Libya's descent into chaos troubles the New York Times editorial board. Naturally, the Old Gray Lady's Sunday editorial, even as it referenced the 2011 "civil war," didn't even try to make any association between the current mess and the administration which initiated it.
The editorial's recitation of the current situation, without any mention of President Obama, NATO, or the United States, leaves one wondering why the Times even bothered publishing the piece (bolds are mine throughout this post):
What Libya’s Unraveling Means
Largely overshadowed by the crises in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, Libya’s unraveling has received comparatively little attention over the past few months. As this oil-rich nation veers toward complete chaos, world leaders would be wise to redouble efforts led by the United Nations to broker a power-sharing deal among warring factions.
A few of the Islamist groups vying for control in Libya have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and carried out the type of barbaric executions that have galvanized international support for the military campaign against the terrorist group in Iraq and Syria. The growth and radicalization of Islamist groups raise the possibility that large parts of Libya could become a satellite of the Islamic State.
... If the fighting continues, the country will very likely be partitioned, and an economy that might have had a chance for growth will completely collapse.
Last fall, an Islamist militant group in the eastern city of Derna announced that it had joined the Islamic State, which wants to establish a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Soon afterward, groups in two other provinces followed suit.
... The chaos has paralyzed the economy of a country that has a relatively small population and abundant energy resources. The one industry that is booming is human smuggling. Taking advantage of the lawlessness, smugglers who use Libya as a way station in moving impoverished sub-Saharan Africans and Syrian refugees to Europe have become increasingly brazen and reckless in their tactics, sending hundreds to their deaths.
... If the diplomatic effort that is underway doesn’t get traction within weeks, Mr. León said, it might be too late for the international community to make a difference. Libyans who have been fighting since the end of the 2011 civil war must take steps to reconcile and start the arduous process of building a functioning state.
Four years after U.S. and NATO intervention toppled Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Times is finally noticing that President Obama, who unilaterally chose to intervene, had, unlike the U.S. had in Iraq, had nothing resembling a plan for the aftermath. But they won't utter Dear Leader's name, or even mention the 2011 U.S.-NATO intervention — even though this mess is all on him and his administration.
On Wednesday, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, while pinning the blame on then-U.S. Secreatry of State Hillary Clinton, brought up another point the Times failed to mention:
He said the problems in the region can be traced back to the Libya intervention that occurred on Clinton's watch.
"The disaster that is Libya is now a breeding ground for terrorists and is a breeding ground for armaments. So I really do blame Hillary Clinton's war in Libya for creating a lot of the chaos that is spreading throughout the Middle East," said Paul on "America's Newsroom" this morning.
So why even bother with the editorial? Perhaps it's just to articulate a typical sentiment we hear from utterly powerless liberals: "We care." So what? Who doesn't?
When Libya ends up in anarchy or being an area largely controlled by the Islamic State, all we'll hear from the Times is "oh well." We'll never see anyone go back to that result's root cause.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.