The violent demise of the Middle East’s longest-ruling leader — who came to office in September 1969, just a few months after Richard Nixon — stands well outside the mainstream of the region’s politics, but then Moammar Gaddafi always did.
Gaddafi (for the record, the correct spelling of his name is Mu‘ammar al-Qadhdhāfi) began his rule at the tender age of 27, just as Pan-Arabist ideology was dying down; undeterred, long after others had given up on this fantasy, he remained a proponent of the notion of turning all Arabic countries into one gigantic whole. Eventually frustrated with Arabic-speakers, where the small population of Libya limited his influence, he turned south, where his outsize energy income gave him real clout in Africa.
Fortunately for the world, every one of his hare-brained schemes came to naught. What I observed in 1981 still holds true: “For all Qadhdhafi’s hyperactivity, he rarely gets his way; empty promises and fanaticism on his part have repeatedly undermined his ceaseless efforts to project power. … Qadhdhafi has won many battles but not a single war.”
How deeply satisfying it will be to watch as a brave and desperate people sweep this eccentric, nasty, and repressive tyrant into the dustbin of history. How gratifying that he has alienated nearly the entire world, even the U.N. Security Council. May his ugly example serve as a permanent warning to other dictators who make war on their populations.
On a personal note: I have watched Gaddafi with interest through the years in part because my career in Middle East studies began coterminous with his rule. Also, he invited me in 2007 to Libya for a one-on-one chat. Although at the time curious about meeting him, in retrospect I am glad I did not. A shower does not cleanse oneself of some encounters.
"How deeply satisfying it will be to watch as a brave and desperate people sweep this eccentric, nasty, and repressive tyrant into the dustbin of history. How gratifying that he has alienated nearly the entire world, even the U.N. Security Council."
Yes, it's an excellent episode -- the massacre in Libya. Very gratifying end to my favorite soap.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this posting is an excellent, but I must ask: What is meant by "for the record, the correct spelling is..."? Whatever spelling is used is a transliteration of Arabic sounds into Roman alphabet sounds. It is always an approximation. There seems to be a popular spelling that drifts after a few years to something else. I have always suspected that some academic gets a paper published that uses a new spelling and it becomes the fashion thereafter until it is superseded by some other academic which is picked up by the media.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe author makes an interesting point about declining to meet Col. Khadafy. He is as evil as anyone living on the earth right now. It would be unnerving to be in his presence, even if you were absolutely assured of safety while in Libya, and your presence in Libya could not be construed as an endorsement of the Khadafy regime.
I have been thinking to myself whether I would agree to meet with Hitler, Stalin, or Chairman Mao while they were in power. On balance, I think I would but I do think civilized people have a duty to shun evil men. For example, I am always disappointed when I hear about U.S. celebrities who meet with Fidel Castro and then speak glowingly about him after meeting him. Treating Castro as someone worthy of admiration is deeply irresponsible. I think a civilized person who meets with someone like Castro or Khadafy has a duty to not praise such a man, or do anything that appears to endorse the dictator's barbaric regime.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting post however, I must correct you on the spelling of his name. It's Mo'mar Q'daffy. Trust me. I'm a cartoonist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegarding jcrodden's comment on the approximation of Arabic sounds with Roman characters, I was wondering how the 'correct' spelling was arrived at ... so it is interesting that it really is at most an approximation only subject to variance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApparently it isn't quite as cut-and-dried as that:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic
The tragic trail of blood continues, until final rout, regardless of the spelling of the name of this monster.
How many have been, continue to be, and will be sacrificed before this man is gone? Has it been worth Obama's carefully manicured "neutral" stance and the reluctant and belated condemnation of the security council members? I have hardly been able to control my contempt for the likes of rock stars who have partied, western leaders who cozied up to this man and other opportunists choosing oil over compassion, greed, over humanity, and whatever short lived profit, gain, or notoriety from entertaining a notorious psychopath. Cold comfort for the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who suffer while their loved ones are tortured, maimed and killed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@jcrodden: While these are approximations, the transliteration 'Gaddafi' implies that the first three consonants are ghayn-daal-daal, whereas Mr. Pipes' correction would suggest to me that the letters are, instead, qaaf-dhaal-dhaal. There are variances, but these are the ones I've seen most frequently, and it would affect pronunciation (for example, DH= Th as in "then" vs. D as in "dog")and possibly meaning.
www.thewifeofleisure.com
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse