Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

cyberhog · 13-09-2013 5:52am #1

Many of us said at the time the Libyan intervention was based on a whole bunch of lies and propaganda and this led to us being personally attacked by the pro regime change members of boards. Well finally those of us that spoke out about Libya have been vindicated by a new policy brief from the Belfer Center at Harvard Kennedy School.

• The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong. Libya's 2011 uprising was never peaceful, but instead was armed and violent from the start. Muammar al-Qaddafi did not target civilians or resort to indiscriminate force. Although inspired by humanitarian impulse, NATO's intervention did not aim mainly to protect civilians, but rather to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.

• The Intervention Backfired. NATO's action magnified the conflict's duration about sixfold and its death toll at least sevenfold, while also exacerbating human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, Islamic radicalism, and weapons proliferation in Libya and its neighbors. If Libya was a "model intervention," then it was a model of failure.

• Three Lessons. First, beware rebel propaganda that seeks intervention by falsely crying genocide. Second, avoid intervening on humanitarian grounds in ways that reward rebels and thus endanger civilians, unless the state is already targeting noncombatants. Third, resist the tendency of humanitarian intervention to morph into regime change, which amplifies the risk to civilians.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html

The result of Western intervention is that Libya has now become almost completely lawless.

Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

donegal__road · 13-09-2013 11:47am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

AlekSmart · 13-09-2013 6:17pm

cyberhog wrote: »

Many of us said at the time the Libyan intervention was based on a whole bunch of lies and propaganda and this led to us being personally attacked by the pro regime change members of boards. Well finally those of us that spoke out about Libya have been vindicated by a new policy brief from the Belfer Center at Harvard Kennedy School.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html

The result of Western intervention is that Libya has now become almost completely lawless.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

Ah But...You can hear them say.....Of course it's true....Sam's book explains it all....

By the early 21st Century he was in the process of being rehabilitated. But Gadaffi used aircraft to attack protesters in Benghazi and other cities after the arrest of a human rights campaigner in February 2011. - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books-arts/the-dubliner-who-fought-gadaffi-29559950.html#sthash.id6I418p.dpuf

His mother rang asking was he going – and when he heard Gadaffi had supplied Viagra to foreign mercenaries to help then rape women, he said: "It became too much to bear."

One assumes Don Lavery is'nt a great fan of the Belfer Centre....?

cyberhog · 13-09-2013 7:06pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

One assumes Don Lavery is'nt a great fan of the Belfer Centre....?

Mate, I'm past caring about these increasingly lonely hacks that continue parroting the lies and propaganda. Much has changed in the last two years and people no longer believe every word they hear from the lamestream media.

nacho libre · 14-09-2013 1:39pm

If they do surface( supporters of the intervention), i suspect parallels will be drawn with Ireland during our civil war, as a means to explain away the on going chaos in Libya.

cyberhog · 11-10-2013 6:05am

nacho libre wrote: »

If they do surface( supporters of the intervention), i suspect parallels will be drawn with Ireland during our civil war, as a means to explain away the on going chaos in Libya.

I don't expect we'll hear from the interventionists again now that Libya has become a failed state.

.jacksparrow. · 11-10-2013 7:16am

I still remember sky news reporters in studio etc laughing and celebrating at the footage of him been beaten and tortured then shot.

Its amazing the power of the media and how people can believe it and not make their own minds up.

Scary stuff.

FTA69 · 11-10-2013 10:04am

How is it a failed state? I'll have you know that the President being kidnapped by his own militias and then only freed after a tense hostage situation is the hallmark of any stable democracy!

AlekSmart · 28-07-2014 12:52am

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

I still remember sky news reporters in studio etc laughing and celebrating at the footage of him been beaten and tortured then shot.

Its amazing the power of the media and how people can believe it and not make their own minds up.

Scary stuff.

Indeed,and now two years on,those same Sky Reporters are gravely reporting on the ongoing chaos which threatens a far broader theatre than Gadaffi ever did.

The orchestrated overthrow of Gadaffi at all costs,has in fact,cost Libya almost everything...the ordinary Libyan has no more freedom today than was available under the Gadaffi regime.

The British scratch their heads as their embassy convoy's are fired upon...the French shrug their shoulders and proffess sadness at it all.

