Libya or Egypt?

I recently posed this question via Twitter:  ”If Iraq was Bush’s distraction from Afghanistan, then Libya may be Obama’s distraction from Egypt. Whose mistake is bigger?”  It may be years before we have a definitive answer to my question, but if I had to choose today, I would go with Obama and Libya.

In the news this week. Moussa Kouossa, the Libyan foreign minister, until his recent defection to Britain, says Libya is turning into “a new Somalia.”  A Libya mired in civil war would not be considered a “win” by the Obama administration, and indeed could prove to be a “distraction” for many years to come.

Libya has always looked more like a civil war than a revolution — the country is tribal and divided (Afghanistan?). I allowed myself to be optimistic after a few high-level defections from Qaddafi’s administration (including Mr. Kouossa), but now it appears that the defectors’ motives may have been trying to save their own hides for fear they would be tried for war crimes, rather than defecting to delegitimize Qaddafi and save Libya.

I was particularly bothered by a recent report from Libya in which a reporter talked about the “ragtag rebels,” saying they come out to fight after their breakfast, and they stop fighting to go home for dinner. This does not sound like people who are committed to a cause. Revolutions need people that are willing to die, and these people don’t even want to miss a meal! The Libyan Rebels, the French, and Great Britain are all looking to the U.S. to do more of the work — this should not be a surprise to anyone.

With so much global conflict, joining the Libyan cause for purely humanitarian reasons creates many challanges: Mr. Obama stated that Arab League approval was instrumental in his decision to go ahead with the no-fly zone.  Now, with hostilities between Israel and Gaza, the Arab League wants a no–fly zone over Gaza — a big problem for Obama and a good example of unintended consequences.

Egypt’s revolution, on the other hand, was organic, focused, and resolute. They were prepared to do what they had to do to free themselves.  They may have wanted U.S. help but they didn’t stand around waiting for it.  Now that Mubarak is gone, Egypt needs help to move in the right direction.  I would argue that any U.S. support should come in the form of private investment and not military intervention.  Private sector assistance should be facilitated by government encouragement — trade agreements, tax incentives and diplomacy.  Having the eyes of the world on Egypt would help keep extremist factions in check.

War is ugly whether you engage unilaterally or multilaterally, and regardless of motivation – strategic or humanitarian.  With a huge deficit problem and a populace that is war-weary, America has to be very careful where we engage. Americans hate the war in Iraq but it may turn out to be a serendipity for Mr. Bush.  A few experts have suggested that the Arab push for democracy is a result of Iraq:  They held free elections in 2005 and 2010 with huge turnouts. After the last election it took months to form a coalition, but they did it.

As American troops get ready to make their final exit from Iraq, the new Iraqi government is preparing Saddam Hussein’s old Republican Palace for an Arab League summit — the Iraqis are ready and proud to take a leadership position.  Iraq has a long way to go, but it could turn out to be a worthwhile distraction.  If they continue to work together to build a democracy they could someday be chasing Turkey as a country that makes Islam and democracy equal economic opportunity.

Libya, I fear, is a distraction that may cost Egypt that same opportunity