US Foreign Policy and the Issue of Democracy in the Middle East - Essay Example

Section/# US Foreign Policy and the Issue of Democracy in the Middle East The democratic peace theory is one of the most fundamentally held beliefs that US Foreign policy makers claim to hold. As such, the theory states that democracies are inherently peaceful and are not prone to fight each other. Therefore, it has been a fundamental signature of US Foreign Policy for the past 70 years to actively push for more and greater democratization in our world. However, although theory appears sound on the surface and the contention that it makes that democracies do not often resort to violence against one another, there are deep and abiding flaws in its implementation as it relates to world affairs and complex matters of sovereignty.

This brief analysis will use the case of Libya as a vehicle to examine how the push for democratization oftentimes leads to destabilization and the complete and utter breakdown of a previously functional/peaceful society. Ever since the tumultuous 1980s when Muammar Gadaffi repeatedly came at odds with US President Ronald Reagan and US foreign policy in the region, the situation in Libya had been quiet (Williams 2012). The war hawks of the Libyan intervention would be quick to point out the prison uprising that was brutally repressed by Gadaffi’s troops back in 2004 as evidence to the contrary; however, from Libya’s perspective, they could easily point to Hurricane Katrina, the LA Riots, and a host of other government mishandling and mishaps to show an equally clueless government that was ineffective in meeting the needs of its populace or handling crises in an even handed manner.

Regardless of this fact, NATO was quick to capitalize on what can only be described as a carefully coordinated, nurtured, and organized uprising in Benghazi to promote democracy and work to topple the stable and long-lived government of Libya. It is important to note that although this analysis does not support the laundry list of atrocities that Gaddafi is accused of committing, neither does it support an armed intervention in what was Africa’s most stable and prosperous country prior to NATO’s efforts to destabilize it.

Libya provides a unique and insightful case of why forced democratization is not the path to pursue. The news media would have had us believe that the entire country was fundamentally against Gadaffi and wanted the dictator gone; however, this could not have been further from the truth. The fact of the matter was that Gaddafi was greatly respected and loved among various segments of society. The leader had invested heavily in the infrastructure of the country, building Libya from practically nothing to what it was 40 years after his rule began.

Before Gaddafi there was little if any public services in any but the largest of coastal cities, agriculture was weak, and the oil industry was practically undeveloped. Because of these and a host of other reasons, it took thousands of sorties from hundreds of aircraft representing multiple nations 8 full months to bring the Gaddafi regime to a close (Haggerty 2012). Likewise, the manner in which Gaddafi and his remaining sons were slaughtered combined with the aftermath of the war led many to appropriately question whether the right course of action had been pursued.

Gaddafi warned as early as February that elements of al Qaeda were threatening to destabilize the nation and were actively supporting those that sought his overthrow. However, this was unheeded as NATO and others were already preparing for what a post-Gaddafi Libya might look like. One by one, the coastal towns that had been controlled by the Gaddafi regime fell and one by one the flags of al Qaeda replaced the Green Republic flags that had flown over these cities. Again, the West and the news media paid little if any head to these warnings signs.

Nearly a year after Gaddafi’s murder and the collapse of his regime, elements of al Qaeda attacked the US Embassy in Benghazi and murdered several of the staff of the embassy. A similar attack had been perpetrated during the Theo van Gogh Mohammed Cartoons back in 2004; however, at that time, Gaddafi dispatched his military to ensure that the embassy of even one of his largest adversaries was protected from the mobs. Sadly, no such force was there to protect the embassy as the US Ambassador as well as a staff member and security detail member were murdered (Kendricks 2012).

Currently, Libya is awash with hundreds of thousands of weapons brought in by NATO and its Saudi/Egyptian/Sudanese co-conspirators. Hundreds of militias guard various checkpoints, hassle motorists, and demand bribes for entry and egress from major choke points around cities (Lister 2012). A full year after the war has completed, the previously bustling city of Misrata lies in ruins with none of its former inhabitants daring to return due to fear of reprisals as this city was known to be a staunch supporter of Gaddafi both before and during the war (Jabouri 2012).

In short, what has been affected is the utter destruction of a nation. Although this author agrees that totalitarianism is a net evil and further agrees that democratization is a net positive, the effects of aggressively pushing for and intervening in sovereign nations to bring about regime change – even in the name of democracy – is foolish in the extreme. It is likely that Libya will not recover the same economic and societal strength that it had under Gaddafi for quite some time. As such, the balance sheet at the end of this conflict is severely lacking.

One the one hand Gaddafi is dead and “democracy” is now available to the people of Libya. On the other, the country has sustained catastrophic damage both to its infrastructure as well as a host of tribal divisions that have all come to the forefront as a result of the revolution. As such, it would be the strong suggestion of this author for the United States to immediately cease and desist from further democratization efforts that call for the violent overthrow of current/functional and legitimate regimes.

This suggestion is in part due to the costs (both material and human) of intervention coupled with the fact that the net gain seems to be a diminishing return on overall investment. Works Cited Williams, David. "Who Shot Gaddafi? New Video Shows Blood Pouring from Dictator Immediately before Death but Mystery Surrounds Coup De Grace." Mail Online. N.p., 21 Oct. 2011. Web. 06 Oct. 2012. . Haggerty, Brian. "Delusion of a Limited Strike." Latest News, Pictures, Video, Multimedia. N.p., 6 Oct. 2012. Web. 06 Oct. 2012. .

Jabouri, Hussein. "War-ravaged Libyan Port City Awaits Rebuilding - Daily News Egypt." War-ravaged Libyan Port City Awaits Rebuilding - Daily News Egypt. N.p., 15 Feb. 2012. Web. 06 Oct. 2012. . Kendricks, Timothy. "Latest News, Breaking News, Business, Finance Analysis, Comments and Views from Nigeria :: BusinessDay." US Condemn Killing of Libyan Ambassador. N.p., 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 06 Oct. 2012. . Lister, Tim. "Libyan Militias Melt into Desert, Wait for Another Day." a?? CNN Security Clearance. N.p., 25 Sept. 2012. Web. 06 Oct. 2012. .