Civil War in Libya

[ICantSpellDawg]

We are their democratic tradition. People pretend that other people from other cultures are from another planet. Our tradition is theirs and theirs is ours. We will see what will happen, but any nation not jumping into the information revolution will be at a debilitating disadvantage in the developing global economy. People are starting to get this fact all over the world. Many arab kids who use the internet have more in common with American kids who use the internet than either of them do with their own parents. Adults don't seem to understand the world in the ways that the youth do. Years ago it was in reverse, but now while the adults have increased their understanding in a linear way, youth has recieved exponential benefits.

Most people want the same things. 'Not having a democratic tradition" is the worst excuse ever, the same a it was in Japan during WW2, Korea, Eastern Europe, Turkey, etc. Libyans can look to Turkey, look to Indonesia, look to Morrocco, look to any number of Arab muslim, non-arab muslim, western, etc for guidance and "alien tradition" for human inspiration.

Western reluctance to support these protests is primarily based on fear of the unknown, greed and an indifference to global events. I have more confidence that we will get over that.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We are their democratic tradition. People pretend that other people from other cultures are from another planet. Our tradition is theirs and theirs is ours. We will see what will happen, but any nation not jumping into the information revolution will be at a debilitating disadvantage in the developing global economy. People are starting to get this fact all over the world. Many arab kids who use the internet have more in common with American kids who use the internet than either of them do with their own parents. Adults don't seem to understand the world in the ways that the youth do. Years ago it was in reverse, but now while the adults have increased their understanding in a linear way, youth has recieved exponential benefits.

Most people want the same things.

I'm fascinated by the assertion that "we are their democratic tradition". Could you expand on the thesis?

Whereas there are some common threads in Western democracies, each is a product of the individual country's history and culture. Even quite closely related cultures such as the UK and the USA have significantly different democracies and traditions.

The internet is merely a form of communication - it does not surmount cultural biases (any review of the Backroom demonstrates that). I would also note that Western democracies are in a state of (perhaps terminal) decline in the face of corporate power expressed through narrowing oligarchies. None of this is a model - in my opinion - for emerging popular movements in nations which have, for too long, been reliant on autocratic central powers rather than the citizenry and its expressed will.

LEN is entirely right - we have no right to attempt an "export" of our flawed version of democracy to cultures that have entirely different histories and economic conditions. That will not stop the Western powers trying to influence and meddle, because we have too much of our own economies tied up in the region (not to mention the thorny problems of Israel's security and how we view any "will of the people" that installs an Islamic theocracy).

[Goofball]

I'm fascinated by the assertion that "we are their democratic tradition". Could you expand on the thesis?

Whereas there are some common threads in Western democracies, each is a product of the individual country's history and culture. Even quite closely related cultures such as the UK and the USA have significantly different democracies and traditions.

The internet is merely a form of communication - it does not surmount cultural biases (any review of the Backroom demonstrates that). I would also note that Western democracies are in a state of (perhaps terminal) decline in the face of corporate power expressed through narrowing oligarchies. None of this is a model - in my opinion - for emerging popular movements in nations which have, for too long, been reliant on autocratic central powers rather than the citizenry and its expressed will.

LEN is entirely right - we have no right to attempt an "export" of our flawed version of democracy to cultures that have entirely different histories and economic conditions. That will not stop the Western powers trying to influence and meddle, because we have too much of our own economies tied up in the region (not to mention the thorny problems of Israel's security and how we view any "will of the people" that installs an Islamic theocracy).

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

But that is exporting our own political dogma.


Who are we to decide that there should not be an authoritarian leader who can use force to protect the interests of himself and his class? To interfere in this would be to spread demcracy and human rights as understood by the West.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, nice crossover wuith the Charlie Sheen thread:

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?

The US actor and the Libyan leader have produced some choice lines recently. Can you distinguish between them?



Quiztime!

Such awesomeness: 'I have defeated this earthworm with my words – imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists'. But is it Gaddafi or Sheen?

[Lemur]

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?

The US actor and the Libyan leader have produced some choice lines recently. Can you distinguish between them?

Quiztime!

