Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

Return to Regime Change


The brutality of Libyan leader Moammar Ghaddafi, and his refusal to concede power, is costing Libya much more than innocent lives. The country is now also facing a possible loss of future independence and sovereignty. From its early days, the Libyan revolt seemed to take a difference course than those of other Arab countries. It represented a window of opportunity for the United States and its western allies to reposition themselves, slowly but surely, around a conflict that promised grueling and bloodier times ahead.

A visit by Republican Senator John McCain to Benghazi on April 22, was described by a CNN online report as “a major morale boast” for the Libyan rebels. His arrival followed a US decision to deploy predator drones to Libya, thus promising a greater American role in the war. According to McCain, drones are not enough, and more will be needed to break the “significant degree of stalemate.” He described Benghazi as a “powerful and hopeful example of what a free Libya can be.”

A small crowd chanted as the US senator met with members of the Transitional National Council: “Thank you John McCain! Thank you Obama…Thank you America! We need freedom! Gadhafi go away,” according to the same report.

This decidedly American push has already inspired many neoconservative ideologues who unfailingly endorse war against any Arab or Muslim country that fail to tow their line. A major hub for US intervention – most often in support of Israeli interests – is the American Enterprise Institute, credited for introducing many suspicious characters to Iraq following the ousting of Saddam Hussein. AEI scholar Michael Rubin said that the visit by McCain “brings more limelight to the rebels.” But Rubin wants even more than this. “If McCain can meet the people for whom we are fighting, why not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Why not Vice President Joe Biden?”

There are many indications to suggest that the US is upgrading its involvement in the Libyan war, following a brief period of political and military vacillation. Much talk of a pending stalemate in the unfair fight between poorly armed rebels and Ghaddafi’s forces preceded the actual standoff on the ground. With no meaningful Arab action, and NATO’s choosy military involvement proving to be largely ineffective, the US is now being urged to ‘do something.’

‘Doing something’ is, of course, a difficult endeavor in a highly volatile political season in Washington. As miscalculations can be decisive factors in winning or losing elections, the Obama Administration is trying to play its cards right, moving towards more tangible involvement in Libya, but with much caution. What is clear, however, is that the involvement will be more visible than before.

McCain’s visit is significant, not just because of his political seniority, but also owing to his former ‘war hero’ status. In Washington, military men are more trusted than politicians. As he ushered in greater American involvement in Libya, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was contributing to the built up of rhetoric from Baghdad. The situation in Libya is “certainly moving towards a stalemate,” he told US troops during a visit. “Gaddafi’s gotta go…(and coalition actions)…are going to continue to put the squeeze on him until he’s gone,” he said, according to Reuters (Washington Post, April 22).

Ghaddafi’s brutal treatment of civilians made their protection a top priority for the country’s rebels. Benghazi-based rebel-spokesman, Abdul Hafidh Ghoda, told Aljazeera: “There’s no doubt that (the US decision to send unmanned drones) will help protect civilians, and we welcome that step from the American administration.”

But since the destruction of “somewhere between 30 and 40 percent” of Gaddafi’s ground forces (according to Mullen’s estimation) achieved very little by way of protecting civilians, more steps are expected from the Obama Administration.

Now we are witnessing a jubilant return of previously muted calls for interventionism and regime change in favor of US-style democracy. While Libya may not have specifically fallen under the Washington radar, it now presents an opportunity too good to miss.

This realization might challenge President Obama and force him to revise an earlier claim that the US’ goal was not regime change in Libya. In a televised speech on March 29, Obama said, “If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put US troops on the ground to accomplish that mission or risk killing many civilians from the air.”

But yet again, a stalemate might end up splintering Libya itself. The US and its allies would either accept a divided Libya – and exploit this division whenever possible – or raise their involvement to break the deadlock. If they opted for the latter, there is already much rhetoric to support an upgrade in the military mission. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye (to) atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different, and as president I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” Obama said.

