West says goodbye and good luck to war-torn Libya
After helping to oust Libya's strongman, the West is now running from the chaos that has ensued
Three years after Western powers helped Libyan rebels overthrow dictator Muammar Gaddafi, they have, at least temporarily, abandoned efforts on the ground to bolster Libya's foundering democracy.
On Wednesday, France evacuated its embassy in Tripoli, where warring militias have traded rocket and artillery fire over the past two weeks in the worst violence in the capital since Gaddafi's ousting. French ships moved diplomats and French and other European citizens across the Mediterranean to Toulon, France, just days after US diplomats left by road for Tunisia and then travelled to Malta, where they have set up an embassy-in-absentia.
Although Britain has not formally suspended operations at its Tripoli mission, it has removed all but essential personnel and advised all citizens to leave the country.
The growing turmoil marks a major setback for a country that just two years ago held its first free elections in four decades. What many Western officials hoped would be a democratic rebirth for Libya has instead given way to a battle for power and influence among armed groups who claim to be the rightful heirs of the anti-Gaddafi revolution.
Combatants are broadly divided between Islamist and secular militias. And although the Americans and Europeans are not seen as direct targets of either, some US counterterrorism officials say the Islamists could seek to align themselves with al-Qaeda affiliates or with the Islamic State organisation that has seized wide swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq.
"You watch, the guys in Libya will want to be a part of it," a senior US defence official said. Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was already attracting support in North and West Africa, he said.
"You've got elements of AQIM [al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] jumping aboard," he added. AQIM is the al-Qaeda affiliate in North Africa.
Other US officials were more sanguine about extremist involvement in the conflict. "We don't see it as a master plan organised from somewhere else," one official said.
Militias on the Islamist side of the Tripoli battle, another US official said, "are composed of a mishmash of individuals who by and large are not terrorists, although some members may have terrorist links".
That is not the case in Benghazi, in Libya's far east, where different militias, some of which are affiliated with al-Qaeda, are fighting government forces.
One of those groups, Ansar al-Sharia, this week overran a Libyan army base.
Members of Ansar are accused of participating in the 2012 attack on two US government compounds that left US ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.
"What's going on in Tripoli," at Libya's western edge, "is not an AQ [al-Qaeda] driven fight, but an internal turf battle between liberal and conservative sectors of what is a deeply divided Libyan society," the second official said.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The fighting in Tripoli follows parliamentary elections on June 25. Islamist groups, never large vote-getters in Libya, performed badly and feared they would be left out of the formation of a new government, according to a European diplomat.
"Once the Islamists realised they would be in the minority in the next parliament, and probably not be able to choose the next prime minister," the diplomat said, "they chose to try to derail the process."
Libyan militias are geographically and tribally based, and the Islamist-dominated group from the Mediterranean city of Misrata has taken the lead, along with allied groups.
For their target, they chose the Tripoli airport. In recent years it has been under the control of the largely secular Zintan militia, based in that city in southwestern Libya.
As the two sides began to exchange rocket fire, the US embassy lay in the path between them.
Although the new parliament is scheduled to convene early next week, there is little optimism that politicians and state institutions, which have virtually no control over militia groups armed to the teeth with weapons seized from Gaddafi's armouries, will be able to rein in the violence.
Some US Republicans said Libya was another foreign policy crisis over which the administration of President Barack Obama had lost control.
"This deteriorating security posture is the same scenario playing out across North Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia," said the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, congressman Mike Rogers. "This is what happens when the United States is not engaged and lacks a clear foreign policy that includes strong US leadership."
Congressman Edward Royce, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the departure of US diplomats was probably the "right call", given the chaotic security situation. But "our diplomatic absence will make the hard task of achieving political stability in Libya even harder", he said.
One senior US official privately stressed the challenges of influencing the situation.
"I think there is an exaggeration of what the international community can do," he said. "We certainly hear from the Libyans: 'Can you guys come in here and fix everything?' That's just not the way democracies are formed."
US officials are working through David Satterfield, the administration's special envoy for Libya, and other governments with influence over the two sides to press for them to stop fighting.
"We continue to have all the support in place" for the Libyan government, the senior official said.
Once a new parliament was seated "support is available for the Libyans as they need it. But this is fundamentally a Libyan-led effort. They're the ones who are going to have to make these compromises."
The European diplomat expressed doubt that early progress was likely.
"We're paid to be optimistic and make things happen, [but] if you want to bet one pizza with little risk, you can bet that things will not be resolved in the next couple of days."