revised last paper

7/27/2019 Revised Last Paper

1/8

The U.S Position toward the 2011 Libyan Revolution

By

Hasan Karayam

Under supervision

Dr. Stephen D. Morris

Fall 2012


2/8

1

The U.S. policy toward Libya during the 2011 Libyan Revolution represented a new

stage in American foreign policy toward Libya, after four decades of poor and deteriorating

relations under the Qaddafi regime. In fact, those poor relations played a key role in determining

the U.S. position during the revolution that eventually led to American military intervention

through the United Nations, despite the domestic reaction in the United States. But, what are the

motivations that pushed Obamas administration to intervene in Libya unlike other countries of

Arab Spring? Did Obama consider failing of Bush administration in Iraq war? The objective of

this paper is to examine the main reasons which drove U.S foreign policy during the revolution. I

will also delineate American interests in Libya and how bad experience with Libyan foreign

policy (Qaddafi regime) impact on this position.

The U.S. position toward Libya over both the short and long terms is has multiple

audiences and drivers, including U.S. interests in the Middle East in general and in Libya in

particular, and U.S. allies interests (especially its Western allies) in the Middle East. So, a

debate over the causes of U.S. intervention in Libya is complicated by a variety of factors. This

complexity revealed itself in the ambiguity in U.S. President BarackObamas speeches in the

early months of the Libyan Revolution. For example, his first in March pointed to U.S. interests

and values, but he did not delineate what exactly those interests and values were. It was fuzzy

speech in term of U.S foreign policy toward Libya.1

Obama also was not enthusiastic about intervention at the beginning of the revolution,

despite his concern about Libyas future which was beingplanned by effect of U.S. allies

1Bill Van Auken, Obama on Libya: A War for US interests, World Socialist Web Site,

March 29, 2011,http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtml(accessedNovember 28, 2012); Barack Obama, Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation onLibya, 28 March 2011, White House Office of the Press Secretary,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya

(accessed November 3, 2012).
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libyahttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libyahttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libyahttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtml


3/8

2

(European states).2

This impact was manifest during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clintons

meeting in Paris with the G-8 foreign ministers in early March 2011(before intervention which

was on March 19) about the Obama administrations stance on intervention in Libya. Clintons

unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led European states to wonder

exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya. David Cameron, British Prime

Minister, stated that such American ambivalence would lead Arab (Middle East states) to believe

that the U.S. would intervene to secure its own security interests but not to expand democracy in

the area.3In addition to the urging of Americas Western allies, the world society encouraged the

United States to act but it would not repeat its mistake in Iraq war.

The failure of U.S. foreign policy in the Iraq war made the Obama administration

hesitant to define a U.S. position toward Libya without close cooperation with its allies. The

American President said that he would not act unilaterally, as the United States had when it

launched the Iraq war in 2003.4

At another point, pointing to the cost of the U.S. intervention in

Iraq, Obama stated that regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi

lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.5

Therefore, the United States was reluctant to define the goals or missions in Libya--not because

2Mark Mardell, Obama: Libyas Future is a Vital U.S Interest, BBC Channel, August

22, 2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414(accessed November 28, 2012)3Josh Rogin, European Governments Completely Puzzled about U.S Position on

Libya,Foreign Policy, March 16, 2011,

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled

_about_us_position_on_libya(accessed November 28, 2012)4Christi Parsons and Paul Richter, Obama Defends Libya Mission,Los Angeles Times,

March 29, 2011,http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329

(accessed November 28, 2012)5

As quoted in Helene Cooper, Obama Cites Limits of U.S Role in Libya,New YorkTimes, March 28, 2011,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29prexy.html?pagewanted=all(accessed

November 26, 2012)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29prexy.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29prexy.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29prexy.html?pagewanted=allhttp://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414


4/8

3

it is afraid to act--but because the burden of action should not be Americans alone.6

and to

give its intervention an international legitimacy by implementing the UN Resolution 1973 with

its allies. In this context Obama said because contrary to the claims of some, American

leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real

leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies

and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of costs; and to see

that the principles of justice and human dignity are up held by all.7

Hence, the military

intervention was the product of a confluence of particular circumstances and opportunities.

Despite the Obama administrations insistence on sharing the burden, there was no doubt,

based on earlier Libyan-American relations that the United States was interested in overthrowing

the Qaddafi regime. Qaddafi had supported terrorism against the Western powers and had

disturbed U.S. policy in the Middle East. Ihave not taken any option off the table I am

absolutely clear that it is in the interests of the United States and the Libya people that Qaddafi is

removed,8

But the American position was often justified on humanitarian grounds to protect

civilians. On the other hand, removing Qaddafi, who was described as a tyrant by Obama,

would make way for the United States and its European allies to build new alliance in the region.

Libya is a country where the United States could build an alliance that would protect civilians

and defend U.S interests.9

The United States believed that removing Qaddafi would produce stability in the region

and facilitate the transition to democracy in the neighboring countries of Egypt and Tunisia. U.S

6As quoted in ibid.

7Ibid.

8Political News, U.S Position on Libya, March 11, 2011,

http://www.politicolnews.com/us-position-on-libya/(accessed November 27, 2012)9

Parsons and Richter, Obama Defends Libya Mission.
http://www.politicolnews.com/us-position-on-libya/http://www.politicolnews.com/us-position-on-libya/http://www.politicolnews.com/us-position-on-libya/


5/8

4

had an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning the opposition forces

because a massacre would have driven thousands of refugees across Libyan borders and put a

strain on the transitional governments in Egypt and Tunisia on American allies in Europe.10

Obamas administration was concerned about removing Qaddafi for Egypt and Tunisia more

than Libya. Robert Gates, the U.S. Defense Secretary, explained that Libya itself might not be a

vital national interest to the U.S. but the? prospect of turmoil spilling beyond its borders is

worrisome you had a potentially significantly destabilizing event taking place in Libya that

put at risk potentially the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt and that was another

consideration I think we took into account.

11

Therefore, the United States concern about

stabilization in the region more than anything else.

Therefore, removing Qaddafi had many purposes and made Libya is not like other

countries in the Arab spring. This explains why the United State did not act in other countries,

Obamas justification for intervening in Libya missing word? a response to those who

questioned? Why his administration acted there and not in other countries such as U.S allies

Bahrain and Yemen, where civilian protesters have been killed. In Syria, a country of greater

strategic importance than Libya that long has had a strained relationship with Washington,

dozens have died in recent days.12

Consequently, the history of bad Libyan-American relations from 1969 until 2011 played

a decisive role in determining the U.S. position on, at least in the short term, the Libyan

10 Ibid.11

Scott Horsley, U.S. Intervention in Libya: ANoble Use of Force? National Public

Radio, March 28, 2011,http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-

noble-use-of-force(accessed November 28, 2012); Stephen M. Walt, Why the Libyan

Revolution May Not Matter Very Much,Foreign Policy, August 24, 2011,

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_ve

ry_much(accessed November 29, 2012).12

Parsons and Richter, Obama Defends Libya Mission.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-force


6/8

5

Revolution. While this helps explain the motivation that led to U.S. military intervention in

Libya, it does not explain or define American interests in Libya after removing Qaddafi. Lance

Selfa, an editor of theInternational Socialist Review and regular contributor to the Socialist

Workernewspaper, pointed to U.S. and Western motivations behind the military intervention in

Libya. He highlighted the Western goals of stabilizing the region and securing oil investments

rather than overthrowing Qaddafi. He explains western interests including the United States

interests in Libya and in the Middle East as whole, the United States and its European allies

begun the year with the Qaddafi regime as an ally in the war on terror and Libya a fertile ground

for Western investment. Until recently, they were prepared to accept Qaddafis continued rule in

Libya, even at the cost of the rebellion against him being crushed. Only when the threat to

regional stability and oil supplies become alarming to the west did they act of course, western

intervention has many other motivations besides the humanitarian claims in support of

Resolution 1973: preserving the flow of Libyan oil, prevent mass of Libyans to Europe, getting

rid of failed state in Libya, and stopping the Arab revolution from overthrowing another

dictator through its own efforts.13 Another aim of western intervention was to clearly

communicate to any subsequent government in Libya after the revolution that it should be

depend on the Western powers to stabilize the region under the guise of Western domination. In

this context, Self states but even if the intervention plays some role in Qaddafi downfall-which

is by no means certain- any regime that comes to power in Libya will be compromised from the

start by its dependence on Western powers that arent concerned at all about democracy and

13Lance Selfa, Libyas Revolution, U.S. Intervention, and the Left, International

Socialist Review 77 (May-June 2011),http://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#top

(accessed November 27, 2012).
http://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#tophttp://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#tophttp://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#tophttp://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#top


7/8

6

justice, but about maintaining stability and reasserting their dominance in a region that has seen

two victorious revolutions against U.S-backed dictators and the possibility of more to come.14

Finally, long-term goal of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including Libya, has

not changed and reflects the goals of its founders during the 1950s and 1960s, especially U.S.

Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. This is true despite the many

significant developments that have subsequently occurred in world politics, including the

collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a post-Mao China as a global economic

power.

References

1- Van Auken, Bill. Obama on Libya: A War for US Interests. World Socialist WebSite, March 29, 2011,http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtml.

2- Cooper, Helene. Obama Cites Limits ofU.S Role in Libya.New York Times, March28, 2011,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29prexy.html?pagewanted=all.

3- Horsley, Scott. U.S. Intervention in Libya: ANoble Use of Force? National PublicRadio, March 28, 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-

in-libya-a-noble-use-of-force.

4- Mardell, Mark. Obama: Libyas Future is a Vital U.S. Interest. British BroadcastingCompany, August 22, 2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414.

14Ibid.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29prexy.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14624414http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134927059/u-s-intervention-in-libya-a-noble-use-of-forcehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29prexy.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtml


8/8

7

5- Obama, Barack. Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya, 28March 2011. White House Office of the Press Secretary,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya(accessed November 3, 2012).

6-

Parsons, Christi, and Paul Richter. Obama Defends Libya Mission.Los AnglosTimes, March 29, 2011,http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329.

7- Political News, U.S. Position on Libya. March 11, 2011,http://www.politicolnews.com/us-position-on-libya/.

8- Rogin, Josh. European Governments Completely Puzzled about U.S. Position onLibya.Foreign Policy, March 16, 2011,

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_complete

ly_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libya.

9- Selfa, Lance. Libyas Revolution, U.S. Intervention, and the Left. InternationalSocialist Review 77 (May-June 2011),http://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-

libya&left.shtml#top.

10-Walt, Stephen M. Why the Libyan Revolution May Not Matter Very Much.Foreign Policy, August 24, 2011,

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not

_matter_very_much.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libyahttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libyahttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libyahttp://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://www.politicolnews.com/us-position-on-libya/http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#tophttp://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#tophttp://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#tophttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/why_the_libyan_revolution_may_not_matter_very_muchhttp://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#tophttp://isreview.org/issues/77/feat-libya&left.shtml#tophttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libyahttp://www.politicolnews.com/us-position-on-libya/http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29/world/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libyahttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya

revised last paper

Documents