At this moment, the downfall of Moammar Qaddafi seems a certainty. Two of his sons and possible heirs, Seif al-Islam and Muhammad, have been taken into custody. The fate of all of them remains to be seen. Libya spokesmen appear on our television screens to talk about democracy and freedom and decisions to be taken in due course about the Qaddafis.
The spokesmen are dignified and mostly elderly but the worst is to be feared. The sight of the pick-up vans pouring into Tripoli is more frightening than encouraging. Here are milling crowds with weapons but no training in how to handle them, and no discipline. Unlike the spokesmen, wild and angry men are firing guns, shouting about what they are going to do to Qaddafi and how great the future will be.
Circumstances like these have ended down the centuries in revenge and murder. It is pointless to speak of law and order. After 40 years of one-man rule, there are no institutions or personalities with the authority for even minimum control. Those milling crowds look like anarchy.
I could not help noticing that the pick-up vans had Islamist slogans painted like graffiti on their sides. That may well be the future.
Tunisia is turning into an Islamist state, and Egypt might well down that path in a few months’ time. So might Syria if the Sunni rebellion succeeds there.
NATO alone is responsible for mobilizing those milling crowds in Tripoli and handing them success. Without NATO, Qaddafi would have slaughtered the people in Benghazi where the rebellion began. That would have been a dreadful outcome, to be sure. It would be an even more dreadful outcome if all we have done by intervening militarily in Libya is to advance the Islamist wave now sweeping the Arab and Muslim world.
David - My sentiments exactly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd therein lies the rub...I don't think anyone really knows what will happen AFTER Qadaffi. We can only hope it will be better for the U.S. However, despite what he may have been like for the people living under him, at least he had quieted down and was not an international threat. That will change if the country is taken over by anyone remotely like the Iranian mullahs. Time will tell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy guess is that they will trade in one dictator, Qadaffi, for another, Sharia law. People who are used to being told how to live every aspect of their lives do not easily learn how to think for themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEveryone knows that freedom and democracy randomly spring up from anarchy and revolt! Just look how well the former Soviet republic is doing these days.
We have evicted the lion in order to allow the hyenas to rule.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a new (or soon to be) political vacuum and like all vacuums, this one wants to be filled. The question is simple: who or what will emerge?
The 'rebels' are an unknown from my understanding. I have not seen anyone come up with an accurate analysis regarding who they are, what they believe in and what kind of governmental processes/institutions they plan on instituting. They have formed a new Central Bank but I'm not a banker or lawyer so I can't comment on whether that's a good thing or not.
I do realize that Libya is broken up into many different tribes and that fact alone causes me to pause. If in fact we are dealing people who are by and large affiliated with one tribe or the other, the stage is set for a serious Somalia-like situation.
Does ANYBODY know what the average Joe Libyan is like? What kind of education does he have? Is he in fact a devout Muslim and if so, which 'flavor' does he adhere to? I know he enjoys one of the best per-capita incomes in Africa but does this translate across the country and tribal affiliation or is wealth limited to only certain tribes, groups, locations etc etc.?
There are so many variables involved here, any one of which, if it falls the wrong way, could cause bad news for the west.
Unfortunately, there are way to few GOOD variables for us to count on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell written. No one knows what will emarge, we trade one anti-american dictator for another (maybe worse) or in the case of Eqypt one american supporter for and an anti-american dictator.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLibya is ferociously tribal and who controls the state and the oil will be important. I expect infighting within the rebel tribes and international calls for boots on the ground to keep the tribes from each others throats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBrutal Dictator to Chaos, Chaos to Islamic Republic.
Libya will soon look back on Qaddaffi's misrule as the 'good ole days'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusei hope someone is keeping an eye on the location of Qaddafi's chemical weapons stockpile and other weapons....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust look where the former Soviet satellites states are nowadays: Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Syria. All failed command/state-run economies and bread starved dictatorships. This is compared to NATO, and their many successful protected allies including Israel, Turkey. I am not even taking into consideration the former Eastern bloc.
So many leftists were Soviet apologists for so long such as Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky. There is no moral equivalency here. The West was obviously on the right side of history, and socialist militarism was tragically wrong. Now the Soviet's last vestiges are rapidly falling into the dust-bin. The old left is likely remorseful about today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan we take a moment away from our political self-interest to congratulate the Libyan people on overthrowing a dictator and standing up to demand the right of self-governance?
I understand your very real concerns, but I am continually saddened by the somewhat hypocritical way the West has reacted to the Arab Spring. These revolutions may not break in our favor in every case, but this is not about us. It's about freedom. They fought back against their oppressors and won.
Not every country wants to be a Western-style secular democracy, as hard as that is for we Westerners to imagine. This is a challenge we will continually face, but as an American (or any Western, really), I will side for freedom and self-governance every time. Isn't that supposed to be what we believe in? The message we've been claiming to spread all these years?
Articles like this suggest that our desire to spread political freedom is nothing more than a cheap facade for political self-interest, which is exactly what the Middle Eastern hard-liners have been accusing us of for decades. Let's not prove them right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo - I think that reality is that it was hard enough in the aftermath of Iraq, where we had a very heavy presence on the ground, to direct the future. We have helped these people, who we know little about, overthrow a tyrant, yes. But a tyrant who wasn't doing near as much "tyranting" as he had in the past. So we broke it - because without us, and I mean the US, not NATO, because only we had the close cover air support needed to win - and now we have no idea how it is going to go back together.
The libs hated Bush for many reasons, but everyone took shots at managing the peace in Iraq and how ill-prepared we were. It was a fair critique, though I don't believe genuinely delivered.
Well guess what - this one is worse, as is Egypt, as will be Syria. I pray cooler heads prevail. My fear is we have just created more enemies. Enemies we eventually will have to fight and kill.
I think David P-J's concern reflecting that reality is fair and appropriate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvery schoolchild knows that to sell a revolution to the West, one must claim that it's about freedom. They would also know to watch and see what happens rather than lap up the revolution's own PR.
I think I know who is the partisan poster here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTflavin,
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
How often does freedom or self-governance travel on the wings of sharia law?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe the Islamists will end up taking power. Question is, can they keep it? Our own experiences in Iraq suggest that Islamist control just ends up sowing the seeds of its own counter-revolutions, due to overreach.
Or, as the old saying goes:
"Dogs chase cars, but when they catch them, can they drive?"
If they can't, risen expectations can make a counter-revolution very dangerous. And once that's helped along, the environment is never quite the same for the Islamists. Which is precisely what the region needs.
It's also in the nature of Islamists to be aggressive imperialists, which means that running their counter-revolution will be the solution to a problem.
So, if all this means we have to be around again later to help out again, and solidify our cred with the local yet again... I'm fine with that.
Viva el revolution.
And if we see patterns where the Islamists end up as players, but bit players, then great. Even political scenarios where the governments have to cater to them somewhat tend to build resentment. Just ask the Israelis how that goes.
Resentment of Islamists by broad segments of the region's populations is exactly what we need, long term. One way or another.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse