A ruined Libya still lives in US politics. There’s still no escape from the country devastated by imperialist intervention. It was, as is claimed, a failure in planning. But is it a failure in planning or “something” else? The oil-rich land is now ruled by anarchy, and is actually not a single country.

Barack Obama said, as news agencies reported, the biggest mistake of his presidency was a “lack of planning” for the aftermath of toppling and murdering Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, with the country descending into chaos. Asked in a Fox News interview to cite the “worst mistake” of his presidency, the US president said it was “probably failing to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya” in 2011.

In a recent profile in The Atlantic, Obama called Libya “a mess”. He blamed, partly, the European coalition led by David Cameron, the British prime minister tarnished by Panama Papers, for not doing enough. The US leader also put blame on Nicolas Sarkozy, the former French leader now sunken in scandal. However, the US president blamed his own analysts for failing to understand the Libyan reality.

There’s an opposite view. Former Secretary of State and Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton cites intervention in Libya as one of her chief accomplishments when she headed the US state department. As Secretary of State, she was one of the strongest proponents of the intervention. A leading mainstream US newspaper evaluates the decision on military intervention in Libya as “arguably her moment of greatest influence as Secretary of State.”

Corbett Daly’s report said: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed. ‘We came, we saw, he died,’ she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi’s death by an aide in between formal interviews.”

Contrasting evaluations of the intervention, one by Mr. Obama and another by Mrs. Clinton, appear. The fact, which is told, appears to be that Libyan intervention was Hillary Clinton’s war. Scott Greer refers to The Washington Post that dubbed Libya intervention as “Hillary’s war”, and adds: “She was the one who pushed President Obama to agree to enforce a no-fly-zone that allowed Gaddafi’s opposition to regroup and win the bloody 2011 civil war. She advocated for supplying weapons and military training to rebel forces, some of whom were affiliated with the Islamic militants who later assaulted the US compound in Benghazi.” Scott informs us that : “Hillary was evidently proud of her work. On the day of the Benghazi attack, she emailed a staffer a note indicating she wanted a documentary on Libya that celebrated her as a hero.” The long news report by The Washington Post that Scott referred to detailed Hillary’s “pivotal role — both within a divided Cabinet and a fragile, assembled-on-the-fly international alliance” in the Libya war. The report quoted Hillary: “[W]e set into motion a policy that was on the right side of history, on the right side of our values, on the right side of our strategic interests in the region.” The Post report by Joby Warrick cited one US State Department official saying: “‘This is important to the United States, it’s important to the president, and it’s important to me personally,’ Clinton told Arab leaders”. The Washington Post report said: “Clinton, ignoring the advice of the State Department’s lawyers, convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, a move that allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Gaddafi’s frozen accounts. At a meeting in Istanbul on July 15, she pressed 30 other Western and Arab governments to make the same declaration.”

Paul Mirengoff terms it as “the Clinton inspired intervention”: “More than anyone else, Hillary Clinton pushed for, and helped effect, the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi. Clinton’s recently released Benghazi emails confirm that, in the words of her deputy chief of staff, Hillary was ‘instrumental in securing the authorization [to intervene in Libya], building the coalition [that intervened], and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime'." On Hillary’s leadership in the Libyan intervention, John Hinderaker cites Hillary’s emails released by the US state department and writes: “It was Hillary who, more than anyone else, pushed to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi. Clinton and her cohorts in NATO overthrew Qaddafi. Who says Hillary Clinton is responsible for the Libyan fiasco? She does. In fact, at one point she was poised to claim Libya as the notable accomplishment of her term as Secretary of State. In August 2011, Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s deputy chief of staff, wrote an email in which he summarized ‘Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya.’ The email says, with bold print in the original: HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings – as well as the public face of the US effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime." Sullivan goes on to itemize, day by day, how Clinton drove the Libyan policy not just in the US, but in NATO as well. She bears primary responsibility for a policy that was not just a failure, but a disaster."

“Former US defense secretary Robert Gates also describes her [Hillary Clinton] pivotal role in the decision making in his memoir. The intervention split the administration with vice president Joe Biden and national security adviser Tom Donilon against. The interventionist drive is public. Interventionists are not a few individuals. Their well-connected coalition is broad with political-military-business-media-academia coterie. But the questions are: Does a leader or a group of leaders prevail in the case of major decision-making at state/empire level? What’s the condition of the state/empire or its institutions/mechanisms/processes where one leader/politician or a group of leaders/politicians ignores assessment/analysis by those institutions, etc. while they prevail over those? Or, are there some other dynamics and relations, which empower one person or a group of persons to ignore those? Does the reality, which comes to light, signify one or a number of “diseases”?

In a state/empire plans can’t be pushed, decisions can’t be imposed by any individual, even if the individual is empire himself and the state is a monarchy. That planning/work style – individual-pressed – doesn’t bring expected output. It has been adopted on the basis of accumulated experience and handling of interests, which are not always symmetrical. Decision-making processes and institutions and organizations required for feeding the processes have been created to minimize errors and mistakes. Output is not positive whenever the arrangement is ignored.

When is the arrangement ignored? It’s ignored either with an alternative arrangement or in case of a breakdown of the arrangement. Both signify a complicated “disease”, not healthy for any state or any empire. The two US leaders’ – Obama’s and Hillary’s – contradictory position or evaluation of the Libyan disaster signal the state of what is considered an imperial power. Many    

parts of the interventionists’ story are unexposed. Was there intelligence failure? Was there failure in comprehending the prevailing social reality there in Libya? Was there failure in analysis of parties involved within and outside of Libya? Was there lack of exercise with possible consequences of the intervention?

Blunders and debacles wait in the wing whenever immediate interests or interests of a group overwhelm collective intelligence, whenever business interests of a group manipulate collective political wisdom, whenever an individual ignores institutional wisdom. The empire’s Libyan War is such a case. The interventionists were driven by, as shown in the officially released Hillary mails, business interests of a few groups. They overwhelmed and manipulated institutional scholarship, and a political leadership failed to prevent the manipulation. The much- discussed Hillary mails expose the business-intervention nexus.

It’s – the empire’s Libyan War – not a narrow question only related to Obama’s or Hillary’s role. The role of the individual leader, his or her wisdom and prudence depend on the state of state mechanism, and broadly a socio-economic reality; and state mechanism is an essential requirement for securing interests. A failure there, a blunder here only enhances the state’s perils, and simultaneously shows quality of leadership the reigning interests produce/select. It’s fact also in case of other societies. Empire’s Libyan War, one can identify it as a part of its Africa War, thus shows at least a bit of a reality, which still stands as triumphant but in decay.