Libya better w/o Gaddafi or not?

[HopAlongBunny]

The views range.
Anything would be better than life under Gaddafi; or ; from wealthiest African nation to complete basket case, Gaddafi was better than what happened next.

The pro side seems to discount the general fall in standard of living, ruined infrastructure, women's rights being reversed and continual violence.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/1...073901622.html

The con side points to the above problems:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-...ention/5408740

Some of the difference may rest with tribal/religious divisions; some did better under Gaddafi than others.
Some may be so wedded to free speech that any sacrifice is worth it; again though post revolution speech is tricky...and can still get you killed.
Was it just a gift to the MIC and the only freedom anyone was interested in was access to oil?

[Fragony]

Gadaffi wanted to use a different currency, that's all it takes. Nobody is better off.

[spmetla]

Anything would be better than life under Gaddafi; or ; from wealthiest African nation to complete basket case, Gaddafi was better than what happened next.

They could have been better off if anyone had actually planned for post-Gaddafi. Instead Obama was happy to support our allies but not on the ground, the French who started the intervention weren't about to get involved on the ground and the Brits wouldn't if the French and US weren't. It was a perfect example of a repeat of Bush '43's naivete but in the guise of Sarkozy. Kill the dictator and then magical democracy will bring flowers and prosperity to the country.

If the French (and ideally the Italians) had been willing to go on the ground as they did in Mali (which was fallout of the flawed Libyan intervention) then perhaps there could have been a better situation. I know their colonial history with Algeria and Tunisia next door would make it extremely unpopular in the Arab world but the French seemed to do a good info campaign for Mali so perhaps they could have done one for Libya too.

Bombing campaigns don't lead to peace unless there's a truly friendly ground element ready to defeat the enemy and impose the system 'we' or the 'freedom fighters' want in the first place. It's the modern equivalent of sending in gunboats to shell a unfriendly port but with far greater negative impacts.

[rory_20_uk]

For us - definitely better with Gaddafi. He was a bastard, but mainly a known quantity. He helped keep a lid on economic immigrants to South Europe.

For the locals... probably depends on which group you're from. On balance, probably better with him - but it is a close call.

The country should be recreated into the three different blocks - do the whole post-colonialism thing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think it may be a bit like Brexit. There is the potential for good things a decade or more down the road, but most of the short term things just suck and the short term could still derail the long term.


In general, I do not like the "keep the murdering thug on the throne because at least he keeps all of their problems from affecting any of us who really count" attitude that seems to attach itself to those like Gaddafi or Hussein or Assad or Pahlavi. I understand the inclination -- less bothersome things to deal with -- but I am not much of a fan of Avoidance as a conflict management strategy. It always seems to bite you in the posterior eventually.


My thoughts are towards the nation-building issue raised by our Taplow-on-Thames Darkside medic.

The large bulk of successful revolutions quickly become civil wars as the new power arrangements are worked out. I live in one of the fortunate countries that did have a successful revolution but did not have to have a few years of blood-letting to follow just to sort out the power arrangements for the new regime. We kept it to a simple 'kick out the ones who backed the losers by social ostracism' level for the most part.

I think that if you DO intervene in a revolution to aid/effect the victory of one side that you are morally obligated to expend the military effort to help suppress terrorism and violence and to allow for a comparatively peaceful assumption of power by some new government of/by/for the locals. Whether this involves partition or the return of a monarchy or whatever depends on the situation at hand. In the interim, while that is developing, is a period of years wherein you need to provide 10-1 (or 7-1 with good helicopters) ratios of security forces to radicals/guerilla to suppress most of the guerilla/terrorist violence.

The USA failed to do this in Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO failed to do this in Libya, and we will fail to do this in Syria as well.

[Agent Miles]

No nation, to include your favorite democracy, is better off in chaos and without central authority. Numerous website guides spell out how to institute regime change. The "Arab Spring" was not a bunch of Pollyannas whisking away dictators by sticking a flower down the barrel of an AK-47. Really clever groups of anarchists used really clever, well-organized revolt to paralyze weak despots. Cell phones and social media allow communication within these groups and to the outside media. Students are not chosen as demonstrators, but instead their older mothers and grandmothers march for change. No one would dare open fire on them. The wives of police chiefs and military officers are berated in groceries or on the street until their husbands strike by "calling in sick". Despite their indigenous language, select protestors carry signs in English for the western camera crews. These groups may be populated at first by lots of "useful idiots", but anarchists just want to destroy any authority. Chaos brings opportunity. Once everything crashes, then the group that offers order, starts giving the orders. Nothing good will happen in Libya because no one good is doing anything.

[rory_20_uk]

Lybia has oil. The leaders of the groups are already selling the oil - and of course exploiting people trafficking and probably several other sidelines. Why on earth would they want to bother with running the rest of the country? There's no money in that! When the state appearance of a functioning state needs to be maintained (e.g. Nigeria) the leading thugs will do so. But they're not going to rebuild a country to steal the resource they are already stealing.

[Agent Miles]

ISIS and Al Qaeda don't care about the oil. The oil groups are just useful idiots.

[rory_20_uk]

ISIS and Al Qaeda don't care about the oil. The oil groups are just useful idiots.

Depends on one's perspectives. For the crooks siphoning the money, the militant Islamic nut-jobs are the useful idiots since they provide a lovely cover / bigger problem.

[Agent Miles]

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

Works for nut jobs too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When the dictator is buried with the taters, you either nation-build and accept that cost or let the thing degenerate into civil war/warlordism and remain a perpetual hell hole. Warlordism is one of the natural forms of governance to which humankind reverts (its a variant on the youth gang).

[rory_20_uk]

[spmetla]

When the dictator is buried with the taters, you either nation-build and accept that cost or let the thing degenerate into civil war/warlordism and remain a perpetual hell hole. Warlordism is one of the natural forms of governance to which humankind reverts (its a variant on the youth gang).

Seeing as Libya is on the European periphery option B should never have been seen as a damn choice.

It's still able to be 'fixed' if the European nations had the will to do it. All of the neighboring countries would appreciate the intervention and would do their part to assist and not allow safe havens.

Establish a EU or UN "protectorate of Tripolitania" and "protectorate of Cyrenaica" and do the provincial level and national level governance for them by using EU or UN security forces and court systems. If security and legality can be restored then so can the economy, especially in a country with oil.

It's got a relatively small population that mostly hugs the coast. Not too much for mountains and most importantly the neighboring countries would likely not harbor terrorists and warlords or provide equipment and money as the Iranians and Pakistanis did for Iraq/Afghanistan.
The routes through the desert are limited and certainly more controllable than any comparable border in say Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan is.

Yes, this method would be literally colonialism again but the current mess is how the North African colonies started anyhow with the Barbary coast pirates being such a nuisance that the French invaded to deal with the mess and just govern it directly. So long as the EU nations made it clear that they didn't intend to keep Libya for themselves they could probably sell the idea to the locals who by and large would like it minus the warlords and islamists who would be the major losers. Having actual slave markets operating in North Africa again should be unacceptable to the UN and action should be taken instead of letting it continue to fester in hope that one warlord can create stability which would just lead to a return of a dictator.

[Pannonian]

No nation, to include your favorite democracy, is better off in chaos and without central authority. Numerous website guides spell out how to institute regime change. The "Arab Spring" was not a bunch of Pollyannas whisking away dictators by sticking a flower down the barrel of an AK-47. Really clever groups of anarchists used really clever, well-organized revolt to paralyze weak despots. Cell phones and social media allow communication within these groups and to the outside media. Students are not chosen as demonstrators, but instead their older mothers and grandmothers march for change. No one would dare open fire on them. The wives of police chiefs and military officers are berated in groceries or on the street until their husbands strike by "calling in sick". Despite their indigenous language, select protestors carry signs in English for the western camera crews. These groups may be populated at first by lots of "useful idiots", but anarchists just want to destroy any authority. Chaos brings opportunity. Once everything crashes, then the group that offers order, starts giving the orders. Nothing good will happen in Libya because no one good is doing anything.

Unfortunately for us, in that region, one existing force offers unity, a state, and existing familiarity. When there is instability in the region, this force will naturally come to the fore, as the only thing that offers stability. That's why it's never a good idea to destabilise the region.

[Pannonian]

Seeing as Libya is on the European periphery option B should never have been seen as a damn choice.

It's still able to be 'fixed' if the European nations had the will to do it. All of the neighboring countries would appreciate the intervention and would do their part to assist and not allow safe havens.

Establish a EU or UN "protectorate of Tripolitania" and "protectorate of Cyrenaica" and do the provincial level and national level governance for them by using EU or UN security forces and court systems. If security and legality can be restored then so can the economy, especially in a country with oil.

It's got a relatively small population that mostly hugs the coast. Not too much for mountains and most importantly the neighboring countries would likely not harbor terrorists and warlords or provide equipment and money as the Iranians and Pakistanis did for Iraq/Afghanistan.
The routes through the desert are limited and certainly more controllable than any comparable border in say Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan is.

Yes, this method would be literally colonialism again but the current mess is how the North African colonies started anyhow with the Barbary coast pirates being such a nuisance that the French invaded to deal with the mess and just govern it directly. So long as the EU nations made it clear that they didn't intend to keep Libya for themselves they could probably sell the idea to the locals who by and large would like it minus the warlords and islamists who would be the major losers. Having actual slave markets operating in North Africa again should be unacceptable to the UN and action should be taken instead of letting it continue to fester in hope that one warlord can create stability which would just lead to a return of a dictator.

Iraq.

[spmetla]

Iraq

Not really a response there. Libya is not Iraq and has a whole host of factors that would allow for the restoration of security, biggest being the lack of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as neighbors. When your neighbors harbor and fund terrorists it's kinda hard to restore order. Libya has friendly neighbors, a relatively lawless Saharan region and a small population in a small strip mostly along the coast. There's also far less military grade explosives floating (for use as IEDs) around seeing as Libya had a relatively small military unlike Saddam whose military at one point was the 4th largest in the world and had munitions stockpiles to match.

The example of French intervention in neighboring Mali and EU intervention in neighboring Chad are examples of such.

[Pannonian]

Not really a response there. Libya is not Iraq and has a whole host of factors that would allow for the restoration of security, biggest being the lack of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as neighbors. When your neighbors harbor and fund terrorists it's kinda hard to restore order. Libya has friendly neighbors, a relatively lawless Saharan region and a small population in a small strip mostly along the coast. There's also far less military grade explosives floating (for use as IEDs) around seeing as Libya had a relatively small military unlike Saddam whose military at one point was the 4th largest in the world and had munitions stockpiles to match.

The example of French intervention in neighboring Mali and EU intervention in neighboring Chad are examples of such.

"Not in our name". Intervention of any kind is toxic.

[Husar]

The intervention in Mali was apparently aimed at helping the legitimate and somewhat popular* government in repelling outside invaders, seems quite different from going to Libya to establish some western order there, potentially against the will of the local population.
The argument that they can't fight back due to lack of ammunitions is somewhat morally bankrupt...
Not to forget that the current situation was mostly established by your intervention.


*at least more than the invaders

[Pannonian]

Not really a response there. Libya is not Iraq and has a whole host of factors that would allow for the restoration of security, biggest being the lack of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as neighbors. When your neighbors harbor and fund terrorists it's kinda hard to restore order. Libya has friendly neighbors, a relatively lawless Saharan region and a small population in a small strip mostly along the coast. There's also far less military grade explosives floating (for use as IEDs) around seeing as Libya had a relatively small military unlike Saddam whose military at one point was the 4th largest in the world and had munitions stockpiles to match.

The example of French intervention in neighboring Mali and EU intervention in neighboring Chad are examples of such.

Also, if you think "Iraq" isn't really a response, let me present to you exhibit A, which is entirely typical of the argument. NB. the article is how exit from the EU will degrade the UK's economy to the point where it will be more difficult for any Labour government to fulfil its domestic promises. I'll quote some of the comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42558162

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Why is the BBC giving airtime to this war criminal? One of the most disgusting, mercenary, sanctimonious and hypocritical leaders in memory. And now mis-using his former position to undermine the democratic will of the British people. Filth on any definition of the word.

Blair is the most discredited politician in the UK and should be in jail for war crimes. His main publicist is now the BBC, a publicly- funded broadcaster committed to propping up the metropolitan elite with its self-righteous bile. Blair and the BBC deserve the dislike and distrust of the British public that seems to grow by the day.

tony blair have you found those weapons of mass destruction yet? well when you do you then can have the right to comment. why do the media give him any air time.....hes a busted flush and no longer relavent anymore.

