contracts for modern naval and air assets that could be paid for at a later date.  Although a UN mandate seems unlikely thanks to Russia’s status as a veto-wielding power in the Security Council, NATO forces should be deployed under its banner nonetheless with the sole purpose of securing the borders and maintaining the territorial integrity of countries who specifically have requested its assistance.  It may be met with protest from countries such as India who seem content to be willfully blind to the realities in the region, but ensuring that current tensions do not spill over into wider conflict demands that a principled stand against a Putin regime that has set its sights on nothing less than restoring the clout its old Soviet empire wielded be taken.  If Ukraine is further divided, it does not bode well for Eastern Europe at large.