A US victory over Gaddafi may be seen as an opportunity to boost Obama’s faltering reputation just in time for the 2012 presidential elections. But history has repeatedly shown the high cost of political and military arrogance. Obama himself admitted that in Iraq, “regime change…took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly $1 trillion. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Since the military plunder in Iraq, the US has resorted to softer and increasingly clandestine methods to destabilize ‘unfriendly’ countries. Recent Wikileaks revelations show that Syria was always positioned as one of these targets. Libya seemed too stable and somewhat too distant from recent US foreign policy estimations. However, the ongoing violence in the country, and fear of the long-term repercussions of a military stalemate, could change all of that.

In Washington, mood swings occur too quickly and too often. Political opportunists know well how to turn a challenge into an opportunity, and an opportunity into an all-out war.

RAMZY BAROUD is editor of His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London). His newbook is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London)

Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London). His website is:

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


October 27, 2016
Paul Street
An Identity-Politicized Election and World Series Lakefront Liberals Can Love
Matthew Stevenson
Sex and the Presidential City
Jim Kavanagh
Tom Hayden’s Haunting
CJ Hopkins
The Pathologization of Dissent
Mike Merryman-Lotze
The Inherent Violence of Israel’s Gaza Blockade
Robert Fisk
Is Yemen Too Much for the World to Take?
Shamus Cooke
Stopping Hillary’s Coming War on Syria
Jan Oberg
Security Politics and the Closing of the Open Society
Ramzy Baroud
The War on UNESCO: Al-Aqsa Mosque is Palestinian and East Jerusalem is Illegally Occupied
Colin Todhunter
Lower Yields and Agropoisons: What is the Point of GM Mustard in India?
Norman Pollack
The Election: Does It Matter Who Wins?
Nyla Ali Khan
The Political and Cultural Richness of Kashmiriyat
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“It’s Only a Car!”
October 26, 2016
John W. Whitehead
A Deep State of Mind: America’s Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup
Eric Draitser
Dear Liberals: Trump is Right
Anthony Tarrant
On the Unbearable Lightness of Whiteness
Mark Weisbrot
The Most Dangerous Place in the World: US Pours in Money, as Blood Flows in Honduras
Chris Welzenbach
The Establishment and the Chattering Hack: a Response to Nicholas Lemann
Luke O'Brien
The Churchill Thing: Some Big Words About Trump and Some Other Chap
Sabia Rigby
In the “Jungle:” Report from the Refugee Camp in Calais, France
Linn Washington Jr.
Pot Decriminalization Yields $9-million in Savings for Philadelphia
Pepe Escobar
“America has lost” in the Philippines
Pauline Murphy
Political Feminism: the Legacy of Victoria Woodhull
Lizzie Maldonado
The Burdens of World War III
David Swanson
Slavery Was Abolished
Thomas Mountain
Preventing Cultural Genocide with the Mother Tongue Policy in Eritrea
Colin Todhunter
Agrochemicals And The Cesspool Of Corruption: Dr. Mason Writes To The US EPA
October 25, 2016
David Swanson
Halloween Is Coming, Vladimir Putin Isn’t
Hiroyuki Hamada
Fear Laundering: an Elaborate Psychological Diversion and Bid for Power
Priti Gulati Cox
President Obama: Before the Empire Falls, Free Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal
Kathy Deacon
Plus ça Change: Regime Change 1917-1920
Robin Goodman
Appetite for Destruction: America’s War Against Itself
Richard Moser
On Power, Privilege, and Passage: a Letter to My Nephew
Rev. William Alberts
The Epicenter of the Moral Universe is Our Common Humanity, Not Religion
Dan Bacher
Inspector General says Reclamation Wasted $32.2 Million on Klamath irrigators
David Mattson
A Recipe for Killing: the “Trust Us” Argument of State Grizzly Bear Managers
Derek Royden
The Tragedy in Yemen
Ralph Nader
Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think
Norman Pollack
Centrist Fascism: Lurching Forward
Guillermo R. Gil
Cell to Cell Communication: On How to Become Governor of Puerto Rico
Mateo Pimentel
You, Me, and the Trolley Make Three
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
October 24, 2016
John Steppling
The Unwoke: Sleepwalking into the Nightmare
Oscar Ortega
Clinton’s Troubling Silence on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Patrick Cockburn
Aleppo vs. Mosul: Media Biases