[crowd noise] we are going to get started here. Thank you all, for joining us. Director of the project on military and diplomatic history here. We formed this to understand how history can help us understand current issues. With historians and that includes our speaker today, and we also like to promote interaction between historians and policy experts. And we have one of our own csi s csis policyts experts here with us. October 10 we are going to have carter talk about his book. On october 18 we will have Lawrence Friedman on the future of his book to talk about his and we will also talk about the history of foreign interference in our elections. You can sign up on our mailing signup to our mailing list, on our website. One of the virtues of history is that it provides us with rich, contextual understanding. If you country if you study a country for years and years as historians do, you learn how institutions interact in a way that you otherwise would not understand. Viewearn also, how people how their own history shapes their worldview, and you find out more about how these countries are different from others. Recent problems with our recent interventions is that we did not pay enough to hit pay enough attention to history before we went in. People talked about how we could democratize iraq because we had democratized indonesia. If people studied the history of iraq and indonesia, they would probably know that they are quite different. So we need to be very careful. Saw similar problems when we went into libya in 2011. Recognition,a full or much of an understanding, of libyan history. Our speaker will tell us much more about that today. I will introduce our speaker, scinatti. Fasten knot she is with the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution and heard fieldwork has covered afghanistan, ethiopia and somalia. She has a doctorate from the university of milan and following her studies, she moved to rome where she worked with the central Historical Office of the italian army and the central Historical Office of the Italian Ministry of defense. I would like to welcome dr. Fascinatti. You. Ank i see many friends here, so thank you. Today i hope to be not too boring, but we are talking about history, and how history has shaped libya in many, many ways. Wewe look at libya today, have three fundamental issues, in my opinion. And is strictly connected with the history of the country. And it one is regional, is given by the absence of a , or isgovernment connected with the first problem, which is local. And the third one, is strategic. Have,gional mess, that we there are other strategic problems, and much broader, lets say, enacted to energy, for ussm, migration, italians, and competition. If we go to the first problem, the local one, we see that it is formed by many little issues. We have internal divisions. Nohave no strong leadership, public administration, no and these are the results, notably from 2011 the results, not only from 2011, but these are the result of centuries, the history of the country. So it is not a case that, today we have all these kinds of problems. I promise i will be very quick, but we have to start, i think, from the beginning, of the formation of the libyan state during the ottoman empire. Lastedoman rule in libya long centuries, and libby was divided. Kind of an benghazi, asha, the tribal leaders. So you can see libya was divided. When italians came during, at the beginning of the 20th , around 1912, they fought against the ottomans. The end the war, but in they found out there was another enemy, the libyans. And they started a terrible counterinsurgency in the country, and this lasted until 1931, when the hero of the insurgents was caught and hanged in a concentration camp. Those years, the years of the italians, libya was already divided, this time in two parts. Until 1928. Then it was unified for military reasons, and i can talk about that after if anyone is interested. 1934 it became a real part of italy. Unified. Y, it was but divided, there was better therolling five provinces, military territories, just to make you understand. And it was always divided. Then, during the allied that kind ofgain, occupation that was more of a efectorate. King came tohe power. During the allied protectorate,. Reat britain took ciro mica came after his exile caused by italians, he went to egypt and came back in 1944. He became king afterwards, and to give to live yet a federal constitution to give to libya a federal constitution. And this constitution created the federal state, also at this time, divided into three regions. The federal state during this time was not perfect, at all. We had to manage enormous and huge conflicts inside the country. Part of the country wanted the other partse, but of the country were absolutely against it. And so all this friction, of course, did not have the king 1963,n the end, in decided to unify the country without the regions, without anything, just all the power in his hands. But all the power in his hands did not work, and a few years after, Muammar Gaddafi qaddafi, and kernel, came out el came out, and had a revolution. The country was incredibly divided. Decades, we are talking about almost 40 years, can did get the country united moammar qaddafi did get the country united. Divide and rule. And he did exactly the same with the little ethnic universities, with the tribes, putting one against the other, and when that was not enough he used the italians. The hates, against the colonialists. The country was incredibly divided and more market op he took these divisions, in the universities, as a tool to better manage the country. The revolution, the arab spring came, the country ,as profoundly divided already and one part of the country, the qaddafi, andfight so it became immediately, a civil war. Talking about the first issue, the local issue, i talk about history to make you understand libya has never been united. Libya has never really known democracy because ottomans, king, it and then the was not a democracy because libya in certain times has been really ruthless and cruel. And then, of course, moammar coffee. It was not a democracy. So