I hate this man, he is a lunatic and has blood on his hands. Please sign
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200165

We all trusted Bliar when he claimed he had credible evidence of WMDs. He lied. That was criminal and unforgiveable. Millions of Iraqis suffered. He now has the gall to expect us to listen to him now. He should be tried and imprisoned if found guilty. May, a previous Remainer, is prepared to accept the validity of the Brexit case and fight the corner. Bliar does not have that info.

Said blair... the war criminal

From the man who misled the public into an illegal war - does he really think so little of the people that he believes we will ever believe another word he says. This horrible man represents the worst of the wesminster metropolitan elite arrogantly telling 17.4m voters they were too stupid to know what they voted for and should trust and believe what he says. Send him back to his Tuscany villa.

Blair should be made to face the families of the dead service men he sent to war due to his lies.
Anyone who listens to this war criminal should be ashamed of them selves.

NBB. This article is about economics and how future governments can/cannot fulfil their promises given the state of the economy we are entering into. Imagine what the comments would be if the issue being discussed is actually foreign intervention.

[Fragony]

Comments are not a source

MSM isn't either it are just bedtimemoms, the ministry of truth

[Pannonian]

Comments are not a source

MSM isn't either it are just bedtimemoms, the ministry of truth

Commenters and their like voted to bring us out of the EU, with many citing the reason for their vote as who was campaigning for Remain. There will be a sizeable population for each past PM who will take this view on whatever issue they are currently commenting on, with the HIGNFY-esque argument "Is this the... who... Maybe they should just shut up.", thus shutting down all reasoned argument on any issue. And like I said, this is an article on something completely unrelated to Iraq. If the issue being discussed is foreign intervention, multiply this manifold.

[rory_20_uk]

Commenters and their like voted to bring us out of the EU, with many citing the reason for their vote as who was campaigning for Remain. There will be a sizeable population for each past PM who will take this view on whatever issue they are currently commenting on, with the HIGNFY-esque argument "Is this the... who... Maybe they should just shut up.", thus shutting down all reasoned argument on any issue. And like I said, this is an article on something completely unrelated to Iraq. If the issue being discussed is foreign intervention, multiply this manifold.

Try as I might, as soon as I hear Tony is positive about something I am instantly viewing it in a negative light.

However, you too appear to be simplifying the reasons people have for leaving the EU rather a bit.

[Pannonian]

Try as I might, as soon as I hear Tony is positive about something I am instantly viewing it in a negative light.

However, you too appear to be simplifying the reasons people have for leaving the EU rather a bit.

During the referendum campaign, it was Cameron who was the toxic personality who needed a kicking, with Blair keeping out because of his toxicity. But either way, that's people taking against a position simply because of who was arguing for it. And there will be significant populations who will take that line for each former PM. Reasoned arguments get shoved aside simply because of the "Is the... who... Maybe he should just shut up" factor. HIGNFY gets away with it because they're a comedy programme who live on cheap laughs. However, more and more, politics is operating in this way.

[rory_20_uk]

During the referendum campaign, it was Cameron who was the toxic personality who needed a kicking, with Blair keeping out because of his toxicity. But either way, that's people taking against a position simply because of who was arguing for it. And there will be significant populations who will take that line for each former PM. Reasoned arguments get shoved aside simply because of the "Is the... who... Maybe he should just shut up" factor. HIGNFY gets away with it because they're a comedy programme who live on cheap laughs. However, more and more, politics is operating in this way.

I was meaning in general. I know it nonsensical and my entire job is about reviewing data from a neutral standpoint and yet I still am affected by a politician who has been out for over a decade. So dare I say I am so badly affected I can only conclude that most people are even more swayed by factors which are completely irrelevant. It is quite depressing.

[Fragony]

Commenters and their like voted to bring us out of the EU, with many citing the reason for their vote as who was campaigning for Remain. There will be a sizeable population for each past PM who will take this view on whatever issue they are currently commenting on, with the HIGNFY-esque argument "Is this the... who... Maybe they should just shut up.", thus shutting down all reasoned argument on any issue. And like I said, this is an article on something completely unrelated to Iraq. If the issue being discussed is foreign intervention, multiply this manifold.

