I'm glad to see that Ankara and Doha are "out of the game" and have "no meaningful proxies" in Libya. Hopefully the situation winds down, as the country has more than enough oil and gas revenue potential to support its population decently. Yet Libya's black gold and small population as been about as much benefit to the average Libyan as Equatorial Guinea's has. Hopefully the unity government, when it is finally established, can be prevailed upon to follow the Norwegian model. After supporting the rebellion, the least that London and Paris can do is midwife a better future than the past under Qaddafi.

Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat
You're arguing in US/Western-centric style - while entirely ignoring the core reason for the situation. Time and again, you come to post about something like 'historian approach to monitoring the situation' etc. But, when it comes to apply your studies of history, you seem unable to do so. Why? If you check the British history: the country began making giant leaps forward the moment it started sorting out its human-rights-related issues - and it grew as powerful precisely because it did so centuries ahead of anybody else. The Netherlands - ditto. If you check the US history: even more so (although the time-lapse was measured by decades, rather than by centuries). But, in the case of countries like Libya, and just like the entire 'establishment' (whether political or academic) you're approaching the topic from the tail first: correspondingly, it's 'all about intervention'...
I would say that economic advancement led to political advancement, as greater income and wealth as well as the greater diffusion of both, produced a middle class upon whose acquiescence the rule of the <1% rested.

As for humanitarian intervention, I would start with Sudan and the Congos first...

Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat
And re. Egypt: Egypt is no example for anything at all. The country is such an utter chaos and wishful thinking that nobody understands it - especially not Egyptians (indeed, Egyptians can't even agree with themselves if they are Egyptians or Arabs, just for the start). At most, one can say that Egyptians made a mistake during their elections - and elected by heart, not by reason. Then they realized they made a mistake - and corrected it, but in wrong fashion: instead of giving it a second chance and waiting for next elections, they all (including most of MBs) supported a military coup. Obviously, that was their next mistake, and now they have to wait for the next opportunity to correct it.

The only difference between Tunisia and all the other 'caught in the Arab Spring' was that Tunisia was over very quickly - and then because Ben Ali was a man enough to admit to himself that people don't want him, and to go. That's something that 'can't happen' to such megalomaniacs like Q, like Assad, or quite a few others.
The Egyptian military has its hooks in the economy in the way that the Revolutionary Guards do in Iran. It didn't appear the Tunisia had the same situation...

Subsequent violence aside, the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia lasted for the same duration and inflicted the same number of fatalities, irrespective of post-revolutionary violence.

It seems that the moderate opposition in Tunisia was stronger than it was in Egypt, and that the Muslim Brotherhood in the latter was decidedly Islamist, anti-Western and anti-GCC.

As for Bashar al-Assad's personality, I don't find him on the same plane as Hussein in terms of brutality. I also believe that Syrian regime activities are more dictated by Iran and Assad's inner circle than him personally...

But, we will know more when the dust finally settles.