Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[apeiron]

There is an interesting interpretation of wars in the Middle East by professors Nitzan from York University and Bichler from Israel.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

I've been looking for credible research on this question and these two articles were worth reading.

http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/programs/courses/mini-courses/pdf/democracy.pdf

http://www.ifri.org/files/politique_etrangere/Article_Noel.pdf

They take the Bush Jr democratisation doctrine at face value and try to make sense of things.

But I think it is telling that we can be so torn between the view that either US foreign policy in ME has been rationally self-interested (and humanitarian stuff is the usual smokescreen) or it has been emotionally-driven and really believes its own propaganda.

Both are bad alternatives. Yet I'm not sure which I think is worse! Is a psychopath worse than a psychotic?! Both can be pretty dangerous. But it would be nice to know the real diagnosis.

 

[vici10]

I've been looking for credible research on this question and these two articles were worth reading.

Thank you for the articles, I will look into them.

But I think it is telling that we can be so torn between the view that either US foreign policy in ME has been rationally self-interested (and humanitarian stuff is the usual smokescreen) or it has been emotionally-driven and really believes its own propaganda.

I believe it was both, rational self-interest and belief that they “bring democracy” to these countries.
But before to explain why I think so, I should do more clarification.

First, what does it mean US self-interest? US is a big country, so whose self-interest? I doubt that wars in the Middle East improved lives of ordinary Americans. Another matter is business class, that becomes increasingly international. By business class, I mean major corporations that can be approximated by Fortune500.

We know that oil companies, military contractors definitely benefited from these wars. (There are more military contractors in Iraq than there is US Army personnel there.) But the rest of major corporations benefited too, indirectly.
In the beginning of 2000s, there was a fear of deflation. It is telling that even Greenspan warned of “unwelcome substantial fall in inflation”.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20030506meeting.pdf"
Deflation in US in the roughly last hundred years only happened during Great Depression. Business class fears deflation more than it fears inflation. Sometimes inflation is good for business, but deflation is always bad. Historically, inflation correlates with high prices of oil, and historically, conflicts in the Middle East drive prices of oil up. Hence the conclusion, in order to prevent deflation and start inflation, one needs to start a conflict in the Middle East. Of course, these things are not deterministic, these are not laws of nature. But simply because these things happened in the past it was expected to happen in the future as well. So in some sense wars in the Middle east benefited the rest of big business.

Second, when one speaks about democracy, and bringing democracy to other countries, one should clarify what does one mean by democracy. Democracy can be in different forms, for example democracy in workplace or direct democracy like in ancient Athens among citizens of Athens. It seems clear to me that not this kind of democracy was meant by people who plan to invade middle-eastern countries. It is anathema in US to talk about democracy in workplace. The regime in most corporations is dictatorial and hierarchical. And it seems common sense to many people, since they do not know any different. It seems to me that by democracy, business class means the regime that is open for business.
Also, members of business class are also human beings. It is very beguiling to believe in something that profits you and it is a sedative trap to think that what is good for you should be good for a world at large. As Bernard Show once sad in his play “The Man of Destiny”:

But every Englishman is born with a certain miraculous power that makes him master of the world. When he wants a thing, he never tells himself that he wants it. He waits patiently until there comes into his mind, no one knows how, a burning conviction that it is his moral and religious duty to conquer those who have got the thing he wants.

Regarding ordinary Americans, who do not benefit from these wars, the “Red Scare” exists in America already for more than 80 years and it would be strange that they would be completely immune to it.

 

[Evo]

Second, when one speaks about democracy, and bringing democracy to other countries, one should clarify what does one mean by democracy. Democracy can be in different forms, for example democracy in workplace or direct democracy like in ancient Athens among citizens of Athens. It seems clear to me that not this kind of democracy was meant by people who plan to invade middle-eastern countries.

I have no idea what you are rambling on about. It is apparent you are not an American and English is not your first language, but please explain what you are trying to say.

It is anathema in US to talk about democracy in workplace.

Again, you are not in the US and not an American, so I need to point out that you are wrong. You seem to have come to this forum to spread propaganda.

The regime in most corporations is dictatorial and hierarchical. And it seems common sense to many people, since they do not know any different. It seems to me that by democracy, business class means the regime that is open for business.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[rootX]

Going back to Libya,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13853210

The top foreign affairs official in Libya's opposition has arrived in China for talks with the Beijing government.

China has oil interests in the north African state and evacuated 30,000 of its workers at the start of the conflict in February.

As for NATO,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13826976

Libya has accused Nato of killing at least five people in an air strike that hit a house in the capital Tripoli.

The Libya government accused NATO for targeting civilians. Later, I believe NATO accepted that it was a mistake.

So far, I have seen anything positive for NATO.

 

[rootX]

http://www.carim.org/public/migrationprofiles/MP_Libya_EN.pdf

Some migration statistics since the unrest.

 

[Al68]

It is anathema in US to talk about democracy in workplace. The regime in most corporations is dictatorial and hierarchical. And it seems common sense to many people, since they do not know any different.

The reason it's common sense is that most realize that the term "democracy" refers to how government is controlled, not how private decisions are made by private citizens. Most corporations in the U.S. are privately owned, not owned by or a part of government, so the term "regime" is completely inapplicable. The relationships within a private corporation are private and voluntary.

The word democracy does not (necessarily) mean that every person is attached to puppet strings under majority control, it means only that government is attached to such puppet strings.

 

[Proton Soup]

Going back to Libya,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13853210

Beijing may be asked to consider giving financial assistance to the rebels; Italy, France, Kuwait and Qatar have pledged money so far.

i'm guessing this won't go over well at NATO. there was a lot of talks with the rebels about funding, but nothing seems to have shaken loose. so instead, it seems they are seeking hard currency from other sources.

as for what is up with NATO's attitude here, I'm not sure. but it seems a bit as if NATO wants to conduct the war on its own and leave the rebels out of it except for photo ops. and once they assassinate Gadaffi, they may want to choose their own leadership.

no doubt China would enjoy throwing a monkey wrench into all this and perhaps securing more of Libya's reserves for itself.

 

[rootX]

i'm guessing this won't go over well at NATO. there was a lot of talks with the rebels about funding, but nothing seems to have shaken loose. so instead, it seems they are seeking hard currency from other sources.

as for what is up with NATO's attitude here, I'm not sure. but it seems a bit as if NATO wants to conduct the war on its own and leave the rebels out of it except for photo ops. and once they assassinate Gadaffi, they may want to choose their own leadership.

no doubt China would enjoy throwing a monkey wrench into all this and perhaps securing more of Libya's reserves for itself.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts...es_now_officially_recognize_the_libyan_rebels
lists countries that have recognized Libya rebels group.

Canada was recent one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110615/ap_on_re_ca/cn_canada_libya_2

I am not sure about the position of China and Russia. Blog states:
"Russia and China. Both countries abstained in the Security Council vote authorizing a no-fly zone in Libya and have yet to cut off ties with Qaddafi. A Russian envoy might meet with him again this week in Tripoli. "

However, recognization is not equivalent to funding rebels.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Anyone know where a relatively up-to-date map/list of control over libya is? I've looked and can only seem to find reports into like march/april/early may with a list.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting comment Obama made while a candidate with implications here:

Savage asked Obama, "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

While the specific context of Savage’s question concerned Iranian nuclear plants, we think Obama’s answer raised some points that are relevant for assessing the justification for the Libyan operation three years later.

Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."...

Kal Raustiala, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor, said that, "on the merits, he is right now and was wrong then." Legal commentator Stuart Taylor Jr. said he sees "no plausible loophole. He may possibly be right now ... but if so, he was wrong then."

So where does this leave us? In 2007, Obama was adamant that the president did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no imminent threat to the U.S. But now he has authorized just such an action. Full Flop.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obamas-libya-intervention-flip-flop-what-he/

Now the War Powers implications of this are that he went much further than the War Powers Resolution with his statement: not even the WPR requires Congressional approval before a military engagement, only after.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p..._admiral_admits_we_are_trying_to_kill_qaddafi

...
House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that "regime change" is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.

"The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi's military, which includes Qaddafi," Turner said. "He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined."
...

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, this story was on the front section of CNN.com for less than a day...guess it wasn't all that important!

The United States now recognizes the main opposition group in Libya "as the legitimate governing authority" in a country that Moammar Gadhafi has long ruled with an iron first, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday.
U.S. recognition of the Transitional National Council is a major diplomatic policy shift that could give the rebels access to Libyan regime assets that have been frozen by the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/15/libya.us.recognition/index.html?iref=storysearch

Frankly, I just don't see the relevance of this move. Sure it means we can Robin-hood some of Muamar's money to the rebels, but is that really going to accomplish anything?

