The Arab League's No-Fly Flip-Flop

Conservative commentators such as Contentions’ Abe Greenwald are understandably frustrated at the Arab League, which, apparently, was for the no-fly zone before it was against it.

Or, as Greenwald put it, “The Arab League wanted our help. Until they got it.

I understand Greenwald’s frustration; but it’s instructive to examine why the Arab League has suddenly had a change of heart: Because the reason may well be that the Obama administration has not committed to regime change in Libya.

Of course, that’s not what Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa says publicly. According to Moussa, the Arab League is distraught over civilian casualties caused by the coalition attacks.

But that doesn’t seem to make much sense. Civilian casualties in Libya, after all, have been remarkably low, thanks to extraordinary coalition efforts to target only Gaddafi’s military infrastructure and command and control elements.

It is possible that Moussa is trying to curry favor with the Muslim Brotherhood and other more religiously conservative elements. This to bolster his electoral prospects in Egypt’s upcoming presidential campaign.

But it is not clear this would do much to help Moussa politically. After all, as Mustafa Alani, director of the Gulf Research Center in the United Arab Emirates city of Dubai told the Los Angeles Times: There have been no “demonstrations against the no-fly zone in any Arab city.”

“People might not like it,” Alani said, “but the only other option is to allow a civil war to develop in Libya. [And, if that happens], you're going to create another Somalia. [People] don't like military intervention; but in this case it is seen as the lesser evil.”

The Arab League, of course, is a dictators’ club: Thus morality, political or otherwise, does not really factor into its decision-making process; realpolitik, though, does. And that may explain why Moussa and other Arab leaders seem to have done an about-face on Libya.

Simply put, the Arab League is concerned that, when all’s said and done, Gaddafi may be the last man standing.

Arab leaders initially supported Western military action when they thought it was feasible and integral to getting rid of Gaddafi, whom they have long loathed and feared. But then, as Operation Odyssey Dawn has unfolded, it’s become apparent that regime change might not be what the coalition has in mind.

President Obama, after all, never mentioned that as an objective when he announced U.S. involvement in the operation. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said explicitly on the Sunday talk shows that Odyssey Dawn “isn’t about seeing him [Gaddafi] go.

“It’s about supporting the United Nations resolution, which [speaks] to limiting or eliminating his [Gaddafi’s] ability to kill his own people, [while] support[ing] the humanitarian effort,” Mullen said.

“So the mission could be accomplished and Gaddafi could remain in power? asked NBC News’ David Gregory? “That’s certainly, potentially, one outcome,” responded Mullen.

Let me suggest that the thought of Gaddafi remaining in power has the Arab League spooked. They’re the ones, remember, who have to live with Gaddafi as their neighbor.

The Arab League, I suspect, never imagined that Gaddafi might survive a concerted and combined attack by the French, the British, the Italians, the Canadians and the Americans. But now that the United States has said explicitly that that’s a distinct possibility, the Arab League is understandably backpedaling.

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse,” bin Laden once told his fellow Islamists.

The Arab League, I believe, is trying to discern who in Libya is the strong horse. And, increasingly, it doesn’t seem to be the French-led military coalition, but rather the cagey Gaddafi, who just might emerge from this fiasco alive, in power, and emboldened.

Greenwald argues that, because of the Arab League’s authoritarian political nature, “the U.S. should act on its own initiative.”

“The no-fly zone and its attendant operations,” he points out, “are worthwhile and morally sound all on their own. They didn’t become any more so because non-democratic governments gave them a temporary thumbs-up.”

That’s true, but I think Greenwald is missing something: Operation Odyssey Dawn is not an American initiative: It’s something Obama reluctantly agreed to only after being pushed and prodded by the French, the British, and yes, the Arab League.

If Obama should be faulted for anything, it seems to me, it is his lack of leadership and his unwillingness to commit to regime change in Libya: because that may well be the real source of Arab League angst and waffling.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResoluteCon.Com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

Tweet