The Libya Gamble: Part One (International New York Times)

[Divernan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE
FEB. 27, 2016

The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven.

President Obama was deeply wary of another military venture in a Muslim country. Most of his senior advisers were telling him to stay out. Still, he dispatched Mrs. Clinton to sound out Mr. Jibril, a leader of the Libyan opposition. Their late-night meeting on March 14, 2011, would be the first chance for a top American official to get a sense of whom, exactly, the United States was being asked to support.

Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders “said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,” said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. “They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.”

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line. The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.

Note: In choosing where to post this OP (General Discussion or GDP), I read the entire article and concluded it is far broader in history, scope, international relations and impact, and lessons to be learned from the complex situation in Libya and surrounding countries than is appropriate for GDP, notwithstanding the fact that the then Secretary of State is now running in the primaries.

[Divernan]

1. Conundrum- whether, when & how U.S. should wield its military power in Syria

The looting of Colonel Qaddafi’s vast weapons arsenals during the intervention has fed the Syrian civil war, empowered terrorist and criminal groups from Nigeria to Sinai, and destabilized Mali, where Islamist militants stormed a Radisson hotel in November and killed 20 people.

A growing trade in humans has sent a quarter-million refugees north across the Mediterranean, with hundreds drowning en route. A civil war in Libya has left the country with two rival governments, cities in ruins and more than 4,000 dead.

Amid that fighting, the Islamic State has built its most important outpost on the Libyan shore, a redoubt to fall back upon as it is bombed in Syria and Iraq. With the Pentagon saying the Islamic State’s fast-growing force now numbers between 5,000 and 6,500 fighters, some of Mr. Obama’s top national security aides are pressing for a second American military intervention in Libya. On Feb. 19, American warplanes hunting a Tunisian militant bombed an Islamic State training camp in western Libya, killing at least 41 people.

“We had a dream,” said Mr. Jibril, who served as Libya’s first interim prime minister. “And to be honest with you, we had a golden opportunity to bring this country back to life. Unfortunately, that dream was shattered.”

[EdwardBernays]

2. this is worth a read

https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/02/23/u-s-companies-lobbied-to-keep-libyan-market-open-for-business-2/

especially when you consider that many of these companies had direct access to Obama (via Podesta) and Clinton (via her "Foundation&quot .

[EdwardBernays]

3. and this

Marathon Oil had a great stake in the political situation in Libya. Between 2009 and 2010 sales of crude oil to the Libyan National Oil Company accounted for 13 percent of Marathon Oil’s annual revenue. In 2010, Marathon Oil’s investment in Libya was approximately $760 million, and the company had ambitions to increase drilling by 2011. By December 2010, Marathon Oil had already issued a 10-K Form stating that continued conflict in Libya could cause their revenues and margins to decline and limit their future growth prospects. By 2011, halted productions began to impact Marathon Oil’s revenues, even while the company continued to cover maintenance costs for their facilities.

Besides oil companies and human rights groups, defense contractors were the main clients mentioning Libya in their lobbying efforts, with Halliburton and Boeing among the top clients. In 2010 alone, the defense industry spent over $138.8 million on federal-level lobbying. Their lobbying efforts proved successful. Members of Congress voted against budget cuts for the defense sector, expressing concern over reduced defense spending during active military engagement in Libya.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Sen. Lindsey Graham received campaign contributions from the leading defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Boeing, and BAE Systems.

Further, President Obama, who confirmed U.S. support for military involvement in Libya, received substantial campaign contributions from the oil and defense industries. Anthony Gregory, who studies the influence of Wall Street and Banks on U.S. foreign policy, argues that Obama’s reliance on military contractors and Arab oil explains his engagement in Libya. Gregory found that the U.S. Federal Reserve provided the central bank of Libya with $26 billion of almost interest free emergency loans between 2007 and 2010. At the same time, the central bank was the only business exempt from U.S. sanctions against Libya.

Obama’s advocacy for U.S. military engagement paid off. During the 2012 presidential election cycle, Obama was the top recipient of contributions from individuals affiliated with the defense sector, noting his military engagement in Libya as one of the reasons for their support.

http://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/does-us-foreign-policy-serve-people

[jakeXT]

4. The Europeans pushed us ... Oh yeah ... fairytale /nt

It was late afternoon on March 15, 2011, and Mr. Araud had just left the office when his phone rang. It was his American counterpart, Susan E. Rice, with a pointed message.

France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.

“She says, and I quote, ‘You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,’” said Mr. Araud, now France’s ambassador in Washington. “She said, ‘We’ll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don’t want to.’ The conversation got tense. I answered, ‘France isn’t a U.S. subsidiary.’ It was the Obama policy at the time that they didn’t want a new Arab war.”