 

[Proton Soup]

Wow, this story was on the front section of CNN.com for less than a day...guess it wasn't all that important! http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/15/libya.us.recognition/index.html?iref=storysearch

Frankly, I just don't see the relevance of this move. Sure it means we can Robin-hood some of Muamar's money to the rebels, but is that really going to accomplish anything?

hmm, not sure. i remember reading something a few days ago about france being ready to negotiate with the old regime. whether it's about putting pressure on france or putting pressure on ghadafi, i can't tell.

"So I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, the United States will recognize the TNC as the legitimate governing authority for Libya, and we will deal with it on that basis."

The United States had previously stopped short of giving this recognition to the council, but Clinton said the body, based in Benghazi, Libya, "has offered important assurances today."

They include "the promise to pursue a process of democratic reform that is inclusive both geographically and politically, to uphold Libya's international obligations and to disburse funds in a transparent manner to address the humanitarian and other needs of the Libyan people."

it's not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement, terms may change, and conditions apply. how to interpret those "international obligations"? providing oil under previous terms in previously agreed currencies?

 

[rootX]

I also read on BBC about attempts to seek a diplomatic solution, it was very unclear how.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

Obama's lack of leadership is glaring yet again. He's taken heat throughout this event for being wishy-washy and not leading, but this is just too much. In a brief, token show of leadership, he asked for and got a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, but now he's not going to lead that effort? What the hell?!

This UN resolution has a very real chance of doing more harm than good. It gave Ghadaffi an internationally-sanctioned way out of the crisis that preserves his rule.

Criticism from Gingrich: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-loudly-has-no-stick/?iref=allsearch&hpt=Sbin

Note: Gingrich said that before Obama gave his speech this afternoon saying he wasn't going to support the NFZ with weapons.

I disagree with him on the first part, though: Obama talks eloquently when discussing vague generalities and idealistic principles, but when it comes to leadership, he talks mumblingly, not loudly. From downplaying terrorist attacks to giving confusing and contradictory messages to Egypt and Libya, he's proving what I always believed and often said: being a great public speaker is not the same as being a great leader. Much to my shock, he was able to convince people the Earth was flat with a few of his campaign promises, but I expected that when forced to start dealing with realities that require leadership, he'd start fumbling.

What have you said about Obama and his policies that hasn't proven to be wrong?

 

[FlexGunship]

What have you said about Obama and his policies that hasn't proven to be wrong?

To be fair, just because his prediction wasn't correct doesn't mean his assessment was wrong. In fact, most of what Russ said is/was true. It's just that it happened to work out well in this case. It isn't untrue to say that Obama was the one to spearheaded the push for civil war in Libya, and it isn't untrue to say that he then took a background role. Was civil war brewing? Yup. Would it have been this successful without international aid? Nope?

If the illustrious former-President Bush had done the exact same thing, people would be accusing him of trying to topple the Libyan government at the expensive of Libyan civilians for the purpose of driving oil prices down... or up (I can never remember what those war-based oil conspiracies are accused of trying to do).

Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[cobalt124]

I've just reread some of the earlier posts in this thread, and I'm still optimistic for the future of Libya. The rebels are talking about restraint and reconciliation, the Arab League, the West and emerging economies may all talk about assisting in reconstruction, the right sounds are being made, does the world have the will to make it happen? Don't know, it could all turn to cow dung yet. This does seem to be playing out differently in many ways than previous conflicts, hope things play out for the better. Obama did the right thing to step back and let other nations take responsibility.

 

[vici10]

Do Islamists take over in Libya?
The commander of the Libyan rebel Tripoli Military Council is Abdel Hakim Belhadj, former Emir of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was banned internationally as a terrorist organization following the 9/11 attacks.

From Sunday Telegraph:

The man now emerging as the rebels' main military commander, and in charge of the newly-unified military operations in Tripoli, may present problems of a different sort. Abdel Hakim Belhadj is a former commander in the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, once loosely allied to al-Qaeda. He was praised by Osama bin Laden's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as an "emir of the mujahideen" as recently as 2007.
Mr Belhadj spent time in Afghanistan and has been interrogated by the CIA.
In the 1990s, as LIFG commander, he stated that the group opposed all who advocate democracy or believed that Islam's victory could be achieved by any means other than jihad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8727426/Why-the-fall-of-Tripoli-will-not-be-another-Baghdad.html"

 

[rootX]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14703372

The leaders of the forces which deposed Col Gaddafi in Libya have said they do not intend to allow the extradition of the Lockerbie bomber.

"We will not hand over any Libyan nationals, it's Gaddafi who hands over Libyan nationals."

I find that tone bit troubling.