Yet,amongst many Libyans,the ongoing war continues the debate about how their previously largely stable lives were usurped by a European resourced "Popular Rebellion"...which is now continually proven to have been anything but popular.

Yet even today,even the more trustworthy media remain committed to the Popular Rebillion fabrication,so thoroughly engineered by it's U.N/Euro backers.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/07/gaddafi-spy-chief-be-tried-libya-20147241337569205.html

The ICC indicted Senoussi in 2011 on charges of murder and persecution allegedly committed during Muammar Gaddafi's failed attempt to crush a popular revolt in 2011, which succeeded in toppling the leader.

If anything,it was Gadaffi's reluctance to "Crush" this "popular revolt" which spurred the U.N/Euro into it's decision to incite and expand the original somewhat localized revolt.

I still regard what occurred in Libya 2011 to be a very real example of colonialism working to its very limits...and being proven to be so very popular...in the short term

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/foreigners-urged-flee-libya-amid-clashes-2014727174139608350.html

"Most of the victims we have noticed are civilians as the fighters have their own hospitals on the battlefield," a Benghazi medical source told Reuters news agency.

All we need for history (recent)to repeat itself now,are tales of Anti-Aircraft weapons being trained on Civilians to perhaps spur another bout of assisted regime change in Libya ?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/happening-libya/story?id=24727437

The conflict became more dangerous after state department officials confirmed that rebels had access to military grade weapons including "antiaircraft weapons that may be used against civilian aviation."

The Corinthian · 28-07-2014 10:32am

I think the principle problem with how the West tends to interact with the rest of the World is that we have a tendency to assume that they're like us; that is that they share our mentality, our values and our principles.

It's probably why we have a tendency to presume that once liberated, they will naturally set up a functioning democracy, or our confusion why they don't naturally see things such as homophobia or FGM as abhorrent. Just like we would.

As a result, when we intervene, we presume that they will behave as we would, think as we think and, I suppose in our arrogance, it never occurs to us that they don't.

We saw this flawed presumption over ten years ago in Iraq. At the time the US neo-conservative thesis was that once liberated, Iraqis would naturally peruse Western democracy, hence once Sadam was removed it was 'mission accomplished' as the rest would just fall into place.

This flawed axiom was in many respects repeated in Libya - although the intervention there was reactive to events already in motion, as opposed to the proactive approach in Iraq.

After all, of course they would do as we would - wouldn't thinking differently to us not simply be crazy? And there lies the problem.

lazybones32 · 28-07-2014 10:59am

@Corinthian: That may be true in the case of Civilians and some naive, low-level politicians but it is not so for those involved in Intelligence, Military and upper echelons of Government. No military action is taken without due consideration and information from agents within the area - of which there are many.

These actions cannot be excused or explained as being misguided good intentions because they are anything but. Gaddaffi was no angel but the West knew the importance of having him there: he kept a tight grip on a clannish and fractious society that would have destabilised the region were he not. He also kept greater control on the number of immigrants heading for the EU (Italy was in the News shortly after the conflict, saying that other Countries should take their share of Libyan refugees because they were inundated)

The US has been learning Foreign Policy lessons since Iran and Afghanistan in the 80's. They mightn't have been as aware of the cultural difference then but they are now.

There are many reports stating that the insurrection that began in Libya was fanned by the CIA and these reports came from many different sources. It wasn't a natural rebellion but possibly kindled and controlled by Western interests. The spark may have originated in neighbouring Egypt but how else could the warring clans/factions that constitute Libya suddenly come together and form an effective and united Militia capable of fighting a War against a proper Army? These same clans are now at each other's throats again...

Manach · 28-07-2014 11:25am

First I think that an assumption of a grand unified Western response and attitudes might be more influenced more by a wishful expectation that their exists a consensus in these matters. There is not and does not extend to differing nation states interests in those countries - with French foreign policies differing from Germany, this dates from pre-EU times.
Second, from the beginning of the foundation of the US state, they have been away of the Mediterranean (Tripoli being one of their early military interventions). It is not a case of being aware of or even indifferent to the in-built factional interests in the area, but more that such takes a distance second place to domestic concerns.

