(CNN) — A critique of the U.S. involvement in the military intervention in Libya that will no doubt be common in coming days is that the Obama administration is making a large error by embarking on a war with a third Muslim country, as if reversing Moammar Gadhafi’s momentum against the rebels will be a rerun of the debacle of the war against Saddam Hussein.
A further element of this view is that — whatever the outcome of the Libyan intervention — the United States’ standing in the Islamic world will once again be severely damaged by an attack on a Muslim nation.
There are, of course, some real similarities between Hussein and Gadhafi — both ruthless and erratic dictators of oil-rich regimes who fought bloody wars with their neighbors, brutalized their own populations, sought weapons of mass destruction, and sired some equally unattractive sons and heirs.
But the military intervention that President Obama authorized against Libya on Saturday — eight years to the day after President George W. Bush announced the commencement of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” — is a quite different operation than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Beyond the obvious difference that Obama has not authorized the use of U.S. ground forces in Libya, there are several other differences to consider:
First, the Obama administration was handed a gift by the Arab League, which in its more than six-decade history has garnered a well-earned reputation as a feckless talking shop, but unusually took a stand one week ago by endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya.
That endorsement put the Arab League way out in front of the Obama administration, which was then dithering about whether to do anything of substance to help the rebels fighting Gadhafi.
The unexpected action by the Arab League gave the administration the impetus and diplomatic cover to then go to the United Nations Security Council to secure a broad resolution endorsing not only a no-fly zone, but also allowing member states to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya.
This U.N. resolution is reminiscent of the one that President George H.W. Bush secured in November 1990, which gave Iraq six weeks to withdraw from Kuwait following Hussein’s invasion of that country. The U.N. resolution in 1990 similarly empowered states to use “all necessary means” to force Iraq out of Kuwait if Hussein ignored the deadline.
The similarities do not end there. The coalition that massed to drive Hussein out of Kuwait involved significant forces from major Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So too the Libyan no-fly zone will be enforced by Qatar, along with western powers such as France and the U.K.
This is all quite in contrast to George W. Bush’s ineffectual attempts to gather international support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There was no U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the use of military force against Hussein, and no Muslim countries participated in the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Turkish parliament voted against allowing American troops passage across Turkey to invade northern Iraq, which put a wrench in U.S. military planning.
Underlining the fact that the Iraq War was widely viewed as illegitimate by Muslim countries, the same year that Turkey voted against allowing American soldiers to use its soil to attack Iraq, Turkish soldiers were also leading the International Security Assistance Force helping to keep the peace in post-Taliban Afghanistan, a military operation that was also authorized by the United Nations and was not seen as illegitimate by much of the Muslim world.
The Bush administration’s largely unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq (the U.K. and a few other nations provided troops) undermined America’s standing in Islamic countries. A poll taken a few months after the 2003 invasion found that Indonesians, Jordanians, Turks, and Moroccans all expressed more “confidence” that Osama bin Laden would “do the right thing” than that Bush would.
According to a poll four years later, America’s favorability rating stood at 9% in Turkey (down from 52% before September 11, 2001) and 29% in Indonesia (down from 75% before September 11).
Finally, another key difference between the Iraq war and the Libyan operation is that the casus belli for Iraq was based on highly classified intelligence accessible to few people — later proved to be wrong — that Saddam Hussein continued to maintain a weapons of mass destruction program. By contrast, the Libyan intervention was caused by the real time evidence provided by the world’s leading media organizations — including, of course, Al Jazeera — that Gadhafi is massacring his own people.
The high level of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world that was generated by the Iraq War is unlikely to be replicated by U.S. military action against Libya, because Gadhafi is widely reviled in the Arab world. His antics on the world stage have earned him the enmity of even his fellow autocrats — who will not be welcoming him if he chooses to “retire” to Saudi Arabia as other murderous dictators of his ilk have in the past (think Idi Amin).
And the fact that both the Arab League and the United Nations have endorsed a military action against Gadhafi strongly suggests that the Libyan intervention will not generate a renewed wave of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.
Instead, it underlines a striking feature of the protests that have roiled the Middle East in the past several weeks: Strikingly absent from those protests has been the ritualized burning of American flags, something that hitherto was largely pro forma in that part of the world. That’s because Arabs have finally been able to express publicly that their biggest enemy is not the United States, but their own rulers.
The MPs have filed for an amendment to the Petroleum Revenue Management Bill currently before Parliament and have proposed the establishment of a Western Regional Development Fund into which ten per cent of the country’s oil revenue will be put for the exclusive development of the Western Region.
Member of Parliament for Bimbilla, Dominic Nitiwul who is championing this amendment insists “they don’t trust any government; particularly the sitting government” to make good its promise to develop the Western Region with funds from the oil.
He said with the development fund in place, the government will be obliged to develop the region.
“We are proposing this as a nationalistic thing to let everybody know it is not just a group of people from one part of this country that is deciding to [uphold this.]
He told Joy FM’ Sammy Darko they will exhaust all parliamentary procedures necessary to have the proposal by the Western Region chiefs amendment adopted.
“…We are going to ensure that this thing is carried and there are several tactics we are going to use or weapons at our disposal; including challenging a voice vote and ensuring that we do a head count of this particular call because we are really serious with this call,” he swore.
He said the ten per cent will just be one of the sources for the development of the region.
He is sure that Parliament will accept the proposal they are making based on the cogent arguments they intend to raise on the floor of Parliament.
But MP for Sege and a member of the joint Committee on Finance and Energy, Alfred Abayatei said the views by Mr Nitiwul are not sustainable.
He said the amendments put forward the five MPs are contradictory.
Mr. Abayatei argued that he as well members of the majority are in favour of the development of the Western Region but the ten per cent proposal is not the way to go.
He also stated emphatically that the Joint Committee unanimously objected the proposal by the Western Region chiefs, contrary to the claims by Mr Nitiwul.
Dozens of supporters greeted him as he arrived with his wife and daughter at an electoral council office in the capital, Port-au-Prince.
The deadline to file candidacy papers for the 28 November poll is Saturday.
Mr Jean, who lives in New York, has said the quake motivated him to stand for the presidency.
If he wins, he will preside over the spending of billions of dollars in international aid for reconstruction.
Other declared candidates include former diplomat Garaudy Laguerre and Raymond Joseph, who is Haiti’s current ambassador to the US and Mr Jean’s uncle.
The sitting President, Rene Preval, is barred by the constitution from seeking a new term.
Mr Jean is hugely popular in Haiti where half of the population is under 21.
He told Time magazine in an interview that his secret weapon in the election campaign would be that Haiti’s “enormous youth population doesn’t believe in politicians any more”.
“If not for the earthquake, I probably would have waited another 10 years before doing this,” Mr Jean added.
Mr Jean is Haiti’s ambassador-at-large, and has played a prominent role in securing aid since the earthquake, which left 1.5 million people homeless.