 

[rootX]

I've just reread some of the earlier posts in this thread, and I'm still optimistic for the future of Libya. The rebels are talking about restraint and reconciliation, the Arab League, the West and emerging economies may all talk about assisting in reconstruction, the right sounds are being made, does the world have the will to make it happen? Don't know, it could all turn to cow dung yet. This does seem to be playing out differently in many ways than previous conflicts, hope things play out for the better. Obama did the right thing to step back and let other nations take responsibility.

So far, the rebels have been united by the common enemy, Gaddafi. I think bringing Libya back to the track (and better than it was under Gaddafi) will be much more difficult than getting rid of Gaddafi.

I hope they stay united under centralized government once Gaddafi is killed.

 

[rootX]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14709896

The wife and three children of fugitive Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are in Algeria, Algerian officials say.

While, whereabouts of Gaddafi remains unknown.

 

[lisab]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14709896



While, whereabouts of Gaddafi remains unknown.

Looks like Sirte might be the last holdout. It's Gaddafi's hometown; I wonder if he's there.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/08/2011829134327176660.html"

 

[Dotini]

Ron Paul's statement on Libya and Syria, with which I wholly concur:

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/08/29/mission-accomplished-in-libya/

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[MarcoD]

Ron Paul's statement on Libya and Syria, with which I wholly concur:

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/08/29/mission-accomplished-in-libya/

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Ah bit too gloomy for my taste.

Despite the fact that there was no US formal government backing; the fact that the US and allies acted within a UN mandate I think actually falls better internationally than if they would have acted more or less completely on their own account.

The support in the Libyan civil war was done mostly by France and the UK, some other NATO members. I doubt many will feel this is a US enterprise. For a change, it was quiet nice to see Arabs cheering for French air support. (Though I have doubts about the UK/French position too, I think they overstretched far beyond their legal UN mandate, but for the moment it looks like their gamble worked out.)

I don't think the US came out any worse in this conflict. I am pretty sure Arabs care more about Israel, Iraq/Afghanistan and drones in Somalia and Yemen than anything else.

Of course the western world wants their oil. But they, Libya, also want our iPhones and German cars. Some will explain it as a big conspiracy for resources, but, in general, there were hardly NATO ground forces present and I think Libyans will respect that we didn't mess too much into internal affairs.

Was Gaddafi that bad? I have no idea. He seems to have a lousy track record of allies (Lockerbie and trying to ally -at some point- with fundamentalist pan-Arab islamic parties come to mind). But he also seems to have a rather good track record of emancipating the OPEC world to get the right value for their oil, repressing Islam fundamentalism, working somewhat towards women's emancipation, letting the people of Libya live within relative wealth, working towards an African emancipated continent (he was an admirer of Mandela), and not gassing part of its population like -for instance- Saddam Hussein did to Kurdish villages. After the Iraq war he was mostly pacified internationally. (Though no doubt he made local victims, but it seems to be in the range of hundreds, not tens of thousands.)

Gaddafi was a dictator and therefor a criminal and therefor the Libyan people are better off without him. They can do better than live under the ruling of a money-grabbing revolutionary. But as a 'cultural phenomenon,' I think I'll actually miss his to me 'amusing' anachronistic speeches and some of his, probably opportunistic, naive political ideas. (For instance, he believed the 'people' can do without political parties since the 'will of the people' will emerge anyway and parties can only be corrupt. It makes me laugh and even sympathize a bit with that.)

It seems to me that the guy just outstayed his visit; they grew tired of him. The only way, for better or worse, is forward.

The first victim of war is the truth - we just don't know what is going on in Libya. I don't like the fact that atrocities seem to be (have been) committed by both parties. There seems to be some, though little, ethnic cleansing of black African people by the rebel side, for example.

Fortunately, it looks that the 'rebel' forces are rather small. I have hardly seen more than fifteen cars at the same place. This makes me wonder whether there are more than 5-10k rebels involved in the whole effort, that's less than 1% of the population. Looks to me that most of the people are just staying at home until the whole storm blows over. I hope that also means that Libya will not deflate into another Somalia, or Iran.

Time will tell.

 

[MarcoD]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14703372

I find that tone bit troubling.

Who do you expect to be the front runners in a civil war against a dictatorship? Given what they had I expect opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, some business people, some intellectuals hoping for reform, but, mostly, a bunch of (mostly conservative) ultranationalists.

It doesn't surprise me. I am more worried about that they want to impose a form of Sharia law.

