Few other Middle East countries have the potential of Libya. The country is vast, the population small. One irony of the brutal Qaddafi regime is that its sheer incompetence and record of terror translated into an insidiously reduced oil and gas export capacity, ensuring that its untapped reserves are now larger than ever — and at a time of record world prices.
It has ideal weather and a long Mediterranean coastline, and for 500 years or so was part of the Roman world and considered Western. It could easily become a tourist getaway an hour or two from Europe’s main airports. Its Roman antiquities at Leptis Magna and Sabratha are nearly unmatched in the Mediterranean, and — once again, paradox abounds — the Qaddafi regime’s anti-Western policies and plain incompetence meant that tourism and ongoing archaeological investigation, until very recently, were dormant. That neglect ensured that the sites were more or less left alone, and in some cases the sands have overtaken the sites and protected them from traffic or crackpot reconstruction. In all, there is a decades-old aura of romance and intrigue about these now mostly unknown and rarely visited places.
The problem, of course, is after 42 years of Qaddafi milking the country, the infrastructure is either nonexistent or shoddy even by old Soviet standards. Two generations of Libyans have grown up under a government of North Korea–like insanity. Those with the expertise to rebuild the country, both politically and technologically, are long-time exiles or returned only recently, under Qaddafi’s weird post-Iraq liberalization policies.
The U.S. is in no mood to follow up our military intervention with a postbellum reconstruction program, and we have no idea which factions among the rebels will assume power, or even the nature of the various special interests. So, until the dust settles, no one quite knows whether this is 1917 Russia, 1979 Iran, 2003 Iraq, or 2011 Egypt and Tunisia, or a little of everything. Everyone simply hopes that whatever emerges will be better than Qaddafi — and being worse would be difficult, though not impossible in that part of the world. We in the West imagine what a rich, civilized, and important asset Libya could be to the world and the West in particular; in much the same way, others see its oil and location as a prize for their very different, very anti-Western agenda.
Western tourism?
Not as long as the very first decision of the not-even-one-day-old New Regime is to promulgate Shariah Law.
External Link
As Seinfeld used to say, "THIS is gonna end well...."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...its sheer incompetence... translated into an insidiously reduced oil and gas export capacity, ensuring that its untapped reserves are now larger than ever — and at a time of record world prices."
Isn't that what is happening in Alaska, Montana, Colorado, and New York?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLibya is the soft underbelly of Europe, which seems particularly vulnerable at this juncture in its self-abasement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Hanson, I'll be shocked if this turns into anything other than another Egypt. The radical element of Islam are too strong and too willing to use violence to achieve their goals, and the concept of freedom is too foreign for Libyans to even grasp.
I'm reminded of Russian after the fall of communism. The Russian people had never learned and had no concept of freedom. They were used to the government providing everything, meager though it was. So when these provisions were no longer there, and they had the freedom to pursue their own opportunities (the few that there were), it was a completely foreign concept. I remember reading a number of years later that many preferred communism because, while it didn't provide much, at least it was something. It was stunning to me at the time, but sense then I've come to understand a little better how people react after decades of oppression.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'll be shocked if this turns into anything other than another Egypt"
Another Egypt or Iran?
And, it's probably 50/50 that Egypt itself even turns into another Iran.
Islamists are generally more motivated, and more likely to die for what they believe in, than are peace loving moderates. This is why the extremist win. They'll go all-in, whereas moderates won't (again, generally).
"at least it was something."
Yes, it was predictable. It's amazing how many people will gladly trade liberty for certainty.
You could effectively argue that it's that very same dynamic that presents democracy with its biggest threat, even in long-established democracies, like this one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Islamists are generally more motivated, and more likely to die for what they believe in, than are peace loving moderates. This is why the extremist win. They'll go all-in, whereas moderates won't (again, generally)."
Weird. It's like you want to believe this, in the face of most evidence. Sure, extremists mostly rule in Iran, deep in the Pakistani army and intelligence, and of course Hamas, Hezbollah, Saudi Wahabbis, etc.. It's worth noting that, except for Iran, these are each minority movements in their respective countires/regions. Extremists are a threat, but they don't, in fact, usually win, for the very simple reason that while they might be more willing to die (and there's even some question to that) there are vastly fewer of them. I suggest not blowing real threats up into cartoons; the result is only that we don't take them as seriously as we should.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"in the face of most evidence."
Most evidence? Really?
Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran have all fallen to Muslim fundamentalists. Countries that haven't fallen to the Islamists are countries that enjoy the benefit of a professional, Western-trained military - like Saudi Arabia, Egypt (for now) and yes, Pakistan. Syria, a bit like Hussein's Iraq, is evocative of a junta-style regime. Assad wears an Armani suit rather than a uniform, but he and the Baathist own the military. Without those junta-style governments (using barbaric population control techniques themselves), then the extremists absolutely would be in control, a la Iran or Afghanistan (1989-2002). In those countries, it's the minority military presence that is displacing the fundamentalist presence.
Would Abdulah be in power in Jordan without Jordan's Western-trained military, and substantial western aid? And, if Abdullah wasn't in power, who would be in power?
It is certainly within the realm of possibility that in the foreseeable future, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and possibly even Syria could all be under the control of an Islamist government, or at a minimum, a government that is even friendlier to the Islamist than what had previously existed.
Nazism was a minority movement in 1938 Germany, too. How did that turn out? You're proving my point without realizing it. History demonstrates over and over again, that a zealous organized and well-armed minority can fairly easily wrest control of a disinterested and something less than zealous majority
Finally, don't believe everything you read in the NY Times about the Islamists being a tiny minority of the Muslim population, especially the Muslim population as it exists in the Middle East. They aren't. You should read this Pew Poll taken just a few weeks ago. The opinions of MANY in those very same countries are sobering.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseO did what Ronnie never could.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Islamists are generally more motivated, and more likely to die for what they believe in, than are peace loving moderates. This is why the extremist win. They'll go all-in, whereas moderates won't (again, generally)."
Weird. It's like you want to believe this, in the face of most evidence. Sure, extremists mostly rule in Iran, deep in the Pakistani army and intelligence, and of course Hamas, Hezbollah, Saudi Wahabbis, etc.. It's worth noting that, except for Iran, these each minority movements in their respective countires/regions. Extremists are a threat, but they don't, in fact, usually win, for the very simple reason that while they might be more willing to die (and there's even some question to that) there are vastly fewer of them. I suggest not blowing real threats up into cartoons; the result is only that we don't take them as seriously as we should.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Kaiser was overthrown and the people suffered forever after. Apartheid was overthrown and the corruption became normal. The Shah was overthrown and the country suffered. Mubarek is gone and the Muslim Brotherhood is eliminating all dissent.
Libya - no different.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suspect the best hope for Libya and other of these awakening populations will be their youth, and especially their women. Family is still the strongest bond and the best feature of Med and Gulf people and I suspect drove the awakening. The father and sons winning the changes need to listen to views at home to drive the direction to the future. It wasn't the crazy rad elements driving these changes. Looks to me like the man in the street working for his family and a good life stood up and said "no more". May actually be the right time and venue to relook at the idealistic Wilsonian 14 points as our policy. Backing honest plebiscites anD promoting economic links is the positive path forward, rather than quivering in fear of the radical fringe response. Expect the best outcome and you might get it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Western tourism"?
Not likely with a regime whose first action is to declare Shariah Law.
External Link
As Seinfeld enjoyed saying: "Yeah, THAT'll work...."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is precious little stability or moderation anywhere in the Arab or Muslim worlds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe very best we can do is to stand back and let them kill each other. The worst we can do is stick our nose into their sordid business and get it shot off. Again; rescuing Kuwait from Saddam didn't even earn us the lasting favor of Kuwait's princes.
If some among them attack us, we should, with absolutely no humanitarian qualms, bomb them back to the Age of The[ir] Prophet. Afghanistan should now look like the Sahara.
Let them burn in their blessed oil. Our economy will adjust, though Obama would have to go(!). Europe would suffer, but they need to suffer before they throw off their 18th century economies.
18th century economies? If only we were so lucky!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, Mr. Hanson's astute post is irrelevant. We may be putting the cart before the horse.
See, the Libya matter is about winners and losers on the American political stage. It has little to do with the societal outcomes in Libya. In this case, Barack H. Obama is the winner; the Republican Party is the looser. Oh, and George W. Bush is a looser too.
Discussing what direction the Libyan people may go, how it all may shake out for the West, etc. is all secondary until proper credit has been given to the winner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we see Libya devolve into yet another America-hating Islamic dictatorship or theocracy then whatever momentary credit Obama may be due now will be long spent and the butcher's bill will be due.
It's a long, long time to November 2012. There will be time to see what happens. Good or evil.
I don't claim to know who Obama prays to but he better get off the golf course and onto his knees and hope it turns out for good or it will be one more failure in a long and rapidly growing list that all belong to Obama and no one one else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Aaron Ziffel
uhhhh... and what, exactly did O do? and what couldn't Ronnie do? I'm just curious as to what is going on in your head.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse