Last week, scandal-hungry Republicans worked to establish the ninth congressional committee investigation into the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. But the real scandal in Libya may be the one playing out in real-time as the country descends into the bloodiest bout of chaos since the civil war that led to the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi.
Libyan authorities, to put it bluntly, have lost control of their country. A revolt by a rogue general against Libya’s Islamist groups has pitted the nation’s vast constellation of militias against one another, with civilians increasingly caught in the crossfire. The country’s neighbours and partners are frantic: Last week Algerian forces dropped into the capital city Tripoli to exfiltrate their ambassador and later closed all border crossings with Libya; Tunisia amassed 5,000 troops at the Libyan border; and the US Defence Department doubled the number of aircraft on standby in Italy and deployed hundreds of Marines to Sicily in case they needed to abruptly evacuate the embassy, a decision that could come at literally any moment.
For the Obama administration and its Nato allies, the chaos raises troubling questions. Shortly after the alliance intervened to help overthrow the brutal dictator in 2011, the US — which had consistently promised that no American ground troops would be deployed to Libya — left the country quickly without a comprehensive effort to build a workable governance system or internal security apparatus. The beehive of radical militias that operate freely in Libya now pose a security threat to both American personnel in the region and Libya’s neighbours.
Lawmakers could have used their oversight powers to ask administration officials tough questions about current US policy towards Libya and press for a more aggressive effort to prevent the country from imploding. Republicans, though, instead remain focused on the night the US ambassador and four other Americans died in Benghazi and the administration’s bungled communications efforts in the following days. A broader examination of the White House’s handling of Libya would reveal a country mired in internal dysfunction and violence, and a US administration largely powerless to change the course of events on the ground.
On May 16, Major General Khalifa Haftar, a retired general who lived in exile in Virginia before returning to Libya in 2011, launched an unauthorised campaign against Islamist groups in the country in a campaign that he says is designed to prevent the country from descending into the hands of radical groups.
Secular dictatorship
Haftar, the leader of what he calls the “National Army,” ordered his paramilitary force of armed fighters, jets and helicopters to root out Islamist fighters in Benghazi in an attack authorities say killed 70 people and injured more than a hundred. The general’s critics say he’s trying to establish a secular dictatorship in Libya, which threatens to trample any chance of democracy in the North African nation. Haftar advertises himself as nationalist who is protecting Libya from an Islamist takeover.
On May 17, Haftar’s men ransacked parliament in Tripoli and declared the legislature suspended. In response to his vigilante campaign, interim Prime Minister Abdullah Al Thinni denounced the forces as “outlaws” and imposed a no-fly zone over Benghazi to rein in the general’s air power. As a concession, the interim government offered to nominate a new prime minister, but Haftar has pledged to continue fighting. Now, towns and militias are beginning to take sides in response to Haftar’s insurrection against Libya’s Islamists.
The Obama administration has reiterated that only Libya can solve its own internal problems. “Libya has many challenges, and we’re aware of that,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said this week. “We believe they cannot be overcome if its leaders don’t settle differences through dialogue and work together.”
In London, Secretary of State John Kerry pledged to do “all we can to help the Libyans” solve their political problems.
“We need to try to accelerate the effort to bring about stability and security and the governance that is necessary to provide the time and the space for Libyan authorities to be able to confront the threat from extremism and the challenges that their country faces of just providing governance to their people,” he said at a meeting of the London 11, a gathering of world powers that support the Syrian opposition.
While everyone knows what Libya needs, making it actually happen is a much more perplexing problem. It’s the type of dilemma that deserves the attention of congressional hearings. But while some efforts have been made to examine the woes of post-Gaddafi Libya, particularly by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the vast majority of GOP attention to Libya has focused exclusively on the administration’s response to the 2012 attack in Benghazi, not the underlying causes of the attack.
Don’t expect that focus to change anytime soon. In his announcement about the creation of a subcommittee on Benghazi, House Speaker John Boehner made no reference to the problem of roving militias or a desire to explore Libya’s problems in general.
“The House will vote to establish a new select committee to investigate the attack, provide the necessary accountability, and ensure justice is finally served,” Boehner said earlier this month.
—Washington Post
_resources1_16a45059ca3_small.jpg)
