The new Libya: various aspects

[Fuchs]

For Europe it could be a very good test if we europeans are able to conceive a unitarian foreign policy. If Italy, France, GB, Germany will have their "man in Tripoli" (with his own gang of armed individuals, tribe etc...) the outcome is predictable: total caos.

I guess we'll do something similar as we did with the Palestinian authorities, except with a bit more personal attention by the French president.




Now some relevant humour...

[Tukhachevskii]

I guess we'll do something similar as we did with the Palestinian authorities, except with a bit more personal attention by the French president.




Now some relevant humour...

Gives new meaning to the phrase "the CNN effect"!

[Marc]

Lots of smileys and lots of jokes in this thread.

After the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan the Taliban emerged.

After the PLO defeat in Beirut, Hezbollah emerged in southern Lebanon and Hamas emerged in Gaza.

After Saddam Hussein was ousted, Moqtada Al-Sadr emerged in Baghdad.

Lots of smiles and lots of jokes in 1988, 1982 and 2003 respectively, lots of tears and gnashing of teeth afterwards.

Are we to assume that democracy will emerge naturally in post-Gadhafi Libya?

[Fuchs]

You might want to check the timelines.

There were multiple years, many events of relevance between your seeming cause-effect dates.

[Bill Moore]

The conflict isn't over and the rebels are not united, so this can still play out in a number of ways.

Posted by Rex,

One refrain I heard quite often in Libya was that the prolonged struggle to overthrow Qaddafi may have helped to build a stronger sense of national identity and purpose. This isn't to say the challenges aren't serious--they are, given the factionalism that already exists. However it was striking to hear people say "perhaps its a good thing we didn't win in a week, and instead had to work together to achieve this outcome."

Intentional or accidental I agree that the duration of the conflict (it is still going on) allowed elements of the resistance to form a quasi-government and hopefully plans for a future that will no doubt be challenged by others seeking power, but without this organization it most likely would have been pure chaos.

I really can't imagine what would have happened if Qadafi fell in say two or three weeks, maybe a day or two of celebration and then a collective now what following by anarchy?

[Ken White]

Lots of smileys and lots of jokes in this thread.

Laughter OTOH is generally beneficial.

... the Taliban emerged...Hezbollah emerged in southern Lebanon and Hamas emerged in Gaza...Moqtada Al-Sadr emerged in Baghdad.

And, lo, the world is still here.

A world that survived the Romans, Sassanids, the Khans and World War II didn't even blink at any of the post 1980 stuff. Nor should it have; they were small things. Very small. Not terribly significant until we made them seem to be...

Are we to assume that democracy will emerge naturally in post-Gadhafi Libya?

I don't know who constitutes your "we" but I certainly do not assume that -- nor do I care whether it emerges or not. That's the Libyan's affair and no concern of mine. Nor should any American really be that concerned, none of our business and our foolish attempts to 'foster democracy' here and there over the past 60 or so years have done more harm to the world and people in it than have any of the post '80 events cited.

[Marc]

Laughter OTOH is generally beneficial. And, lo, the world is still here.

A world that survived the Romans, Sassanids, the Khans and World War II didn't even blink at any of the post 1980 stuff. Nor should it have; they were small things. Very small. Not terribly significant until we made them seem to be...I don't know who constitutes your "we" but I certainly do not assume that -- nor do I care whether it emerges or not. That's the Libyan's affair and no concern of mine. Nor should any American really be that concerned, none of our business and our foolish attempts to 'foster democracy' here and there over the past 60 or so years have done more harm to the world and people in it than have any of the post '80 events cited.

Ken,

I'm not sure how to read your post. In the "any of the post '80 events cited" I included the emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the late nineties (who later hosted AQ, who later conducted the attacks on the WTC). According to you, "A world that survived the Romans, Sassanids, the Khans and World War II didn't even blink at any of the post 1980 stuff. Nor should it have; they were small things. Very small. Not terribly significant until we made them seem to be." Does this mean you consider the AQ attacks on the WTC to be QUOTE "Very small. Not terribly significant until we made the seem to be"UNQUOTE? Could you clarify your position on all this?

Best regards,

Marc

[Ken White]

Does this mean you consider the AQ attacks on the WTC to be QUOTE "Very small. Not terribly significant until we made the seem to be"UNQUOTE? Could you clarify your position on all this?

Compared to the carnage of WW II for just the most recent, yes. Quite small.

Bad, unforgivable and harmful no question but relatively minor to all except those involved in those attacks and their families with whom I can and do empathize. Still, the attack and its results really had comparatively small impact -- unlike the War which killed millions and affected many more millions of people worldwide. A response to those attacks in 2001 was required and was executed with initial good results. Results that we unfortunately squandered by the making of where we were as those results were obtained into a still ongoing campaign as well as a series of efforts in this country to 'enhance' security that give far more significance to the attacks and subsequent events than is or was IMO warranted. Every year more American are killed in automobile accidents OR medical misadventures than have been killed over the past ten years as a result of those attacks and our subsequent actions worldwide.

Many for whom those attacks were a defining event will not agree and I understand that and respect their position. Fortunately or unfortunately, viewpoint dependent, my defining moment was the attack on Pearl Harbor; fewer total US casualties but vastly greater costs in the long term. My wars were long ago but I do have a son currently on his fifth tour in this one who also thinks we did and still are over reacting. Maybe he's just old before his time...