There's now an improved version: Gadaffi, Sheen, or Glenn Beck?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

No, I don't - unless we consider it a principled obligation and apply it equally whenever there are significant breaches of human rights. Therefore, when we gear up to invade China to protect their civilians, we can add Libya to the list.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, I don't - unless we consider it a principled obligation and apply it equally whenever there are significant breaches of human rights. Therefore, when we gear up to invade China to protect their civilians, we can add Libya to the list.

Well we can't invade China because we'll lose.

But it are practical considerations such as that that indeed mark the limit I would put on humanitarian intervention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy as a matter of course. And we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable.
One can oust Gadaffi if the situation became desperate, although the better scenario is to leave it to market forces. He who, and that which, emerges victorious in Libya can subsequently reasonably be assumed to have a workable power base, for he wouldn't have won elsewise.



I blame Iraq for destroying the appetite for humanitarian intervention. And Kosovo. In the former a US administration hijacked and made a mockery of the wish to do good and to make sacrifices to spread democracy, sadly, right in America, the one country that is not completely cynical about these things. The latter was a case of aiding one evil against another. Not an unmitigated disaster, for both warring parties were separated, but still best to think about while holding one's nose.

[Ronin]

Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy defend out interests as a matter of course.

there...fixed it for you.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well we can't invade China because we'll lose.

Precisely. So inevitably, foreign interventions are not based on ethics but on practicality. To me, the practicality is no intervention at all.

But it are practical considerations such as that that indeed mark the limit I would put on humanitarian intervention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy as a matter of course. And we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable.
One can oust Gadaffi if the situation became desperate, although the better scenario is to leave it to market forces. He who, and that which, emerges victorious in Libya can subsequently reasonably be assumed to have a workable power base, for he wouldn't have won elsewise.

One cannot assume anything of the sort - the "victor" may be nothing of the sort a few days or months later. Tunisian secret police are already rounding people up in that "liberated" country. You of all people will be aware of how revolutions can turn out. In the end, all may be well, but that is up to the people who suffer through the change, not any external agency whose suffering is always likely to be minimal in comparison.

But to go back to the first point - surely your argument is "we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable, subject to the caveat that the tyranny hasn't got big guns, nukes or pointed sticks, lords over a sufficiently small population that we can be absolutely sure won't turn on us next, isn't supplying us with gas/oil/dried fruit on favourable terms, isn't sub-Saharan Africa, isn't in possession of a topography with mountains, jungles or Bradford, and with the proviso that 'intolerable' is a moveable feast if the aforesaid tyrant spends his money in Harrods."

I blame Iraq for destroying the appetite for humanitarian intervention. And Kosovo. In the former a US administration hijacked and made a mockery of the wish to do good and to make sacrifices to spread democracy, sadly, right in America, the one country that is not completely cynical about these things. The latter was a case of aiding one evil against another. Not an unmitigated disaster, for both warring parties were separated, but still best to think about while holding one's nose.

Humanitarian intervention was a lie before either of those two disasters, but they do graphically illustrate why such measures invariably go horribly wrong, usually at the expense of a lot of local people who are volunteered for martyrdom in the names of our "principles" and invariably with political consequences in the country so liberated that no-one could foresee.

Perhaps you are a devotee of the "Rumsfeld Arrangement" - ie the population will be so grateful for our intervention they will immediately strew our path with rose petals and the world will be in harmony as one?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Precisely. So inevitably, foreign interventions are not based on ethics but on practicality. To me, the practicality is no intervention at all.

But to go back to the first point - surely your argument is "we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable, subject to the caveat that the tyranny hasn't got big guns, nukes or pointed sticks, lords over a sufficiently small population that we can be absolutely sure won't turn on us next, isn't supplying us with gas/oil/dried fruit on favourable terms, isn't sub-Saharan Africa, isn't in possession of a topography with mountains, jungles or Bradford, and with the proviso that 'intolerable' is a moveable feast if the aforesaid tyrant spends his money in Harrods."

