The meaning of Libya

Western-style liberal democracy finds no favour in the Middle East. Never has, and, Walt says, never will. (Lifetime pct .990.) It is repugnant to the Arab culture and the Muslim religion. Until the "Arab spring" you couldn't find one true democracy in the whole region. Some would say you still can't.

But that's OK, the great leaders of the free world said. We'll help you bring about régime change in the worst of your dictatorships -- Egypt and Libya -- because we know what's best for you. We'll fight for you, to give you the democracy we know you really want.

And so, as if Iraq and Afghanistan weren't enough, the West inserted its meddlesome self into the Libyan brouhaha. Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron told us we had to. Why? Because Daffy Gadhafi supported terrorists and posed a threat to world peace, even if he had been pretty well minding his own business of late. If that excuse ["reason", surely. Ed.] weren't enough, well, there was our "responsibility to protect" the Libyan people, since they were obviously unable to protect themselves from their own ruler.

So Western planes bombed the excrement out of Tripoli and the surrounding countryside, killing a few of the "good rebels" and hundreds of innocent bystanders along the way, but yet another altruistic mission was accomplished. The Mad Colonel was overthrown and, incidentally, an important source of oil for the West was made secure. The price of gas went down and all were happy once again.

Or maybe not. Questions were raised by Walt and others about who would fill the power vacuum which would be created by the overthrow of Gadhafi, Egypt's Mubarak and others. The "good rebels" seemed to be a rather ragtag lot of chancers, Islamic fundamentalists, criminals, Rambo wannabes, maybe even Al-Qaeda terrorists. Don't worry, our leaders told us, we can handle them, just like the Germans handled the Nazis in the dying days of the Weimar Republic.

Again, maybe not. This year, the anniversary of 9/11 was the occasion for anti-American demonstrations in Egypt (first) and Libya, now spreading to Tunisia and Yemen. US flags were burnt and American diplomats were killed. After all the US of A did for those people! Where's the gratitude?

Paul Heinbecker, former Canadian ambassador to the Disunited Nations, told the Globe and Mail, "I don’t think the mob in the street give a damn about what [we have] done." (Yes, the Canucks took part in the beating up of Libya too.)

According to Mr Heinbecker, two forces contributed to the violence against US missions in Cairo and Benghazi. The first is the so-called clash of civilizations multiplied by the speed of the Net. An Israeli-American posts a video calculated to insult and provoke Muslims. Social media amplify its effect, sending people into the streets.

A day later, more and more doubt is being expressed as to the identity of the film-maker, and whether a complete film actually exists. "Innocence of the Muslims" may well be a hoax, perpetrated by Islamic -- or Protestant Christian -- extremists to inflame passions and start riots which Al-Qaeda could then use as cover for planned attacks.

The second contributor to the violence, Mr. Heinbecker says, is the decline of the autocrat in the Muslim world. Whatever one could say about Colonel Gadhafi and President Mubarak, mobs didn’t burn embassies unless they wanted them burned.

It's worth noting that Egypt's new president, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, hasn't said a word about the attacks in Cairo. Walt suggests that either his government, like that of Libya, is unable to control the howling mobs, or... it approves of or at least acquiesces in their actions.

If I were President Obama -- and I was not born in the USA -- I would be wondering about the risks involved in getting in my country into another Middle Eastern imbroglio. Like Syria, for instance. Or Iran.

There's the risk of death to Americans who are sent into the middle of the maelstrom. And there's the risk of political death for those who send them. Unless, of course, American voters don't make the connection between their country's "good deeds" and the not-so-goodwill they are now reaping. "No good deed goes unpunished."