AlekSmart · 28-07-2014 3:22pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think the principle problem with how the West tends to interact with the rest of the World is that we have a tendency to assume that they're like us; that is that they share our mentality, our values and our principles.

It's probably why we have a tendency to presume that once liberated, they will naturally set up a functioning democracy, or our confusion why they don't naturally see things such as homophobia or FGM as abhorrent. Just like we would.

As a result, when we intervene, we presume that they will behave as we would, think as we think and, I suppose in our arrogance, it never occurs to us that they don't.

We saw this flawed presumption over ten years ago in Iraq. At the time the US neo-conservative thesis was that once liberated, Iraqis would naturally peruse Western democracy, hence once Sadam was removed it was 'mission accomplished' as the rest would just fall into place.

This flawed axiom was in many respects repeated in Libya - although the intervention there was reactive to events already in motion, as opposed to the proactive approach in Iraq.

After all, of course they would do as we would - wouldn't thinking differently to us not simply be crazy? And there lies the problem.

Very pertinent post.

The "Flawed Presumption" principle has certainly become an American speciality since the Second World War,athough some might go back to American involvement in Mexican affairs to underline it.

I suppose it could be argued that the "Empire" approach to such cultures was more effective,even if it involved a somewhat longer term and more oppressive (by WESTERN mores) attitude.

For sure the various major Empires of old...Britain,France,italy,Germany,Spain,Holland all made an indelible mark on those cultures they ruled over...I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of these Empire's dominations,but I think it is worthwhile to consider long term comparisons with the more recent Americanization (ie,shock n awe,introduce western influence and then leave...job done ? yep ??) of such interventions.

But The Corinthian is dead on the money with his description of the Axiom as being Flawed...with knobs on !!!

The Corinthian · 28-07-2014 4:06pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

@Corinthian: That may be true in the case of Civilians and some naive, low-level politicians but it is not so for those involved in Intelligence, Military and upper echelons of Government. No military action is taken without due consideration and information from agents within the area - of which there are many.

LOL. Have you ever met any of these people? I have.

Never ascribe to malice that which is more easily explained through incompetence, is all I'd say.

The US has been learning Foreign Policy lessons since Iran and Afghanistan in the 80's. They mightn't have been as aware of the cultural difference then but they are now.

You'd be surprised. It's been mooted to me in the past, that learning from history is not something that comes naturally to them. The American psyche is very much forward looking, seldom looking back - in almost complete contrast to Europeans who are often accused of living in the past.

In Vietnam they didn't really learn from the mistakes of the French before them, nor more recently did they seek the council of the (at that stage friendly) Russians over Afghanistan. Colin Powell also famously once claimed at the UN security council how the US had never sought to expand it's borders through military means - forgetting, oddly, how California came to the US - didn't go down too well with Mexico, that was sitting on the security council at the time.

Ultimately, I suppose my point is, perhaps you're giving people more credit than you should. My experience of these things is that the reality is often far GUBU than anything we could imagine.

AlekSmart · 28-07-2014 11:20pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Have you ever met any of these people? I have.

Never ascribe to malice that which is more easily explained through incompetence, is all I'd say.

You'd be surprised. It's been mooted to me in the past, that learning from history is not something that comes naturally to them. The American psyche is very much forward looking, seldom looking back - in almost complete contrast to Europeans who are often accused of living in the past.

In Vietnam they didn't really learn from the mistakes of the French before them, nor more recently did they seek the council of the (at that stage friendly) Russians over Afghanistan. Colin Powell also famously once claimed at the UN security council how the US had never sought to expand it's borders through military means - forgetting, oddly, how California came to the US - didn't go down too well with Mexico, that was sitting on the security council at the time.

Ultimately, I suppose my point is, perhaps you're giving people more credit than you should. My experience of these things is that the reality is often far GUBU than anything we could imagine.

Henry Ford succinctly summed up the American psyche in his oft quoted newspaper interview...

I don’t know much about history, and I wouldn’t give a nickel for all the history in the world. It means nothing to me. History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we make today.

