[Originally Published November 27th, 2017 on Wordpress]
INTRODUCTION:
It is often astonishing how much wisdom can be conveyed in old expressions. They often come off as articulating conventional wisdom, common sense, or just plain folksy. However, there is always some remnant of truth to these old expressions. One that particularly comes to mind is “The grass isn’t always greener on the other side”. This expression is simplistic, however, is applicable to an endless number of situations and scenarios. I particularly find this expression pertinent to our foreign policy in the Middle East. The United States military has engaged in campaigns to oust brutal dictators out of office in Middle Eastern countries the most notable examples are Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. While both these men were tyrants and engaged in a myriad of atrocities in order to retain the control of their prospective nations, was it the best move to intervene in either scenario? It has been well documented that both countries fell into discord and chaos after the removal of their authoritative leaders. Essentially spiraling both nations into inadvertent dark ages punctuated by rival groups fighting for control of both countries.
While I would never excuse the transgressions of either Gaddafi or Hussein, looking at the byproduct of our intervention, there is plenty of room of speculation. Was our intervention in Iraq and Libya the best course of action? In my opinion probably not! It is difficult to say what the right course of action would have been. However, how could the United States government not be privy to the potential of warring tribes, gangs, radical religious groups, and terrorist groups, etc. fighting for control of these failed states? I do not have enough hard evidence to purport what the true intentions of the United States were in being involved in overthrowing both dictators. However, many conspiracy theorists refer to these actions as being part of a destabilization plan which is quite difficult to substantiate. Regardless of intentions, motives, geopolitical incentives, etc. what really matters is the end result. Unfortunately for the people of Libya and Iraq that have meant a lack of civilized structure accompanied by violence and all the other accouterments of anarchy.
Now what really troubles me is that there is a potential that the United States only compounded situations that were already volatile. When it comes right down to it we may have only made matters worse in both countries. What makes me particularly reflective of this fact was reading an article regarding the open-air slave markets in Libya. While Gaddafi was a horrifically cruel leader, he did bring stability to the region. Unfortunately, Gaddafi had been unseated the country erupted into wanton lawlessness and disorder. Gaddafi being the linchpin that held everything together it would only be rational for in his absence draconian rule being replaced by chaos. Having a leader who “rules” with an iron fist may take away the incentive of the citizens to engage in criminal activities. Again, I do not condone Gaddafi nor any of his atrocities.
NEWS STORY:
For the record, I would like to state that the article I am paraphrasing below is biased. However, I believe that while an opinion piece the commentary expressed gives some interesting insight into the slave market scenario in Libya.
The mainstream media quietly brought this issue to light when CNN last week released footage of the open-air slave markets in Libya. Per reports from the BBC essentially the country has been besieged by chaos since Gaddafi was ousted out of power by NATO supported forces. The individual who was pulling the strings behind this untactful intervention was former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Which presents a dichotomous contrast with the deal negotiated with the Bush administration “ The deal: He would give up his weapons of mass destruction peacefully, and we wouldn’t try to depose him.”. Essentially Clinton pushing for such action violated the terms of the previous agreement. Despite all of the chaos engendered by removing Gaddafi from power Clinton would years later joke in a cavalier manner “ we came, we saw, he died”. How tactful and diplomatic? Especially when you consider how this action lead to the destabilization of the Libyan government and flooded Europe with refugees. However, those variables aside, with the instability within the region it is quite easy to surmise how the open air slave markets came to be in Libya. [3]
DISCUSSION:
Now I do apologize for anyone who was looking for more of an objective view on the situation because it essentially degrades to a blame Hilary mantra. Sometimes you do need to state what is painfully evident. Hilary Clinton was the driving force behind our involvement in overthrowing Gaddafi. So it may be fair to contribute blame to her to a certain extent for the ramifications that came after the Coup. To say the least, it is humiliating to have had a secretary of state did not even consider the adverse consequences of disposing of Gaddafi and then make jokes about it when the whole scenario was a complete quagmire. An abjectly reprehensible quagmire. Which showed either an abundance of either ignorance or apathy of the delicate nature of stability in the region as a whole. While it may be a noble endeavor to want the people of Libya to be free from tyranny, it would not be as linear as dispose of the tyrant, because then the issue of succession comes into play. Please let me state here I do not believe for two seconds Hilary’s motives to take down Gaddafi was motivated by inclinations to liberate the people of Libya. Here true motives are most likely kinked and twisted in the complex maze of subterfuge and intrigue. I personally would attribute blame to her for destabilizing Libya.
The establishment of these open-air slave markets in Libya really should be a wake-up call about the repercussions of our foreign policy. Just like in physics every action has an opposite and equal reaction. In order to implement responsible foreign policy, we need to really examine the worst-case scenario of that particular policy versus haphazardly enacting it. Questions need to be asked before we decide to implement policies. We need to really think it through or there will be deadly consequences for millions of innocent people. That is the most repugnant part of the whole Libya debacle is that the individuals that really pay for it are the innocent civilians that live in Libya. If we wanted to get specific to the resurgence of the slave trade in Libya, who really pays are the sub-Saharan Africans that are being traded like a commodity. They are paying with their lives and their freedom. While Gaddafi was evil, there wasn’t a flourishing slave trade under his leadership. What it boils down to with situations like Libya is that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. What is better brutal tyranny or the ravages of wanton and lawless disorder? That is like having to choose whether or not you would like to be shot or stabbed in your leg. Neither is really a good option. However, it is evident that the wanton and lawless disorder in this circumstance can be clearly attributed to U.S. foreign policy.
While the United States abolished slavery well over a century ago, in a convoluted manner we did help facilitate the reemergence of it in other countries. How? Through thoughtless and self-centered foreign policy. To put it bluntly, when we intervene in situations like Libya we typically end up screwing things up more than we alleviate any issues. Hence why I support a non-interventionist foreign policy, our involvement tends to evade the nuances of the situation and only transpires when it is advantageous to us. Which in my opinion is the United States merely taking its position as the world police to an abusive level.
FOOT NOTES:
1. (Video) https://youtu.be/2S2qtGisT34
2.https://invertedlogicblog.wordpress.com/2017/11/27/political-opinions-33-slave-trade-in-libya-and-u-s-foreign-policy