Obama Administration in Awkward Spot as Libya Declares Sharia Law Post-Gaddafi

Whoops—the Obama Administration is probably hoping people are too distracted with the economy to pay much attention to this.

• Picture 3

  http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Picture-312.png

• benghazi-protest_n

  http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/benghazi-protest_n.jpeg

• libya_rebels_01

  http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/libya_rebels_01.jpeg

• 23web_LIBYA_wide.wide_photo.prod_affiliate

  http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/23web_LIBYA_wide.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.jpeg

As the US eased into its role in Libya, Obama alternately took criticism and praise for what was being called a “lead from behind” approach in Libya. This was not Iraq—we were not going to go in guns blazing, depose the despotic leader Gaddafi and remake the country in our own image with representative democracy.

Rather, we were going to play a supporting role. We were going to help nudge things along. Instead of pursuing any particular political agenda, we were going to use human rights as our criterion for intervention. Obama even came out in a prime-time speech and declared we were not specifically setting Gaddafi’s ouster as a condition for intervention. Rather, it was the defense of human rights—always human rights.

Some thought this was too floppy an approach. John McCain, for instance, wanted to send in the cavalry and execute a proper regime change the way we did with Saddam. But in the end the “lead from behind” approach proved a smashing success—or so we thought.

Sunday, Libya’s National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil announced that with Muammar Gaddafi dead, the country would transition to Sharia Law, a strict Islamic code of governing law that scares the living shit out of Islamaphobes and raises a red flag for pretty much everyone concerned with human rights.

And Mustafa Abdul-Jalil was unequivocal—according to Politico, he said, “Any law that violates sharia is null and void legally. The law of divorce and marriage… this law is contrary to Sharia and it is stopped.” There are significant concerns about women’s rights under sharia law—women are forbidden from driving, for instance, and face brutal physical punishments for infidelity.

The idea of “lead from behind” was that the Libyan people wanted to be free—if the West just helped them, surely they would make themselves over in a way the whole world approved of. But what happens if the country we just helped liberate on humanitarian grounds voluntarily adopts a system that offends our human rights sensibilities?

The Obama administration tread lightly on the question yesterday, appearing to be politically disinterested while engaged from a human rights perspective. But, of course, they didn’t address the human rights contradiction at hand: “Our concern is that constitutions of new and emerging democracies, constitutions of democracies around the world, meet international standards of human rights,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

But what if they don’t? Are we going to go in and overthrow the new government for enforcing sharia law when we just refused to go in and forcibly ouster Moammar Gaddafi?

There’s no question that Libya is better off without a leader who will willingly kill his own citizens. But this definitely puts the Obama Administration in an awkward position both with critics who thought we shouldn’t have bothered meddling in the country at all and those who thought we should have gone full-tilt and enforced a government that upholds what we recognize as human rights.

Obama has presided over bin Laden’s death and severely weakened al Qaeda—the most dangerous faction of Islamic fundamentalism. But to those who thought he wasn’t being a strong enough leader in Libya, Obama might want to steer focus elsewhere.