In a way,that premise underlines just why it's the Americans who have been to the moon and back,yet cannot safely visit many of the countries on our own Planet Earth.....what a Nation

hmmm · 29-07-2014 11:10am

Lots of countries, including ours, have had civil wars after "Independence". The difference these days is that both sides have tanks and heavy artillery, but considering what happened during our civil war I've no doubt that an Irish city or two would have been flattened if the weapons had been available. Even so, the consensus has been that Irish Independence was a good thing.

You can't say that simply because there is a war afterwards that non-intervention would be preferable.

AlekSmart · 29-07-2014 12:14pm

hmmm wrote: »

Lots of countries, including ours, have had civil wars after "Independence". The difference these days is that both sides have tanks and heavy artillery, but considering what happened during our civil war I've no doubt that an Irish city or two would have been flattened if the weapons had been available. Even so, the consensus has been that Irish Independence was a good thing.

You can't say that simply because there is a war afterwards that non-intervention would be preferable.

In the case of Libya,that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

czx · 29-07-2014 1:02pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

In the case of Libya,that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Some people have no problem living under a never-ending despot it seems. Must seem safer than getting a shot at better things

walshb · 29-07-2014 1:14pm

I would think both Iraq and Libya are worse off today than when Hussein and Gadaffi were in power. The West's intervention was never to help the people.

AlekSmart · 29-07-2014 1:35pm

walshb wrote: »

I would think both Iraq and Libya are worse off today than when Hussein and Gadaffi were in power. The West's intervention was never to help the people.

I would broadly agree walshb.

The orchestrated and even contrived manner of the U.N's Libyan adventure,in particular continues to interest me.

Of equal interest is the somewhat protracted period it took to stimulate the popularity of the initial Revolt,which was apparently mainly dictated by the French Air War decision of March 16-19

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-libya-events-idUSTRE77K2QH20110822

For certain,both Libya and Iraq were countries existing to a vastly different set of rules than those which we regard as "Normal" in our corner of the World.

Whether the removal of Gadaffi has been beneficial to the future of an independent free Libya is,I suggest,a moot point ?

walshb · 29-07-2014 1:46pm

IMO the West's attack and interference in Libyan affairs was a disgrace.

hmmm · 29-07-2014 2:04pm

Let's go back to the day that Benghazi (where the rebellion started) was about to be overrun by Gadaffi's army, who were promising to destroy the city that had dared to challenge him. The Wests involvement started at the point that Gadaffi's tank entered the city, with French airstrikes halting their advance.

If there had been no intervention, I am absolutely sure we'd have been sitting here now listening to Captain hindsight and his followers giving out about the West "not lifting a finger to avert a massacre" and how "if only Libya had more oil".

Just so I'm entirely clear from those opposing intervention in Libya - you would have been quite happy to see a massacre in Benghazi? Because that's what you are implying. And similarly, you are quite happy with what happened in Rwanda, and would have preferred if the Serbs had been allowed destroy Kosovo rather than being stopped by NATO?

walshb · 29-07-2014 2:31pm

Well, all we know is what has happened, not what could have happened. Libya seems to be a more dangerous and deadly and lawless society since the rebels took control; rebels aided by the West's power. I wonder will the West go back in in a few more years to oust the rebels, in favor of another bunch of mercenaries?

Manach · 29-07-2014 2:37pm

Kosova, was that not an action by the state working against a hostile local force (alleging terrorism) which both laid to the ground work of the now faltering doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the precedent for other regional powers to intervene without UN Sanction?

The Corinthian · 29-07-2014 2:45pm

hmmm wrote: »

You can't say that simply because there is a war afterwards that non-intervention would be preferable.

No, not if ultimately you have a viable state after such a war - if it is 'worth' the price that is paid. Problem is that we all too often presume that a viable state is a given, that once the dust settles on a period of readjustment that things will work themselves out.

This is not always true, and that is when non-intervention would probably be preferable.

hmmm wrote: »

Just so I'm entirely clear from those opposing intervention in Libya - you would have been quite happy to see a massacre in Benghazi? Because that's what you are implying.

I'm not one who opposed intervention in Libya. TBH, I didn't really care either way, but I'll answer your question nonetheless - with another two questions:

How many would have died in such a massacre? And how many did die as a result of the subsequent conflict and the, de facto, failed state that followed?

In geopolitics, the reality is that if you do something, people will die. If you do nothing, people will die. Either way people will die.

