Some recent developments like a Western plan to intervene militarily in Libya, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi's opposition to any such move, the UN-backed unity government's plan to move to Tripoli from Tunisia "within a few days" and declaration from Tripoli-based government, one of two rival governments currently operating in Libya, that the "unity government" was not welcome in the capital city have deflected attention from US President Barack Obama's recent critical remarks about the way UK and France handled the situation in that country in the aftermath of the popular uprising against long-term strongman Muammar Gaddafi. It should not. While nobody holds any brief for British Prime Minister David Cameron or then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to pin all blame on them for the appalling situation in Libya after the ouster of Gaddafi would not be fair. True, Cameron and Sarkozy enjoyed being welcomed in Benghazi as conquering heroes. But then didn't Obama himself crow in the Rose Garden after Gaddafi's death, "Without putting a single US service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives, and our NATO mission will soon come to an end?" The fact is Obama was every bit as culpable if not more than Cameron and Sarkozy in failing to appreciate what would happen in Libya if the country was not secured and adequately assisted after Gaddafi's fall in the same way his predecessor George W. Bush did not anticipate the chaos that would engulf Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. So this raises some further questions about the Western plan to send ground troops to Libya. One can understand the West sending troops to restore some semblance of order in that country. No, the stated purpose has nothing to do with the welfare of the Libyans but everything to do with the West's geopolitical objectives. The purpose is to defeat the Daesh group (so-called IS). The extremist group has taken control of the city of Sirte and has been staging attacks on civilian and military targets, as well as against oil facilities. Still, it is merely one of the many factions competing in a multisided civil war. Europeans look at Libya as if Daesh is the only threat. This, Egyptian President El-Sisi says, "is a serious mistake." The real threat facing Libya is that it has no central government. It has two rival administrations — one based in the capital Tripoli, the other in the eastern city of Tobruk — that have been battling each other for more than a year. Complicating the situation is a number of armed militias, some owing allegiance to one of the two administrations and some to none. Extremist groups like Daesh are thriving taking advantage of the security vacuum created by the ouster of Gaddafi. Five years ago, the world community heard of averting a humanitarian catastrophe and creating democracy to defeat radicalism. Dramatic stories of regime-sponsored genocide were circulated. They turned out to be mostly rebel propaganda designed to stir Western conscience. Hillary Clinton, then US secretary of state, joked with a TV news reporter moments after she learned of Gaddafi's death on Oct. 20, 2011: "We came, we saw, he died." Unfortunately, an estimated 30,000 Libyans too died and many thousands were displaced. Refugees are fleeing a country still in turmoil. Now everybody admits that the humanitarian case for intervention was significantly overstated in the run-up to the war beginning with the imposition of a no-fly zone and ending with the murder of Gaddafi. We have to ensure that the case for a second intervention (the Daesh threat) is not overstated. Obama has already expanded the bombing campaign in Libya. Given his criticism of UK and France, what the people expect of him is a serous effort to secure the fruits of the Libyan revolution and put in place functioning democratic institutions and infrastructure in that country.