when everything started in 2011, we had in front of us a country, incredibly weak, difficult to define today, as a state, in my opinion. But we can discuss about that come after. Have many problems, and we can see the divisions in every possible way. Andave political divisions, in tripoli we have the followers of what was the gnc. So, political divisions. Then we have ethnic divisions, so again, ethnicity is not so strong as in other countries but we have problems for example, terroristic problem. Divisions. E tribal libya had days ago, libya had clashes between two tribes. So, it is continuously a mess a clash against different divisions. On top of these divisions we have external actors and their dreams of business. We have, i cannot say europe, maybe italy and the , and apparently the International Community that supports the gna. But on the other side of the table we have other external actors like russia, like the United Arab Emirates, like egypt, who are interested in doing other business. So the presence of these external actors has disrupted the democrats eyes asian of the country democrat ization of the country. And here we come to the second ,roblem, the regional problem by externalected actors, morocco, and algeria, on the other side, and egypt. The region, there is a lack of everything. So, the fact that we dont have a strong government, because dna is not a strong government, and a part of the country doesnt it has been a in everyor the economy possible way. Becausesocial fabric, people in libya do not feel to be supported by the government and they feel absolutely alone. Course, a complete absence of leadership, a Political Class that can take and can lead the country. Good, lets have a say, class of politicians, we dont have a good economy, and on top of that we dont have security, eat all. And this issue is security takes issuethe third issue, big , which is the strategic one. So we have lets say for internal issues. Of course,migration, lets say the problem of energy, which is interconnected to the problem of geopolitical position on the north african chessboard. So the division we have seen at underground,ave the problem of the other groups. Usually, when we talk about the , evenie problem in libya the last terrible clash was about i prepared than we. Ave al qaeda then there is a constellation of other actors, criminal actors, and that is another problem in libya. The conjunction between terrorism and criminal groups, normal criminal groups, sometimes they act together. Sometimes the lines are but the problem is incredible because criminality is growing in the country, because of course, there is no security. There is no strong government that can take a big part in this problem. Given allfact that, the things we have seen until libya has become a totally,upersafe haven for terrorism and for europe, a new kind of immigration. In the past there was another one, the atlantic starting from senegal and going through spain. Rootsw, we have three big se routes gohese r through libya. Different parts of libya, but the point is that the final target is europe. Just this last year, we have had Something Like almost 200,000 migrants in the country, just this number coming from libya to italy. So, this is another important strategic problem. And then, there is the problem of energy. Italy is not a producer of needs to import energy from the east of europe, of course. But historically, from the south. Oil, whatever, they come from libya, to us. The majority. Libya, from 1959, it has been a producer of oil, one of the best in the world. It has opened another strategic problem, which is a kind of geopolitical competition. So libya has become the theater qatar on onear by side and the United Arab Emirates on the other. Algeria on oneo, side, and egypt on the other. West andof course, the russia, of course. Because the history of russia and libya is not old. Is not new. D libya it is old. And that is another problem, when we talk about libya. They could bezi, perfect points in the mediterranean. The syrian port is not enough, and russians do not have strong feet in the mediterranean, so this is another point on the table. Just an idea, you and now i am ready for your questions. Host we are ready, too. Thanks for the guard for the great comments. We focus on timely issues as well as books, and libya is a hot one. The placeed all over for the best person suited to do this, and found dr. Fascinatti. As you heard, she is extraordinarily knowledgeable on the subject. , iore we get to questions will introduce alice hunt friend, a senior fellow here in the inner the International Security program here at csis. She focuses on African Security issues and security relations and is it the American University school of international service. In 20122014 she was principal director of African Affairs in the offices of the undersecretary of defense on policy, following north and west african counter terrorism. She was a special assistant to the undersecretary of defense for policy, and served as a Senior Advisor to the debbie terry undersecretary of defense for policy plans for pakistan. Thanks, mark. And thank you, dr. Dre we had lunch earlier and it was very interesting, and i learned a lot. To give him very brief remarks because of sure the audience is eager to ask our guest questions. But in reviewing the history of libya over the past few days and hours, it made me reflect how policymakers use history. Me that is what mark asked to talk about. And i think it is safe to say that in the american context, history gets pretty short shrift. Doeswhat treatment history get is very uneven between agencies, and between layers of the bureaucracy. So, i worked for the department of defense, which meant i worked very closely with counterparts at the state department. And i found that people who work in embassies, but also people who work on the desks at the state department, very frequently had an impressive depth of knowledge of the history of the country there were in. That wasnt reflected in my agency. The emphasis was much less on history and much more on contemporary operations, from these reasons. We have a