So using an appeal to emotion, such as you have done, isn't going to prove a lot other than the fact that you don't seem to understand geopolitics. Or math.

hmmm · 29-07-2014 3:22pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

How many would have died in such a massacre? And how many did die as a result of the subsequent conflict and the, de facto, failed state that followed?

Well what would you have done at that moment that Benghazi was about to fall to Gadaffi's rampaging horde? Are you happy with what went on in Rwanda? Would you have supported the overthrow of Mali by AQIM rebels?

I think it's a bit rich for left leaning commentators (I'm not saying you are one of these) to on the one hand condemn "the West" for interfering, and on the other hand condemn the West for non-interference, and to only ever decide on what side they support long after the decision has been made and the consequences have become clear. At least the late and very left-leaning Christopher Hitchens made the brave decision to publicly change his mind and support the concept of humanitarian intervention.

"Yes, well, we could have guaranteed a nice, short war if we had let the practitioners of genocide have their way. Except that, within a few years, the precedent of unpunished ethnic cleansing would have spread well beyond the borders of Yugoslavia. And we would never have been able to say "never again," because dictators everywhere would have had a free pass."

hmmm · 29-07-2014 3:26pm

walshb wrote: »

Well, all we know is what has happened, not what could have happened.

Seeing as you are the king of hindsight, how many people do you think would have been massacred in Benghazi, Misrata and Zintan by Gadaffi in revenge?
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-55719620110319

Would you have been smugly sitting here following the deaths of perhaps tens of thousands to tell us all "it was for the best, the Libyans are better off"?

"The women wept as she spoke.

Her sister railed at the failure of foreign powers to act more quickly.

"Words are nothing. we need actions," she said.

"We know what Gaddafi plans to do. We know he is going to torture and humiliate everyone in Benghazi."

czx · 29-07-2014 4:07pm

walshb wrote: »

IMO the West's attack and interference in Libyan affairs was a disgrace.

Quite a few people feel that Libya was a good, well run country before intervention. They probably saw these events as a disgrace

The Corinthian · 29-07-2014 4:09pm

hmmm wrote: »

Well what would you have done at that moment that Benghazi was about to fall to Gadaffi's rampaging horde?

Were I in a position to do, or refrain from doing, anything about it, I would most likely consider which scenario best served the interests of my state or organization. Humanitarian considerations would be either an internal political consideration or an altruistic byproduct of those interests aligning with a humanitarian bias.

If you want a simpler answer, and presume that I would want to do what's best for the Libyan people, without any other interests or pressures, then I'd probably not do anything.

It would not take a genius to figure out that Libya is not up to the task to become a stable democratic state. There is no history or tradition of it. Educational levels are low, so at the grass roots little understanding of what it even means. The culture is rife with tribal divisions. Like it or not, autocratic rule is the best available course for limiting suffering for them, without which civil war would be followed by years, if not decades, of death and suffering. At the end of which, the most likely resolution would be another autocrat taking over.

Or see it as a simple case of 10,000 - 15,000 estimated deaths in a Benghazi massacre, versus 25,000 in a civil war, followed by a multiple of this in the years of lawlessness that would follow. And then back to dictatorship.

It's just math. Whatever you choose people die. No happy endings, I'm afraid; just the least vicious tragedy.

Are you happy with what went on in Rwanda? Would you have supported the overthrow of Mali by AQIM rebels?

Just because it tugs at the heart strings, is not sufficient reason to decide one way or another. So I simply don't know enough about that situation to answer you.

At least the late and very left-leaning Christopher Hitchens made the brave decision to publicly change his mind and support the concept of humanitarian intervention.

Humanitarian intervention can make sense, but only if assessed correctly and, as was not done in Afghanistan, that intervention does not get sidelined and thus fail to make a lasting impact.

Thing is, intervene or not, what will likely decide such things will instead be socio-political agendas, uninformed, misguided public opinion and all too often, people in positions of power, who really don't have the competency to wield it.

"Yes, well, we could have guaranteed a nice, short war if we had let the practitioners of genocide have their way. Except that, within a few years, the precedent of unpunished ethnic cleansing would have spread well beyond the borders of Yugoslavia. And we would never have been able to say "never again," because dictators everywhere would have had a free pass."

