Dithering....

Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.

And such was it when a vegetable seller, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself alight after being humiliated by a police officer in Tunisia. Within three weeks, the galvanized masses of protesters had taken over the country and Ben Ali had fled. That spilled over to Cairo, and as the world watched and western countries made non-committal noises, Mubarak was pulled down. The domino effect that Bush sought for in vain had begun. There were protests in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Morocco, Kuwait, Algeria, Lebanon, Oman. And this has been followed by placatory gestures from their rulers. Jordan's prime minister was been dismissed, Yemen's Saleh and Sudan's Bashir promised not to seek another term, and a slew of political and economic concessions and incentives followed from other rulers. We are truly witnessing historic times.

But this can all come to a naught if Gaddaffi is not stopped. For once, I disagree with voices of reason in US arguing against intervening in Libya. I agree with their points - Libya is of no geo-political interest, they don't have as much oil, we don't know who the rebels are, and they are (oh-my-God) Muslims(!), no-fly zone is not easy to maintain, we don't want to get bogged down in another muslim country - but the argument goes beyond these points.

Arab and Muslim population in Middle East and North Africa don't like the US because the US has supported autocratic dictators in these countries with cash and arms for their own ends. Al Qaeda's main bone with the US is its military presence in Saudi Arabia. These dictators have hoarded the oil wealth, and kept a boot on their population stifling any meaningful progress in these countries. In a way, the unrest is not surprising. These countries have high unemployment, poverty, corruption, no political freedom coupled with very young population with no prospects. Obama's bombastic speech in Cairo notwithstanding, the US did not make encouraging sounds supporting protests in Cairo, at least not until it was clear that the protesters would succeed. The US blundered into Iraq on trumped up charges when one of their puppet dictators did not suit them, and made a mess of the country. This image problem in Middle East is the biggest security hole they have! They have to make at least some gesture to show that they care for the populace if Obama wants any real rapprochement with the Muslim world.

Libya in itself has been isolated for so long that is not really relevant to Middle East, or the world at large. But the events there are immensely important. If Gaddafi succeeds in crushing the opposition with indiscriminate military forces, it will not take the other rulers long to draw similar conclusions. There will be a brutal crackdown on protesters. That might finish off the revolutions in many countries. And since US has provided arms to these rulers for so long, unfortunately, US will share the blame. This is already happening as Saudi Arabia moved forces into Bahrain against the protesters.

Which brings us to Iran. If the Bahrain protests take form of Sunni vs Shia, and the US is unable to wield any influence over Saudis, this will certainly strengthen Iran's regional clout. And Iran has already tied US hands in Iraq and Afghanistan, certainly US will not want Iran having a powerful say in oil producing countries.

The Middle East seems to be poised on the threshold of democracy. In many respects, democratic countries, even Islamic ones, function more predictably and reasonably than their dictatorial counterparts. It will help US to have cordial relations with people in these countries.

And finally, as UK and France have realized, Libya might descend into chaos with terrible human cost. And at that point other nations will be compelled to intervene. Since US will, by virtue of its position and superior military power, necessarily have to take a lead in such an intervention, why not also take the credit by showing readiness to help than demonstrating feet dragging into action from the start?

Unfortunately though, the other side of argument is strong. The US is already enmeshed in two wars, and do not want a third nation building exercise on its hands. Besides, anything that the US does wrong in a military intervention will be used against it. But really, a military intervention is not necessary in this situation. Just a threat of intervention will be sufficient to scare Gaddafi into rethinking his every move. It might also take some air out of Bahrain's and Saudi Arabia's bravado. Secondly, US need not help the rebels and take sides in a civil war. Even a commitment to safeguard the population caught in the crossfire is enough. It is also a profoundly humanitarian gesture. Thirdly, there must be a consensus of UN, Nato and Arab nations before this action is taken. However, currently the consensus is so delayed that I'm afraid it will be more of academic value than any real use to Benghazi, if and when it comes. But the point is that UK and France are in such forefront in pushing the consensus that they will claim the prestige if it gets through, while US will do the real work of implementing it. Why not take some initiative here if we are anyways going to do the work?

Unfortunately, there are no good options here, and Obama has to walk tight-rope. But sometimes, when the options are all bad, doing something and pushing through a consensus is better than doing nothing and debating to the ends of world.

Or atleast, thats IMO. As always :)