To return to the thread and Libya, a democracy there would be nice but it is for many reasons really sort of unlikely and, as I said, it will in reality make little to no difference to most Americans. In the event, it is up to the Libyans and not to us. Hopefully, those in DC who are overly prone to 'do something' will realize that and not set out to do good and end up doing more harm as we too often do...

[Marc]

Compared to the carnage of WW II for just the most recent, yes. Quite small.

...

Ok, Ken, I understand your position now, although I disagree with it. What I do not understand is why you want to post on a "small wars" website if you think that anything smaller than WWII is too small to be significant.

Best regards,

Marc

[Rex Brynen]

Are we to assume that democracy will emerge naturally in post-Gadhafi Libya?

No one is assuming this, least of all the Libyans who want it who are well aware of the magnitude of the task.

We can, however, say that the chances of some form of representative and responsive government are infinitely higher than they were when Qaddafi was ruling the place.

[Marc]

Ken, Dayuhan, Rex,

Ok, thanks for putting things in perspective.

Marc

[Graycap]

I guess we'll do something similar as we did with the Palestinian authorities, except with a bit more personal attention by the French president.

The situation is quite different. Palestinians have no oil, and there is no Israel with its own power and policy.
In Libya (and Tunisia) the only international player with great opportunities and great risks is Europe and european countries. Europe could start a narrative closing its past and building better future.

Now some relevant humour...

To see what CNN has become is really depressing.

One refrain I heard quite often in Libya was that the prolonged struggle to overthrow Qaddafi may have helped to build a stronger sense of national identity and purpose. This isn't to say the challenges aren't serious--they are, given the factionalism that already exists. However it was striking to hear people say "perhaps its a good thing we didn't win in a week, and instead had to work together to achieve this outcome."

Strongly concur. In another forum I wrote some months ago that I thought better for everyone a very slow evolution of miliary operations that could make possible a poltical manouvering of differet actors internal and external. We should also sayy that slowness is possible oly if risk of retaliation is little. This lack of any retaliation is the piece of the puzzle that is difficult to understand.
Rex do you know anything about the central bank situation? It seems strange to me that TNC, with its need for money, has not occupied it and take possession of the caveau.

[motorfirebox]

From my understanding, it seems unlikely to me that the future of Libya is going to be determined by anyone who actually lives there. Gaddafi did a really thorough job of pacifying most of his population--primary evidence for which being the hilarious ineffectiveness of the 'revolution'. The rebels had to be wheeled into Tripoli like an invalid. Now that they're there, I don't see them suddenly getting the healing power of Jay-sus and miraculously being able to walk again. The only question is who's going to be the power behind the wheeled throne. Given the US's disinterest, it seems like it'll come down to Britain and France versus the Arab League. And the AL has the money...

I mean, granted that running a war and running a country are two very different things--but if you can't beat the guys who couldn't beat pickup trucks with tanks, I'm not sure what you're going to have what it takes to run a country, either.

[Fuchs]

To see what CNN has become is really depressing.

Some 'relief' after all that depression...

CNN and Fox News are regular contributors for screenshots with geography or science fails.


BBC World News and German TV News ain't immune to that, either.

**************

Again: Look at Kosovo and the Palestinian authority.
Now subtract the transfers and look only at the know-how transfer (since Libya can pay its bills with oil).
We will send policemen for police training, lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, 65-80 yrs old politicians, some corporate CEOs...

I doubt that France's government is dumb enough to become heavily involved. It's more likely that they will do just enough to get some special relationship and a good reputation in Libya - and some photo ops for the French president.

Quite the same for Britain.

Berlusconi is probably too busy to care much about Libya (unless he gets a faible for bellydancers, of course).

[motorfirebox]

But will "just enough" be enough? It seems like Libya, with its proven inability to mount a real revolution, is ripe pickings to be somebody's pet oil field. Will whoever ends up running the place be willing to share with anybody that doesn't take a continuing active role?

[Rex Brynen]

But will "just enough" be enough? It seems like Libya, with its proven inability to mount a real revolution

What does a "real revolution" look like? I imagine it's seeming pretty real at the moment to Qaddafi.

[motorfirebox]

What does a "real revolution" look like? I imagine it's seeming pretty real at the moment to Qaddafi.

I think what's real to Gaddafi is the NATO intervention that carried the revolution forward.

[Rex Brynen]

I think what's real to Gaddafi is the NATO intervention that carried the revolution forward.

Both widespread domestic rebellion and external support (NATO and Arab) were necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for toppling Qaddafi.

But foreign support for successful insurgencies is hardly atypical. Indeed, part of successful insurgency is framing your struggle to external audiences in such a way that wins support and/or neutralizes support for the insurgent regime. Insurgents who do that and win are still successful insurgencies. Certainly the NTC enjoys a great more authenticity and legitimacy from having had to fight for liberation than either the Afghan or Iraqi governments initially enjoyed, post-US intervention.

The NTC faces enormous challenges. They may well find them too much. However, I don't think that the history of NATO air support necessarily makes them less able to succeed. Leaving aside Ken's wholly appropriate question of whether this was in the Western or US interest (reasonable people can disagree on that), I'm happy that the Libyan people have a chance to try to succeed. It's more than they've had the last 42 years.