 

[rootX]

Who do you expect to be the front runners in a civil war against a dictatorship? Given what they had I expect opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, some business people, some intellectuals hoping for reform, but, mostly, a bunch of (mostly conservative) ultranationalists.

It doesn't surprise me. I am more worried about that they want to impose a form of Sharia law.

I believe it will take some years to see who is the winner among opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, business people, intellectuals*, ultranationalists, or unemployed youths.

*It seems like intellectuals grouped together to form NTC:
http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=8&ParentID=3&LangID=1

 

[cobalt124]

So far, the rebels have been united by the common enemy, Gaddafi. I think bringing Libya back to the track (and better than it was under Gaddafi) will be much more difficult than getting rid of Gaddafi.

I hope they stay united under centralized government once Gaddafi is killed.

Hopefully the common aim is an open democratic free Libya, if that's the case there is reason to still be optimistic, though that outcome in recent conflicts hasn't beeen the form.

I find that tone bit troubling.

Maybe, but its just words at the moment, the situation may change. I think its positive that they feel they can assert this (and other things) rather than tow the western line.

 

[MarcoD]

I believe it will take some years to see who is the winner among opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, business people, intellectuals*, ultranationalists, or unemployed youths.

*It seems like intellectuals grouped together to form NTC:
http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=8&ParentID=3&LangID=1

The thing is that I have absolutely no idea how Libya works. From what was quoted from the Green Book on Dutch radio, the doctrine was a hodge podge of socialism, marxism, anarchy, and romantic renaissance ideas which has its root in a (strong) conservative form of the bedouin (muslim) life style.

The society itself seems to be ruled as an anarchy with (dictatorial) revolutionary councils which make sure that everything 'runs' right.

To me, from the little I know, that feels like a odd mixture between the Wild West, anarchy, socialist capitalism and Islam Arab culture. If you take some of the culture and the revolutionary part out, I think most people in the US would feel right at home. (No government, no debt, free education.) Given how people are dressed, I think Gadaffi even didn't do very bad there (except for the murdering and repression of course).

The thing is that intellectuals can be conservative religious people, I think the head member studied Sharia law.

The fact that the majority of Libya is young, and for North-Africa, well-educated, doesn't mean a lot. A (humanist) democracy is the result of centuries of work. I don't expect a lot from young people who were educated under a revolutionary dictatorship (and look at other Arab nations, and get a lot wrong about western worlds).

As I stated in another thread, I am an empathic humanist. Try to explain that to a Libyan.

Of course, I will defend the right of everyone to be religious, or have their own life style, but I do find the Sharia sexist, gender discriminatory, and overly punative. (With all respect, the recognition that it has pretty normal, advanced, and morally right parts, and the acknowledgment that I know little about it.) Anyway, basing a law system on religion [where you can't opt out] to me doesn't feels like a step forward for a young population.

We can't do it, but in my heart I wouldn't mind freezing foreign Libyan accounts to press them to have no referral to Sharia in the constitution as a manner of protecting the public.

EDIT: To me it looks like the population just got fed up with the dictatorship, the revolutionary rhetoric, the fact that Gadaffi was grabbing money, and the fact that he was spending billions in Africa [instead of solving unemployment].

 

[cobalt124]

Ron Paul's statement on Libya and Syria, with which I wholly concur: http://original.antiwar.com/paul/201...shed-in-libya/

U.S. internal politics aside, for once the world decided, for whatever reason(s), and (IMO) did the right thing. Obama was neither isolationist or imperialist, but (again IMO) did the right thing. I don't see ground troops going into Libya, they are not even wanted by the Libyans. Syria is a totally different issue, I don't see how the U.S. could, even if they wanted too, bomb or invade Syria.

Despite the fact that there was no US formal government backing; the fact that the US and allies acted within a UN mandate I think actually falls better internationally than if they would have acted more or less completely on their own account.

I don't think the US came out any worse in this conflict.

Agreed

...But he also seems to have a rather good track record of emancipating the OPEC world to get the right value for their oil...working towards an African emancipated continent...

This would be good for the Middle East and Africa and hopefully they will continue to do this.

...repressing Islam fundamentalism...

He had his uses to the West.

...working somewhat towards women's emancipation...letting the people of Libya live within relative wealth...he was an admirer of Mandela...

I wouldn't give him credit for these myself, any real good would have been purely incidental, and his motives elsewhere.

...and not gassing part of its population...Though no doubt he made local victims, but it seems to be in the range of hundreds, not tens of thousands...

I suspect we may find otherwise what has happened over forty years.

Time will tell.

I'm still optimistic.