Gah! Multiple quotes with multiple answers quickly become unreadable to third parties. Just to set an example and to satisfy my need to be insufferably smug at least once a day, I shall take your two quotes and reply to them with one single, uninterrupted answer, to show how it is done:

You give an excellent - so sad it becomes humorous - description of our humanitarian policy. However, I was not making a descriptive, but a normative statement. As far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy to an extent limited by practicalities. Practicalities dictate we must follow the politics of the possible. The politicies themselves, however, must be based on the politics of the impossible. Imagination must rule the world. The Anglo mind can satisfy itself by conducting foreign policy as if it were a commercial venture. Others have a higher vocation in the world, must strive to liberate the entire universe. They look at the mausoleum of their forefathers, and this leaves them no choice. Such are the traditions and responsibilities of the third estate.

Perhaps you are a devotee of the "Rumsfeld Arrangement" - ie the population will be so grateful for our intervention they will immediately strew our path with rose petals and the world will be in harmony as one?

As the careful observer will note, I immediately disregard that bit about not mulitple quoting others, thereby showing it was indeed just about me indulging my scandalously conceited nature. It can not be helped. On then, to actual answer:

The obvious reply to your cynicism is: you mean, as in August of 1944? There were indeed throngs of people offering rose petals, wine and women to the Free French forces which liberated France, and also for the Americans and British who accompanied them.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nice to see you around, Goof.



Anyway, Gaddafi forces are making gains against the dissidents, who are struggling to master the heavy weaponry that they have wrested from the government.

Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, are reported to have regained control of two strategic towns in the country's northwest, even as opposition fighters in the east prepare to march on the capital, Tripoli.

The claims about the fall of Gharyan and Sabratha on Wednesday came as clashes were taking place in the eastern town of Brega, the headquarters of several oil companies.

A journalist from the nearby city of Ajdabiya confirmed to Al Jazeera that Brega was attacked by pro-Gaddafi forces, saying that about 100 cars carrying foreign fighters carried out the assault.

Earlier government forces were reported to be battling to regain control of rebel-held towns close to Tripoli, trying to create a buffer zone around what is still Gaddafi's seat of power.

Jackie Rowland, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Libya's second largest city, Benghazi, said that aircraft loyal to Gaddafi reportedly carried out a bombing raid against a weapons store about six kilometres outside Ajdabiya.

And in the West, the major powers seem to be distancing themselves from some of their earlier enthusiastic offers of support.

Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed.

As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage.

The marked change of tone by the prime minister, who told MPs on Monday that Britain did not "in any way rule out the use of military assets", came as the British-educated son of Muammar Gaddafi mocked Cameron for trying to act as a hero. Saif al-Islam told Sky News: "Everybody wants to be a hero, to be important in history."

[Banquo's Ghost]

And in the West, the major powers seem to be distancing themselves from some of their earlier enthusiastic offers of support.

I wouldn't go so far as claiming the United Kingdom is a "major power". Cameron might have an aircraft carrier available in five or so years, but it won't have any aircraft and anyway he's fired all the pilots. Oh, and most of the troops currently fighting in Afghanistan are being issued redundancy notices right now, so even if they feel motivated to carry on risking their lives in their current theatre, they'll be swelling the dole queues rather than fighting tyrants.

Still, the Prime Minister does offer a foreign policy of sorts (with five days notice) built around selling what arms he does have to Arab dictators. Not sure that helps here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Still, the Prime Minister does offer a foreign policy of sorts

At least that's more than can be said of the bunch of clowns in the Quay d'Orsay.

First Sarkozy and Alliot-Marie supported Ben Ali to the last. They never saw his fall coming. To damage control the lost prestige in the Arab world, Alliot-Marie was removed as foreign minister. Then Libya burns. Not willing to make the same mistake again, Sarkozy goes public and demands that Gadaffi steps down. This was five minutes before it became clear that Gadaffi is not going to lose this.

That's what you get when you don't listen to your diplomats. French diplomacy - the second largest in the world - is getting desperate, getting fed up. None of the French cables are apparantly read, none of the analyses are studied. What's the point of paying a million people to study foreign developments when it is not going to be put to any use? There are dozens of analysts and experts and people living abroad who report about the situation in Libya, employed in all sorts of different functions, from embassies to think tanks to universities.

Gah! Clinton got both Egypt and Libya exactly right. I bet she had the Americans simply intercept French diplomatic cables and have them translated. The roles have been reversed from a decade ago. This time, it is America that is exactly on the money every single time, and France which is clueless about developments in the Middle East.