different set of incentives. But i was really struck at the unevenness between agencies, when we got together, the nsc in particular. But also, between the layers of rock receipt. The layers of bureaucracy. The action officer is supposed to be the subject matter expert. The action officer for libya is supposed to know libya, and supposed to know libyas history very very well. Up the chain of command, you dont have subject you haveperts anymore, broad expertise and how to make policy. And you have people at higher and higher levels of responsibility, so instead of just spanning all of libya, they span all of africa, and then the middlefrica, east, latin america, and russia. And then, there is the under secretary, who has the globe. Capacity that is left over for the history of one particular country in one diminishesoffice, quite dramatically easy go up the chain of command. And these are the people, by the way, that are making the policy. So when you are sitting around high levels of the National Security council, they have material written by their knowledgeable subject Matter Experts but they only have so much time to read what is in there. So, they do one of the things that i want to point out, that they use history as a shortcut. Trainingers, if not by , are generally political scientists and not historians. Often historians are suspicious of each other because we have a fundamentally different understanding of the way the world works. Political scientists think that social and political life has patterns and repetition. You will see that over and over again. Historians think everything is complexing contingent, what it is which it is. Political scientists tend to say, i have seen this before in some ill you, before in somalia, so it must be the same in libya. E love analogy it is a shortcut. Well, iove to do it as have noticed that the seniormost levels. So somebody who went to somebody who has been an ambassador in one country is going to naturally want to apply that expertise elsewhere. That is one of the ways we use history. Another way we use it, at the junior level, is the opposite problem. It is too much expertise, too much depth, too much detail. Generally, action officers are very poor at translating that up , in part because they are talking to an audience that wants a really simple, causal relationship. I give arms to this particular militia in libya, that will solve the problem, right . Will cause unification among the people of libya. There were always searching for that answer. Reason, andhost of in part because they use these futuristics. It is very hard to take complex situations, and hundreds of years of history, and translated into descriptive policy, and say this is what the United States should do in this context, today. Instead, those people tend to be naysayers. They tend to be the ones that say dont do that, dont take that action, thats a stupid idea. And thats not popular because the United States is an optimistic country and we tend to have a bias for optimistic action. We want to do something. So for the experts in the room on history, they are already junior so they are he have challenges in being heard, and think back told, the ottoman empire, many eyes in the room automatically lays over glaze over. A lot of workid on libya and didnt really learn about libyas history until i left. I didnt have the time. I was when of those people that had to know what was happening in all 53 countries of our area of operations. And now that ive read the history of libya in much more depth, i can see places where, of course this would happen if we took that action. But i didnt know how to tell my action officers how to translate that for me, and how to tell me, what should be my talking point when i am at the nsc, next week . And not just me talking point, but that is going to be a bad idea, that is not going to go well. Heres what authority we should use. Are going to train the libyans, this is however to get it done. That is very, very hard for an action officer to translate. And the third way policymakers treat history is, as something is to sayt, which that exercise is no force on events today, which of course is not true. But, especially the american context, we feel not as burdened, even though we are. We are as burdened by our past is any other country in the world, but we dont seem to feel it, culturally. Keenly, and even if it isnt, it is still operating on the pres ent. So, to operate without understanding it is generally folly. But it is also very hard for policymakers to do it in a very parsimonious, simple way. I will go to the floor for questions. State your name and affiliation. In the back, sir . Good afternoon. I work with the National Democratic institute in washington, d. C. As the doctor said, the case in libya is essentially a proxy war with qatar versus the uae, with the west versus russia. The United States tries to have Decisive Action. So, my question is, how are you able to create this Decisive Action that is beneficial to the libyans, but at the same time, countering russian influence in the region . Is always this question of, is this policy proamerican, or entire russian, or prolibyan. Involved,he actors how are you able to come up with anything sustainable . It is a very good question but very difficult to give you anwer, or short in the senseure, that the decision now is very complex. Somethings changed in the past few weeks. A act or has come out new actor has come out. He gave a plan, very understandable and very logical, is thefear is, International Community really focused on solving the problem in libya . You are asking me what the United States can do about russia and the proxy war of qatar and the United Arab Emirates, and so on. I think the United States in this case has a big, can have a big impact in terms of democracy. I dont think the solution for the United States is boots on the ground, and a military solution to keep everybody calm. I think that here is the moment that the real protagonists are russia. Not looking atimagine, the situation that is evolving disruptive it has been, the presence of the external actors. Country that is historically weak, as libya, because libya, as i was telling, has no history of democracy. It has always been like, you a hybrid, in many respects. A political hybrid. The country is larger than alaska, which is incredible, still we dont have a solution. And we dont have a solution because i think libyans have , toward oneh pushed side or the other. The impact of the external actors is huge, immense. And i think the solution for the ,nited states, at this moment it is a diplomatic solution. So, trying to help in this way, but hell, first of all, libyans. Historically, as you look at sorry, deborah jones, former u. S. Ambassador to libya. When you look at models within the lack of experience politically, that hit that it has had. You have now looked at it historically over it series of different influences and invaders, and governors, people who have been in charge. So what, from a historians timesctive, have been the of most efficient governance, and what is the model that came out of that . Because right now there is a competition between what we tried to do as an International Community, which was build or now, people who are looking at a more authoritarian replacement. A combination, was at a distribution of wealth, what has worked historically, for libya, from a historians perspective . Probably the kingdom of egypt from ane a man incredibly important family followed his people, in many respects, and did many things. But, im telling you something that many people will not agree from 1934 to time the moment in which the italian , in 1944. When italians were in libya, i think they did love for the country i think they did a lot for the country. But im not talking about the counterinsurgency after the war. I would had to choose have to say the kingdom of egypt. I dont want to talk about the , the 16th century, you know it is little bit too much. But looking at contemporary, modern libya, i would say the era after the united protectorate, the occupation. And in the could the era, i have been very ruthless against that era, because it did not invest in anything. In childhoodvest education which would have changed the face of libya, nowadays. And if you are a libyan, how can you do this, in modern times . The kingdom was not perfect at all, full of friction, and political problems, but in the end it was a. And libya was one of the five poorest countries in the world. In 1959 it became a rich country, because of the oil. Init was a time of poverty, some respects. Mark for those who are watching aren the west cast, we taking questions on our twitter pdh. Unt at csim bill lawrence, George Washington university. I want to ask about libyan tribes. Those of the Political Science persuasion, and some of those of andhistory persuasion, others, often imagine the tribes are a big part of the solution in libya. And i would posit that, they are not always atavistic. Wastribe you mentioned invented in the last couple of decades, a group of african migrants that cannot be stuck there, and the next thing you knew we had a tribal chief in every village. Qaddafi used to tribal strategy and noneletely failed, of the militias are named after tribes, yet we hear so much about how the tribes are part of the solution. One last point. Theylibyans negotiate often make references to tribal pacts and tribal history, and yet it is often imagined history. So given all this tribal framings and imagination in what are the impacts of libyan tribal history on contemporary politics . Is a very difficult question. You can Read Everything on tribes in libya, as you said. I read many reports and books and things in the last few years , telling us tribes a really fundamental. I think on the other side, no, tribes are nothing, tribes do not exist anymore. , can tell you, historically they existed and absolutely, they were really the structure of the country. For example, when italians came they could only contact elders and leaders of the tribes. They were the core of every problem, for the italians. And this, until the end of the occupation in 1943. So, decades. Decades. Exist . The tribes like, iwe should think i think wean, and should think like a mafia problem. Mafia, the social fabric of tribes has nothing to see, to the mafia. I listen to people saying, the mafia does not exist anymore, the associations connected to the mafia, camorra. Im telling you the names of the thatrent mafias in italy, may, by the way, part of the history of italy. Existhey say they do not anymore, no. It is not true. Because they changed their face. Respects, and now we are changed, we are different from one century ago. We live foot technology, everybody, everything is different. Is the concept of family profound, and rooted in the italian society. And it has changed. Yes. But it is always there. , the idea of this the tribe in a very similar way. Tribes have changed. Theyre not anymore the same, of one century ago, but still, the ,onnection for libyans, i think you can correct me, but the meaning of the tribes is the consistent of that social body, is still important. We cannot build a new state just only thinking of the tribes, because they are agent tribes that dont exist anymore. But we can look ahead, in some ways, creating a connection, and yes, i think we can use it. In the back. Hello. Thanks for your time. Defense the ministry of at the u. S. Department of defense. With all the security difficulties in libya right now, and the instability, those who are highlevel bureaucrats or consultants, or advisors, many people cant even going to the country now. Be toould your advice those in nato and alter and other multinational institutions, if youre going to advise somebody in that position, what are you going to say to them . A crystal ball, frankly, to answer you in the right way. But because im just an historian, of course. It is very difficult to give your right answer. That, first of all, it is time to convince libyans to become a nation, finally, by themselves. Space, because in the last six years i havent seen this. And i have seen nato and the others acting from the top. It never from the bottom. And so, that is what libya needs and economy, Strong Social