 

[MarcoD]

I agree with everything, except for this:

I wouldn't give him credit for these myself, any real good would have been purely incidental, and his motives elsewhere.

The actions of Gadaffi are mostly explained in western media as opportunistic. Obviously, the murders [, terrorism] and repression are easily condemnable, and I agree with that. But I just don't know about the 'opportunistic' rest, or whether it is even valid to explain his action in 'opportunistic' terms (we can just as easily do that for all actions of the west).

Given the murders and terrorist attacks, it is easy to condemn him on all of his other actions, but I prefer to believe that we just don't know, and that the best way of viewing him is as a revolutionary, and that on an international scale, the man is a criminal, but not as big a criminal as he could have been, or other repressive regimes are, or were.

For instance, he could also have led his people into a military march of the people, and pull of a massive genocide on intellectuals (China), or against a part of the population (Kosovo/Iraq/Rwanda). As far as we know, he didn't do that.

I'm still optimistic.

Me too. But there are also large obstacles to be overtaken.

Iraq democracy seems to have failed (which was explained in Dutch media) as that the people just don't know what democracy is, see it as an opportunistic/nepotistic enterprise, and just vote for the people who will allow them the maximal number of favors.
[How to avoid this from happening in a country which has virtually no democratic legacy?]

USSR's overturn to capitalism seems to have brought forth another one party state where individuals just seized control of privatized parts of the state, and now there are multi-billionairs without having to show anything for it.
[How to avoid individual council members from just seizing parts of the oil production rights or machinery?]

Iran's overturn brought forth a repressive fundamentalist Islam state.
[How to avoid a fundamentalist scenario when there is no alternative in a democratic 'void' except for conservative Islamism?]

Somalia degraded into total anarchy.
[How to avoid this in a country without an army, government, but with lots of armed individuals?]

All these scenarios are there. I hope for the best too.

 

[Proton Soup]

I believe it will take some years to see who is the winner among opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, business people, intellectuals*, ultranationalists, or unemployed youths.

*It seems like intellectuals grouped together to form NTC:
http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=8&ParentID=3&LangID=1

which ones are the intellectuals? from the only two with bios there, the theme seems to be privatization. which to me simply means business.

 

[MarcoD]

which ones are the intellectuals? from the only two with bios there, the theme seems to be privatization. which to me simply means business.

I doubt this is true. A substantial part of the Arab attributes the 'moral degradation' of the western world to secularization and capitalism. I doubt privatization will be the theme.

 

[rootX]

which ones are the intellectuals? from the only two with bios there, the theme seems to be privatization. which to me simply means business.

Most of the members, including the chairman, are doctorate holders, which I took to be equivalent of intellectuals.Today's update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

US and UK spy agencies built close ties with their Libyan counterparts during the so-called War on Terror, according to documents discovered at the office of Col Gaddafi's former spy chief.

There was also one news about NTC attempting to control young rebels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14770357

Libya's new civilian leaders are beginning the process of restoring order in Tripoli after the revolution.

But there are large numbers of armed young rebel soldiers on the streets of Tripoli who have moved into the power vacuum created by Col Gaddafi overthrow, says our correspondent, and the NTC is now gradually persuading them to go home.

NTC is claiming that most rebels are doctors/engineers/lawyers who can return to their normal lives. This is contrary to what Gaddafi called these rebels in his early speeches, "young people duped with drugs and alcohol".

 

[leontd]

Unbelievable, why doesn't the UN do something about it?

 

[Dotini]

I find it amusing that we are now reported to be supporting some of the very same people we used to torture and kill. On the surface this might seem inconsistent.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/03/cia-cooperated-with-gadhafi-on-torture-and-renditions/
The Central Intelligence Agency rendered terrorism suspects to Muammar Gadhafi’s Libya, knowing they would be tortured, according to documents uncovered in Tripoli.

The documents were found by the Human Rights Watch in the abandoned offices of Libya’s former spy chief and foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, a notorious figure known for repressing Libyan dissidents.

One of those rendered and tortured, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, is now the military commander in Tripoli for the rebels’ Transitional National Council. ”He was captured by the CIA in Asia and put on a secret flight back to Libya where he was interrogated and tortured by the Libyan security services,” Human Rights Watch’s Peter Bouckaert told Reuters.

Belhadji claims he was tortured by the CIA, and then tortured again at Tripoli’s notorious Abu Salim prison after rendition. He is also reportedly a former member of al Qaeda. That he is now part of a provisional government supported by the US indicates a stark inconsistency in American foreign policy.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve