Jonah, from my column this weekend:
Now suddenly he’s got to go — in favor of “freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya — which, according to West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.
I wouldn’t pretend to be an expert on Libya – well, okay, I would, if I were being interviewed down the line on CNN for ten minutes – but if I had to take a wild swing:
I would say Gaddafi vs the rebels is the latest variation on the old Tripolitania vs Cyrenaica divide. They were for a while separate Italian colonies. When the British took Cyrenaica in the Second World War, they adopted Emir Idris as their guy, and eventually made the emirate the core of the new Kingdom of Libya post-1951. Benghazi and al-Bayda, both Cyrenaic cities, were royal residences and (with Tripoli) joint capitals of Libya until Gaddafi overthrew King Idris and the Senussi establishment in 1951.
A few protesters in Benghazi in recent weeks have been waving portraits of his late Majesty, but, as in so many other corners of the Muslim world, in the vacuum of secular dictatorship the resurgent, hardcore Islam has co-opted ancient tribal differences for its own purposes. But don’t worry, Benghazi’s freedom fighters sound like perfectly nice chaps:
For a month, gangs of young gunmen have roamed the city, rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies.
Old King Idris was a more decent man than anyone likely to end up running Benghazi now. As for America’s first black president intervening to make Libya safe for anti-black racists, we really need to resurrect Evelyn Waugh to cover this thing.
The gap between our betters and the rest of us is evident in these discussions. The rest of use this thing called Google on our computational machines. We can look up the history of Libya and learn all sorts of things about the place.
Our betters apparently don't have this devise. The media talks about the rebels as if they are a bunch of middle-class land owners demanding lower taxes. Our rulers operate as if Gaddafi sprung out of thin air last week. His forty year rule has nothing whatsoever to do with the internal politics of this tribal land.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseK'daffy overthrew King Idris in 1951? He must be older than I thought.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWouldn't the resurrection of Evelyn Waugh be a wonderful thing.
Imagine him on "Face the Nation" with that ear-trumpet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"As for America’s first black president intervening to make Libya safe for anti-black racists, we really need to resurrect Evelyn Waugh to cover this thing."
Indeed, just as it took the twice-born George W. Bush to help facilitate the destruction of Iraq's ancient Christian communities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark, you'll want to clean up the date here. I think you mean 1969 for the overthrow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy must we always pick a side, oversell it as "democratic" (when it's no such thing), root for it, arm and supply it, and ultimately intervene in the air and on land, if necessary, on its behalf?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be content if we just stood by and let them all continue shooting at each other for the next few decades, thereby keeping them too busy to engage in terror in other lands.
Remember the good old days, when Saddam's Iraq and the mullah's Iran focused all their energies on destroying each other's infrastructure and killing each others military, thereby dividing the Muslim world?
Zman:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt has ever been thus. The difference today is that our "betters," like Dan Rather with his inkjet memos from the 1970s, can't quite grasp that the jig is up. Information is now so readily available that Lincoln's observation needs revising. These days, the amateurs in the White House and its press corps appendage can't even fool all the people SOME of the time.
You're right, Mr. Steyn -- or even better, we need to parachute in an ex-drunkard Swedish humanitarian with a gallon of whiskey (or even whisky) and a motorcycle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe Mark alludes to the Evelyn Waugh book "Scoop". This is a hilarious tale of a befuddled "journalist" caught up in a "kinetic military action", in a far off land, which is worth the read. Find it here: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven if they lacked Google/Bing, there are tons of videos showing the fighting in Libya during WWII. These vary all the way from Victory at Sea to The World at War. You will see Brits and Germans see-sawing back and forth across Libya, with the townspeople waving and cheering whichever side is driving through town at the moment. I don't think the people in Libya are capable of endorsing one side over another simply due to ideology.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery minor point ... Gaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a Pragmatist like Obama, tomorrow is as unknowable as the next millennium. Hence, who will take power in Libya a year from now and what they will do naturally gets no consideration whatever.
"Anything but Qadaffi, anything but letting him continue to slaughter Libyans" is not a premise worth a drop of U.S. blood or a cent of U.S. dollars.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo if we arm the Cyrenaican tribes and they actually manage to get the upper hand over the Tripolitanian Qaddafi-supporting population, what would Obama have us do when THEY start killing hundreds or thousands of the Tripolitanians?
Another "humanitarian" intervention, this time on behalf of the other side?
One thing that seems to be omitted from the strategic discussion, perhaps because it actually is a strategic consideration and therefore illegitimate for the Obamaites to take in view, is the great oil wealth that lies on the Cyrenaican side of Libya.
If Barack Obama and his coalition of the foolish do manage to create an enclave in the oil-rich part of Libya for the benefit of the Arab tribes of Cyrenaica dominated by the militant Islamists among them (or manage to hand all of Libya over to them), will we have just handed Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood a huge pot of gold to fund their global activities?
Libya needs Chinese Gordon, not Barack Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteyn may also have been referring to "Waugh in Abyssinia"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it needs to be said: I have learned more actual, useful information in the last month from the comments section of NRO than all other news and information sources combined (apologies to Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter). Isn't this proof of the old saw, "The smartest man in the world is not as smart as the 1000 dumbest"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWFB's ghost is laughing his butt off contemplating the delicious irony of this, given phone books and Harvard professors and such.
I have a new cat, and the other day I discovered her playing intimately with my beagles, stroking and loving her, and playing, as beagles will, except she's a cat, and they're, well, beagles! Book of Revelations, anyone? How close to Libya is Armah Gheddon, anyway?
Just asking.
Steyn raised an excellent point in his column, one that I had been making for some time: irrespective of the virtues of Libya's opposition, why are we so focused on removing the one mideast dictators who has abandoned his anti-American ways?
I don't know jack about the Libyan opposition, but I do know that with perhaps one exception, the opposition to whomever is in power in Muslim countries tends to show itself to be more fanatical and anti-American than the current ruler. We're starting to figure out that this may be the case in Libya, yet we're actively assisting them in their struggle against a dictator who poses no threat to America. Worse, we're sending the message that renouncing terrorism, paying compensation to the families of the people you murdered, abandoning your nuclear program, and attempting to rejoin polite society offers no assurance that the United States won't bomb you.
This is madness. Why anyone thinks that the internal affairs of Libya are worth a drop of American blood is beyond my comprehension.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason for the anti black actions now are because Quadafi hired many black mercenaries to support him- not racism per se.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGaddafi overthrew King Idris when he was nine years old?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm no peace-nik. I'm a former Viet Nam, Marine machine gunner. We can't even take care of our own issues. What business or right do we have to meddle in the issues of another country?? These people have been killing each other since the beginning of Islam. Leave them alone! NO more U.S. blood shed for oil. We need to unleash our own resources of oil, natural gas and (yes) even coal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGaddafi, or Quadafi, or however the good colonel spells his name, actually overthrew the king in 1969, not 1951.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse