A Short History of Unintended Consequences From NATO’s War in Libya
The unintended consequences of NATO’s fateful intervention in Libya are widening still in Africa’s Sahel region. The military coup that took place last month in Mali is a monument to the consequences of U.S. interventionism and the resulting power vacuum and instability has caused mayhem. Rebel troops seized power and toppled the government in a bid to oust democratically elected President Amadou Toumani Toure who they claim insufficiently supported the military in a fight against Tuareg militants waging an insurgency in the north., trained by the U.S. military.
This was all bad enough. Sanogo and his junta suspended the constitution, imposed a curfew, arrested their political opponents, and cracked down on the press. Neighboring West African leaders then imposed very harsh economic sanctions – virtually a blockade – on Mali, demanding a return to civilian rule. They even threatened to use military force against Mali’s coup leaders, with the prospect of a regional war still lingering. Meanwhile, the Tuaregs effectively split the country in two, announcing “the irrevocable independence” of the north in early April.
Robert Fowler, a former UN regional envoy, told the Guardian, .”
The big news today is that the Nigerian-based militant group Boko Haram is mixing with Mali’s Tuareg insurgents in the north. This further imperils the stability of the region. Incidentally, Boko Haram has been growing stronger and more violent with every great leap forward of U.S. intervention in Nigeria..
This twisted freewheeling story of hazardous aftereffects, lest we forget, does not begin and end with Mali or Boko Haram. A UN report released in February assessing “the Libyan crisis” claimed that the impact of the NATO-backed rebel victory over Gadhafi “reverberated across the world” as “such neighboring countries as Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania, the Niger and Tunisia,” among many others, “bore the brunt of the challenges that emerged as a result of the crisis.” The “Governments of these countries,” says the report, “had to contend with the influx of hundreds of thousands of traumatized and impoverished returnees as well as the inflow of unspecified and unquantifiable numbers of arms and ammunition from the Libyan arsenal,” which “further exacerbate[d] an already precarious and tenuous situation.” Remember, this was a humanitarian intervention.
Back in Libya itself, the more direct consequences of the NATO-backed regime change don’t look any better. The rebels the U.S. intervention supported committed serious war crimes during and immediately following the actual conflict. Subsequently, we’ve seen rival militias battling each other in a latent civil war. Civilian residents in towns essentially occupied by these militias have complained about militia men breaking into homes, looting their possessions, abusing their families, and detaining and torturing scores on suspicion of being loyal to Gadhafi. The NTC and its fighters seem to want little to do with democracy. Massive numbers of detainees are being held without trial in Libya, being subjected to widespread torture which has even killed numerous prisoners.
The legacy of the war in Libya, as we can see, is currently one of supporting criminals, destabilizing an entire region on the African continent, and unconstitutional war by an Executive not preoccupied by the rule of law. And what about the responsibility to protect Libyans from Gadhafi’s imminent genocide? Well, for those who have been paying attention, it’s pretty clear the kind of wholesale slaughter predicted by the Obama administration was mostly fabrication, as Ben Friedman documents at the National Interest blog.
Yet people are still praising the NATO intervention. This unravelling catalogue of failure and fortuitous ramifications simply cannot stand up to the stubborn mindset of the interventionist. It is baffling, but after the ongoing disaster of Libya – after the failures, war crimes, and quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan – people still have the gall to be pushing for war and regime change in Syria, a far more dangerous and complex case than Libya which would be an order of magnitude worse in its consequences.
Jim Bovard
April 10th, 2012 at 6:20 am
Excellent analysis, John. Now if only Hillary Clinton could be compelled to pay attention to these details…
Brian Beyer
April 10th, 2012 at 7:50 am
Well done, John.
nikhilhoganmt
April 10th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Good article, John. Will pass this around.
Tommy
April 10th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Not sure how "unintentional" these consequences really are.
AU Must Back Syrian Peace – AllAfrica.com | Libtech
April 11th, 2012 at 10:23 am
[…] Libya and SyriaDissident VoiceMess in Mali: The Logic of Unintended ConsequencesPalestine ChronicleA Short History of Unintended Consequences From NATO's War in LibyaAntiwar.com […]
Z.Taher
April 12th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
As a Libyan who is still suffering the ‘unintended consequences’ of the NATO war on my country, I am thankful that at least there are people who are spreading the truth. Thank you John.
Sara
April 14th, 2012 at 7.
Sara
April 14th, 2012 at 7.…
McCain on Syria: No Chance for Blowback, Other Than All That Blowback « Antiwar.com Blog
May 7th, 2012 at 8:03 am
[…] extremists did in fact benefit from our intervention in Libya and the Jeffersonians people like McCain rallied behind are virtually non-existent in […]