Regrettably, as much as people like to say 'never again' it's just a cliche that you can probably get on T-shirts in the Auschwitz gift shop.

Crimes against humanity take place all the time. The Hague, the Americans, or anyone else is not going to change that - some are punished, others are conveniently ignored and others again there's no way of seeking justice. That's just life.

AlekSmart · 30-07-2014 1:57am

hmmm wrote: »

Seeing as you are the king of hindsight, how many people do you think would have been massacred in Benghazi, Misrata and Zintan by Gadaffi in revenge?
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-55719620110319

Would you have been smugly sitting here following the deaths of perhaps tens of thousands to tell us all "it was for the best, the Libyans are better off"?

"The women wept as she spoke.

Her sister railed at the failure of foreign powers to act more quickly.

"Words are nothing. we need actions," she said.

"We know what Gaddafi plans to do. We know he is going to torture and humiliate everyone in Benghazi."

There's no smugness intended on my part,however I believe a case can be made that it was a softening of the Gadaffi resolve which to a large degree led to his downfall.

For sure,BY OUR WESTERN STANDARDS,Gaddaffi's regime was autocratic,brutal,repressive and all the rest....and yet,and yet the scale of atrocities laid against it turn out to be somewhat less than the genocide which some tried to make out.

The Abu Salim Prison massacre is the one most often referred to as an example of Gadaffi's brutality,yet it's scale stops somewhat short of that required for true despotic credentials....

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/06/27/libya-june-1996-killings-abu-salim-prison

Stranger still is the reality that as far back as 2009, at least one element of the Gadaffi regime,Saif,was actually making large inroads into the numbers of highly motivated imprisoned islamicists by releasing them....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8309460.stm

This process continued in 2010 with hundreds more being released

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8583819.stm

Even up until the endgame in early 2011,the Gadaffi regime was releasing large numbers of it's most committed and competent enemies,who had no problems recanting on their negotiated agreement to renounce violence as the means to progress their chosen cause.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkcKGFV7gNw

Libya had since March freed 250 prisoners including former LIFG leader Abdelhakim Belhaj, its military chief Khaled Shrif and principal ideologue Sami Saadi, as well as members of various other Islamic groups

Since the beginning of this programme, 705 Islamists have been freed and 409 are still in prison," Gaddafi said, adding that 232 more will be released after making sure they had fully renounced their past activities.

So to address the "king of hindsight" question,I don't know how many "might" have been massacred in the Libyan cities mentioned.

However,going on what we now know of the Gadaffi's actual (as opposed to reputed) levels of barbarity,I suspect the Tens of Thousands mentioned may have turned out to be an overstatement along the lines of Iraq's massive stock of Weapons of Mass Destruction,which ended up being illustrated to the U.N as some 40 gallon drums stored outside a shed.

For us in the West it's all over now anyway,except for the business of finding an accomodation with the New,Improved Libyan regime,but for a great many Libyans the transition is only beginning.

hmmm · 30-07-2014 11:34am

AlekSmart wrote: »

However,going on what we now know of the Gadaffi's actual (as opposed to reputed) levels of barbarity,I suspect the Tens of Thousands mentioned may have turned out to be an overstatement along the lines of Iraq's massive stock of Weapons of Mass Destruction,which ended up being illustrated to the U.N as some 40 gallon drums stored outside a shed.

Following the lesson of the Arab uprisings, there is only one way for an Arab dictator to stay in power and that is through extreme ruthlessness. Gadaffi would (I believe) have reacted no differently to Assad - unleash the army on the small group of rebels and anyone who was even slightly suspected of being disloyal.

If the West had stayed uninvolved, there would have been two scenarios:
1. Gadaffi would have been overthrown, after a Syria like war that involved the deaths of tens (maybe more) thousands and a devastated country. Remember, Misrata was already lying in ruins by the time the West intervened.
2. Gadaffi and his henchmen remain in power after a brutal demonstration of the futility of resistance.

The actions of the Jordanian King during the 'Black September' uprisings in the 70s would have been a very helpful template. Unlike Mubarak and Ben Ali in Tunisia, Gadaffi could rely on the complete loyalty of the best equipped army divisions and had no problem using them to advance on Benghazi.

Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

Comments