fabric, security. Nato and allhat these organizations have to act and try to form a new government. But in the and, what is really important is what libyans need. So i approach it from the bottom, and a double way. Trying to organize a new form of with elections, a new constitution, etc. But on the other side, looking at the needs of the country, and i would advise all the actors here not to put any boots but to stayd, behind and to help libyans in doing something for themselves, not for the others. Maybe theld say is, United States should help europe isecause the United States far away, should help europe in helping libyans. Behind, we arem not the actors in this game. The libyans are, i guess. Into thent get country then i think coming up with some comprehensive strategy the proxy war dynamic that is going on, i think would be the most healthy thing the United States could do. Prospectnow what the of us taking leadership in that area, realistically is. Woulde blue sky scenario be the most helpful thing we could do to give the libyans the space they need. Because right now, her their their history, they are not figuring out organically what is the best government for them. Government they have is one that is being forced on them. The only organic ones are the militias. And if we cant have a presence on the ground that is meaningful enough to have a decisive effect, i think what we can do is engage all the various outside actors to sort of minimize what effects they are having that are destructive. I went to aska, you about something that came up earlier when were talking to government officials. Hadg back to 2011, policymakers been well versed in libyan history, how might things have been different . Actually have made a difference, in what has happened since . Yes. I think that if history, and i think there was really, in those knowledge of of the country. Actions,w certain before october of 2011, i said oh my god. Oh my god. Rebels. Ple, arming the one of the most important things y insurgentuntrie operations is disarming rebels. So, how can you think you are helping the population of libya by giving them weapons . I dont know the number, but Something Like 20 million weapons were provided to somewhere around 5 million people. Many of them are spread into tunisia, egypt, italy as well, at this point. I think many mistakes could just knowinged, the internal dynamics of the country, the historical internal dynamics. So, in my opinion the western intervention, which is not only a western intervention, has been wrong, just because of this. In the front. Thank you. I have a question about libya. I was working in the country in 2012 and from my point of view, i think some of the news in libya is being created internally. Identity innew libya was formed during the 2011 revolution. When every city feels the forces of moammar qaddafi, it has created an important, internal identity for libya. Existent. Still im benghazi is like an internal libyan cosmopolitan, made up of many tribes. Didnt have the ability to control every single thing like now, in libya. Qaddafi had a very big meeting for the tribes in tripoli, he. Nvited all the tribes the regime was going to pay them, give them cars, and many said that it would solve many internal problems. And they promised him to do this but after six days he didnt have the ability to control the situation in certain parts of libya. And worse than this, there were andnstrations in tripoli all of them were asking for revenge from the plot of the people that were killed and benghazi. Killed in they didnt listen to anybody. Ho were heads of the tribes completelyution, different identity. You talk to a lesbian and say and say to a libyan aere are you from, they say specific region. Important [indiscernible] yes, you are right. The newlems in benghazi and the identity created during the revolution this is the most powerful plight now that they have the identity of the people that are from this place. Libya, italy when we are dealing with the conflict, we have a necessity for security. We have to have more than this. To the people of istanbul and the handling of politcics in the west. Side againstone another side. Begining. Urity in the we talked to both sides. I do notme time under very far countries from libya, they do not share any borders with them, to intervene. Call spoiling. U this has been the real problem of libya on top of the problem of lack of identity. Thea was weak at beginning of the revolution. Tribes,you are right, they exist. Importante used as an pacification. The other problem is the external actors must be motivated in some way to stop. Strength to an actor or the others. We have hit our time limit. I want to thank all of you for coming today. Thank you for joining us. Give a round of applause. Thank you. [applause] [indiscernible conversation] [ [indistinct conversation] announcer a look now at our primetime schedule on the cspan network. At 8 00 eastern, the u. S. Supreme court hears oral arguments over legislative districting in wisconsin. After lower courts found gerrymandering. On cspan2, a discussion on the upcoming 19th annual communist party congress. Youon cspan3, well show strategy in afghanistan. Announcer this weekend, on cspan2s book tv, saturday at 4 30 p. M. Eastern, we examine the history and debate around the Second Amendment in his book , a Second Amendment biography. Rbo and talk to sam so cathy davidson, author of the new education. Yunus talks about how to solve the problems of global poverty and climate change. It became clear that my impression of breitbart is having an influence on the 2016 election is an understatement. According to research, breitbart was the grounding force on the right side of the political spectrum. He talks on q and a, about his feature story down the breitbart hole. This disparity i heard people talk about, breitbart as this hysterical machine. Reality Michael Moores itthe News Organization as works on a daytoday basis. Last saturday, democrats in pulled county iowa heard remarks from three u. S. Representatives. They look at the future of their party and what lawmakers have to do for democrats to re t