You were probably right the whole time, but at least play fair

[Agent Miles]

Sixty years ago, Egypt and Syria pretended to be the United Arab Republic for 3 years. Egypt has lots of people and little oil. Libya has the opposite. A merger would average this out and Arabs would be policing Arabs. Otherwise, any group wishing to gamble with a trillion euros of occupation aid can try this:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/repository/FM307/FM3-07.pdf

Saif Islam Gaddafi (POS Dictator jr.) may win a so called election this year, so Libya would then no longer be "w/o Gaddafi".

Once again, should the West only do business with the really nice people in the world? Before you post, remember that Assad is going to remain the leader in Syria. Is a return to order better than a second Somalia or Islamic State? No one knows what the Libyans want and they may not know themselves. They apparently don't want what they have now. It's a horrible situation with people dying every day. If the choice is hard to make and you feel that everyone in the world will probably hate your choice, just swallow hard and pretend that you're an American.

[spmetla]

The argument that they can't fight back due to lack of ammunitions is somewhat morally bankrupt...
Not to forget that the current situation was mostly established by your intervention.

They can fight back just fine, the point about the IEDs is in how generally destructive they are to everyone in the local environment. The biggest victim of IEDs in Iraq was not the coalition military but Iraqi civilians. The terrorists there had no qualms about regularly killing and wounding dozens of civilians and destroying infrastructure in attacks against coalition vehicles.
In iraq it also created an actual IED manufacture industry in which professional bomb makers would essentially make these weapons for which ever group wanted to buy them.
The enemy not having such destructive weapons does help though :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrT2lwEk8cg#t=00m27s

I fully understand the current situation is due to that intervention. That intervention I'm sure you can agree was half baked. As Pannonian said all interventions are toxic, I'll agree to that but with caveats. In regards to Libya, the intervention is already done but only in regards to killing Gaddafis regime, next to nothing was done to prevent the current descent into violence which I feel was the bigger crime than intervening to prevent Gaddafis squashing of the Arab Spring revolt. If there were a ability to go back in time I'd be completely against Sarkozy leading NATO into Libya but seeing as time travel isn't possible playing should've isn't the best.
As I've made clear I think it's in the interest of the EU and regions of north and central Africa to 'fix' Libya. That unfortunately won't happen on its own. Allowing the current situation to fester allows it to descend into the Somalia and Yemen levels of instability.
As for imposing a western style system, I wouldn't go that far. A stable country or countries that at the very least don't harbor terrorists, smuggle people into Europe, and enslave refugees and migrants would be nice for starters. So long as the resulting government isn't essentially at war with the west it would be a good result, preferably in the form parliamentary democracy of sorts. Seeing as democracy takes time to work and requires that the opposing parties don't have armed militias to contest unfavorable results is why I'd see a period of occupation and management by EU or UN powers as necessary.

The current situation has the country essentially split into a East and West as it has been historically (half is culturally more berber and looks to North Africa the other half toward the more arab middle east). My proposition is largely to legitimize this and speed along security and rule of law.

Also, if you think "Iraq" isn't really a response, let me present to you exhibit A, which is entirely typical of the argument. NB. the article is how exit from the EU will degrade the UK's economy to the point where it will be more difficult for any Labour government to fulfil its domestic promises. I'll quote some of the comments.

I'm not advocating for the UK to step into the mire of Libya and I fully understand why any government would not want to step into there. It is a shame how Blair's reputation went from great to war criminal over Iraq seeing as he largely led the US into forming its policies to stop the Yugoslav civil wars as well as bring about more liberal governments in Africa.
This is very much a problem directly for the EU nations, especially France and Italy. The UK since 1964 has surrendered its old role in the middle east outside of supporting the US and I certainly don't expect them to try to regain that level of influence again.

[Fragony]

Ever considered that nothing can be done?

[spmetla]

Yes, that's what we're doing right now and will probably continue to do.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, that's what we're doing right now and will probably continue to do.

Buying the oil and sending some assets to disincentivise the smugglers is about all we should be doing. We've already done enough damage.