Where to Begin?
Looking a Little Worn
Hate it when my router explodes on a great news day. Ah, Libya. Interesting debate today between Ted Koppel & someone forgettable from a DC think-tank on...I'm not sure really. Seemed like it was foreign policy with an emphasis on foreign -- to the ear. For the most part Koppel seemed irritated (nothing unusual) and the other guy had a bad habit of interrupting everybody -- hence the former.
The debate (this is going on over at the White House as well) is centered on 'what to do?' Buying 'oil futures' seems pretty smart, but profiteering wasn't the real subject at hand -- or was it? Certain folks were crying for intervention -- maybe create a 'no fly zone,' a fig boycott -- something resembling a decision wrapped in a sentence. Well...here's the problem:
The Great Game
Sometime around 1990 or so, the Game kind of changed. In case you're wondering what sport we're talking about, it is roughly a competition involving pimps and prostitutes. The pimps were the United States and the Soviet Union, the 'girls' -- well, whoever that wanted to play. The goal (murky as it seemed) was to stack the UN with malleable (though pathetically crooked) despots, dictators and barn burners who would be more than happy to vote on a pimp's resolution to say, ah, bomb Cambodia without permission. In exchange, they got a bridge to nowhere, a water purification plant without any water, or the best: obsolete big power military hardware that negated any need for honest, dishonest or really, any kind of elections. This was how colonialism branched out into imperialism and other naughty stuff. This went on blatantly for over forty years -- the more subtle stuff lurking in the background -- most notably: "Who's got the oil?" Or, who's going to keep Israel from causing trouble, or, who's going to off-set Iranian influence or, where the hell can I keep the 5th Fleet so it can defend the oil...see where this is going.
That leaves the US as a pretty dishonest broker and a lousy friend overall. You could also blame the Soviet Union, but we know what happened to that experiment. So, over at the State Department where every other sentence contains the word "unacceptable" no plan exists because that would require a rather unpalatable side-note or two on past/current affairs. Those kind of confessionals are normally conducted with a priest -- not American voters.
If Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen don't dwell on the origins of their unique political problems too long, they might offer friendship at some future date. Or not. A certain kind of stench hangs over their need to revolt and it has an American odor to it. One can only hope that in the longer run that these folks can be better people than our example in the conduct of international relations.
Muammar Gadhafi, aka 'Guide of the First September Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.' Gotta remember that Gadhafi is (was) both a socialist and a big fan of pan-Arabism. Certainly a megalomaniac -- and not short of cash. Dangerous combination. He did follow a sort of socialist/Islamist ideology for a time in the early years, but it morphed into more of a nationalist platform once it became apparent that he wasn't going to be Emporer of Africa. Given his past, and more importantly, his personality, it is not likely that he will follow Murbarak's example and quietly go on vacation. The assumption is that he covets the shroud of the martyr -- a goal that hopefully will be reached sometime soon.
At the moment, the US should probably do little other than to try to protect US nationals in the area and offer what humanitarian resources that might seem feasible -- which is probably nothing, given the instability in the current situation. Libya's military is fractured into various camps and the presence of mercenaries only adds to the chaos. Quite likely -- and shortly it seems -- the military, or factions thereof, will press their own agenda and unlike Egypt, it quite likely could become factional. Libya is a tribal state, which given the absence of a strong central leadership figure (like Gadhafi), the country could easily Balkanize -- opening up the possibility of worsening violence and bloodshed.
So, the US has a lot to ponder. How does one not engage The Great Game in all the nasty forms it adopts? The problem with international engagement is that force and naivety are both unacceptable in the conduct of geo-political conversations. One is deemed bullying and the other viewed as weakness. Yet, the US remains the model for struggling democracies around the world -- in spite of the associated scorn. It's a paradox. If we don't (as a policy) manipulate the world system -- then what becomes of those that struggle? It seems that bad faith sometimes serves a purpose if you can just survive that long process of getting to the destination on your own steam.
No comments:
Post a Comment