The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Libya in the Aftermath

Thoughts on the U.S. consulate attack and the continuing internal terrorist threat.

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that led to the death of the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, illustrates that despite the poor performance of Islamists in the elections back in July, the country still faces a serious internal terrorist threat from ideological militants who either operate with freedom from central government control or have entered into the ranks of the new Libyan security forces.

I had already warned about the latter phenomenon in particular as regards attacks on Sufi shrines in Tripoli and Zintan that were suspected to be the work of members of the security forces.

Concerning the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two American intelligence officials revealed to the Daily Beast that members of an Islamist militia known as the February 17th Brigade were responsible for safeguarding the consulate, but apparently stepped aside in anticipation of the attack, possibly on the urging of an Islamist politician.

The Libyan government is now trying to integrate this militia — along with another by the name of Rafallah al-Sahati — into the security forces by appointing army colonels to lead them, but such a move is not likely to do away with the problems posed by these Islamist militants.

On the contrary, they will simply use their new positions to push their own agendas, just like the Islamist members of the security forces who have desecrated Sufi shrines.

There is also the potential here to trigger some infighting among the new security forces. The greatest risk is in the east of the country where Islamist influence is strongest, even as Islamism may not necessarily be the dominant political force on the ground.

Indeed, the Libya Herald recently reported that clashes broke out in the eastern town of Marj among members of the new National Army, with no fatalities but several wounded and requiring treatment in the local hospital. While it has not been fully ascertained what caused this infighting, it is not unreasonable to point to politicization of the ranks of the security forces.

On the other hand, a possible mitigating factor exists in the fact that there is a good deal of local resentment against Islamist militants in particular, as evinced by a demonstration in Benghazi numbering some 30,000 protestors, who denounced the attack on the U.S. consulate and called for the disbanding of militias throughout the country. Commentators like Michael Young of the Beirut-based Daily Star interpreted the success of the assault as evidence of widespread anti-American sentiments in Libya. Yet the large demonstrations in opposition to the attack — as well as a subsequent assault by several hundred protesters on the headquarters of an Islamist militia known as Ansar al-Shariah (suspected of links to the assault on the consulate), which then evacuated its bases in Benghazi — illustrate that this assessment is not wholly accurate. At least in Benghazi, there is still considerable gratitude to NATO for its aid in the downfall of the Gaddafi regime.

In a way, the backlash was predictable, for a precedent existed in Rajma — a town located some 50 km southeast of Benghazi — where residents repelled an assault on a Sufi shrine by Salafists, without the aid of the security forces. However, in Benghazi itself, members of the security forces took advantage of the anti-militia sentiment and thus gained control of the bases evacuated by militias that were that were the targets of protesters’ anger.

Yet I say “possible mitigating factor” because there are two further considerations to bear in mind. First, the anti-militia sentiment displayed by the protesters could create a security vacuum, entailing attacks on militias who have no links to Islamists and are innocent of any wrongdoing (as has already happened), and on members of the security forces who may be wrongly suspected of aiding militias or Islamist militants. Second, the militias that have disbanded have not necessarily given up their weapons. They could instead decide to operate underground as small insurgent units.

In short, what emerges from an analysis of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the aftermath is neither a simplistic narrative of an imminent Islamist takeover nor a Manichaean story of a heroic victory for moderate Muslims against Islamists in Libya.

Rather, it is evident that the problem of infiltration of the security forces by ideologues still exists. When we also consider the potential for the anti-militia violence of protesters to become too generalized and the fact that disbanding does not automatically translate to giving up one’s weapons, it is logical to conclude that a serious terrorist threat within the country is likely to persist for a minimum timescale of months to come, with low-level violence in the form of insurgent bombings and shootings, mob attacks, and internal clashes among the security forces.

About the Author

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University. His website is http://www.aymennjawad.org.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (8) |

c. j. acworth| 9.28.12 @ 7:03AM

Screw 'em all. Come home America. Let the rest of the world stew in it's own juice We have far to much trouble to take care of here.

TLP| 9.28.12 @ 10:47AM

The Contest is at Mr. Purple's House.

RonRonDoRon| 9.29.12 @ 1:49PM

What is this game you're playing? Is anyone else involved, or are you just playing with yourself?

supremecourtlegislator| 9.28.12 @ 8:25AM

The smartest woman in the world and the smartest man ever to occupy the White House are focusing their brillliance on the Middle East. We have an Obamalary or Hillobama middle Eastern policy. Which is even worse than it sounds.

Von Mises Jr| 9.28.12 @ 9:33AM

George W. Bush insisted that we would bring "democracy" to the Middle East. The lesson learned is that democracy requires a moral people who seek liberty and do not exploit the government power for personal gain. We may not be able to maintain our representative government in America due to the hordes of Obama-style victims and welfare cheats. He thought we could bring it to Iraq?

Obama and Hillary figure that if they could just explain Secular Marxism to the Islamist, then they will have a Rodney King Moment and "simply just get along." But this is even more delusional than the Bush, Rove, and Kristol gang's approach.
At least capitalism and a Constitutional Republic can and has worked among moral people. Socialism has never worked. Somebody should tell Barry and Shrillery.

Bob K| 9.29.12 @ 5:06PM

The arguments here and just below do not address the fact that in the last century the middle east has turned from one of largely rural, tribal societies with much cultural and religious diversity into one where most of the populace is now crowded into heavily urbanized areas where all the ills and problems caused by urbanization are coming to a head.

This is a cauldron for democracy and what we are seeing is the overflow of the cauldron. It is naive to expect constitutional republics here let alone a moral capitalism which seems to have disappeared from the bastions of the West who champion it. Money and power in this region has for ages been concentrated in hands of merchants.

Robert Kaplan discusses this problem at some length in his new book, "The Revenge of Geography." See the chapter on "The Crisis of Room."

cicero| 9.28.12 @ 11:07AM

Good points. There is no way to bring Jeffersonian democracy to a society that is still operating on the basis of tribalism. We would be better served to withdraw from the Middle East, and let them determine whatever fate they choose. If the international oil companies want to stay, and think it can stil be profitable, let them hire militias and private armies to defend their fields. After all, none of the countries involved pump their own oil. They merely collect taxes on what is produced. I am sure that the oil companies can defend their fields on a cheaper basis than we are presently expending on the pretext that we are building civilized nations.

The problem with Obama and Hillary is, to an extent, the same as was extant with Bush, Jr., and Clinton. These folks were operating on a vision of history that was invented in the 60s. Until we learn the lessons of history, as it actually occured, and for the reasons it occured the way it did, we will be stuck on the stupid theories derived by trying to judge hstory by current cultural mind sets.

TLP| 9.28.12 @ 1:42PM

Lord of the Rings. (Hat Tip) mike 3/505.

More Articles by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

More Articles From Special Report

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/28/libya-in-the-aftermath

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

It's.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky | 5.20.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

How Long Is This War?

Jed Babbin | 5.20.13

Flatten the IRS

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.20.13

ADVERTISEMENT