IMMIGRATION thread

[AE Bravo]

Oh, my bad. It really is essential reading if you want to talk about Libya, here are some excerpts:

NATO started bombing forces in Qaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, where they represented no threat to civilians because the residents supported the regime.32

Cites - 32. Praveen Swami, Rosa Prince, and Toby Harnden, “Coalition Forces Strike Sirte; Leader’s Home Town,” Daily Telegraph, March 28, 2011.

Qaddafi’s forces commenced a massive counteroffensive on March 7. Within two days, government troops had retaken Ras Lanuf in the east, the biggest mountain town of Gharyan in the west, and Zawiya near the capital. Just one week later, Qaddafi had recaptured virtually all significantly populated areas west of the rebels’ stronghold of Benghazi (see agure 3). A small part of Misurata remained contested, but the rebels there were doomed because they had no access to supplies, given that Qaddafi now controlled both the sea and land lines of communication to the city.

In the preceding week, the rebels had not put up any real defense; they possessed only the rudimentary equipment and training needed to start a rebellion, not to win a war. They retreated, typically within two days, from each successive town that the army targeted on its eastward march: Ras Lanuf, Brega, and Ajdabiya. Based on this progression, government forces probably would have captured Benghazi by March 20. The remaining small towns farther east along the coast almost surely would have fallen the following week, prompting the rebels to flee to Egypt for refuge. Without NATO intervention, therefore, Libya’s rebellion and civil war—and resulting endangerment of civilians—likely would have ended by late March 2011, less than six weeks after the conflict had started.

There is no reason to believe, however, that a bloodbath would have occurred in Benghazi, considering that Qaddafi had not threatened to attack civilians there and had not perpetrated such violence in any of the other cities that his forces recaptured from rebels (see table 1).

In light of this ongoing instability and insecurity, it is perhaps understand- able that many Libyans are nostalgic for a strong leader such as Qaddafi, who at minimum maintained order and provided basic social services. The country’s national survey after the war, conducted in late December 2011, reported that 54 percent of respondents “strongly agree” the country needs “a (single) strong Libyan leader.”86

the former Libyan leader had evolved into a relatively benign figure during his last decade. He switched from supporting terrorists to providing intelligence against them following the September 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks on the United States. He reduced aid to foreign rebels and instead sponsored peace initiatives, including for the Darfur region of Sudan. He dismantled and surrendered his weapons of mass destruction program after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Indeed, NATO intervention against Qaddafi after he had voluntarily disarmed is likely to hinder future nonproliferation efforts elsewhere. Accordingly, it is difficult to identify any obvious benefit for the region or beyond from NATO’s intervention in Libya.

Also, it's worth noting that black Libyans weren't systematically displaced and imprisoned under Qaddafi. Racists took over the country and looted their homes, treating blacks like refugees in their own country. These "mercenaries" of Qaddafi were Libyans fighting for Libya and defending its stability, they voluntarily sided with him. Haftar was a military commander in the 80s but lived in the US until he saw that NATO was willing to help rebels.

This is not what Libyans fought for and their revolution was ruined for the actual rebels, the good Libyans who wanted non-violent change. NATO created a field where militias control entire cities, this fragmented the country and there's no coming back from that any time soon.