The Web is still choke-full about the ousting of Washington's favorite tyrant, Hosni Mubarak.
Right now Europe's favorite tyrant, Muammar Gaddafi (or Khadafi) is facing a a similar situation.
Even when Ronald Reagan was threatening him of annhilation and US jet fighters were pounding Lybia during Operation Eldorado Canyon, European countries were conducting business at usual with him. While Tripoli was being bombed Italian engineers were in Lybia performing maintenance on Italian-built G222 (US designation C27 Spartan) transport planes. Those same airplanes were used to airlift weapons and supplies used in Chad against another US ally, France, whose troops were fighting against Lybia.
Sounds confusing, eh? Imagine how confused we were when during that crisis a Lybian MIG21 fighter crashed in Sicily, apparently en route to a maintenance facilty in the then Yugoslavia, just miles from important NATO installations. It wasn't picked up by military radars and shot down by interceptors: it crashed to due to a technical problem and a shepherd found it by chance. Both the pilot's body and the fighter's wreckage were quickly removed and returned to Lybia. It appears the Italians were providing Lybians with their own transponders and call signals while the US simply turned a blind eye on the whole thing since there's no way they couldn't have known. Gaddafi showed his appreciation by firing a few Scud missiles on the tiny island of Pantelleria, just for "kicks". It was back then that I started to consider him less than a colorful figure and more of a complete lunatic.
In recent years, when he became a staunch ally in the "War against Terror" and we had to deal with his five sons I started wondering if we are the lunatics, for allying with such a family of scoundrels. While the antics of Saudi noblemen visiting Europe are legendary at least they keep to their luxury hotels and private clubs. Gaddafi's sons have taken this to the next level, by having their bodyguards closing down whole roads while they go shopping or beating up people in public, all while local authorities just look the other way. Last year the Swiss had about enough and declared these five shall I say gentlemen personae non gratae on their territory. Gaddafi flew into one of characteristic rages, all the while backed by those two bastions of moral integrity and courage, Presidents Sarkozy and Berlusconi.
It may be argued that Lybia has oil, but that's not the whole story. France and Italy had been purchasing oil and natural gas at inflated prices from Gaddafi's family for decades: it's not the usual "cheap oil" story. Everybody has profited immensely: Gaddafi, the French and Italian oil companies and governments (higher fuel and gas prices transform into higher tax revenues) etc. Everybody but the hapless French and Italian taxslaves and the poor people of Lybia, who saw their once popular leader turn into the usual foreign-backed dictator and suffered accordingly.
In the past two decades Gaddafi added another source of revenue and threats for the pavid Europeans: immigration. Lybia is the main transit point for people trying to get into Europe. Gaddafi has been able to milk the EU billions by threatening to "open the floodgates", though somebody rightly remarked we wouldn't see too much of a difference from today when pretty much everybody not brandishing TNT sticks and an AK47 is let in. Gaddafi has become the Kim Jong-Il of the Mediterranean: when he wants money, he resorts to threats. The main difference is Kim Jong-Il isn't met by an adoring political class during his trips abroad: the Chinese always treat him as the junior partner he is. Gaddafi always comes out as the senior partner, obtaining everything he wants.
When somebody asked Berlusconi, who still calls himself "a close friend" of Gaddafi, to call him and ask him to stop butchering people in the streets he candidly said "He's in a bad situation, I don't want to add his grief". I fear he may even offer him and his sons asylum should they be thrown out. How on earth people can admire this man just because he has the financial means to pay for sex with young prostitutes it's well beyond me.
Gaddafi has shut up the country from the outside. What little we know right now tells army units are mutining and joining the protesters, something nobody expected to happen. This may have been precipitated by Gaddafi's practice of hiring large numbers of foreign mercenaries (like all good dictators he doesn't even trust the army he came from), the same mercenaries that are now firing on crowds in the streets. This won't be repetition of what happened in Egypt. Watch carefully as this is much more serious.
From 1972, when Gaddafi relinquished the title of prime minister, he has been accorded the honorifics "Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" or "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution" in government statements and the official press.
Why do these people always pick stupid lame titles like that? If I was the dictator of some place I'd call myself something like Star Imperator and High Marshall of the Azure Dawn, First Lord of the March HRH Blackford Antigone Malbranche III
I've been to the Libyan border (with Tunisia) although we didn't actually cross into Libya. Every few hundred yards along the road there is a street vendor selling oil at ridiculousy low prices from barrels. Sorry I can't remember the exact price but I remember doing the calculation against the Tunisian Dinar and almost fainting. Unfortunately I couldn't bring any back in hand luggage. Given Libya's natural resources it should have sky high living standards, if the Libyan people fully understood economics they would be much more angry than they actually are.
Also If Gaddafi has bothered to read Machiavelli he wouldn't have made the mistake of hiring foreign mercenaries, what an amateur.
Meh, Machiavelli is overrated. His work on the military is pretty much garbage. Lots of Kingdoms and Empires have made highly profitable use of foreign mercenaries, especially as specialists. Hell, the Mongol army basically was just a roving mercenary band. Mercenaries formed the main bulk of the Roman and Farsi armies in the ancient world. German and Gurkha mercenaries were responsible for major gains to the British.
Going beyond the Khaddafi issue, I always find it amusing how politicians are so cordial to each are other at the G20, UN, climate conferences etc. Even the vilest politician/butcher is seen shaking hands with other heads of states. Who other than politicians have no qualms dealing with killers and generally nasty and brutish individuals.
Lawyers.
La Noue, that old learned Huguenot, succintly commented the French Wars of Religion by saying "The young read too many chivalry poems and the old too much Macchiavelli".
The foreign mercenaries Gaddafi hired are a very recent addition. According to the press they were hired a couple of months ago and airlifted on the double to Libya. Gaddafi expected troubles and thought that foreign mercenaries, most of them veterans of the various civil wars in the Sahara and Uganda, would be much more likely to fire on protesters without questioning. Many more were hired when the feared Egyptian police simply melted away.
Today stock exchanges in Europe collapsed following both the beginning of the Libyan civil war and Angela Merkel's crushing defeat in the Hamburg elections. The opiated "no need to worry, the crisis is past us, so go out and spend" line served daily by the press sounds more idiotic by the day.
I anticipate Gaddafi and his sons lined up against a wall before a firing squad by the end of this week. But perhaps it's just wishful thinking...?
Don't tease my imagination like that.
Berlusconi is definitely a criminal, though not as bad as a lot of other people in Italian politics. However, I have no ambition towards saving the world and I don't see why being a libertarian involves a renunciation of any aesthetical sense for some kind of puritanical anarchism. I like Genghis Khan and Otto von Bismarck, they didn't kill anyone I know; and the same is true of Berlusconi. I wouldn't go to his funeral, but that doesn't mean I can't admire sheer Machiavellian prowess.
Hard Rain: I anticipate Gaddafi and his sons lined up against a wall before a firing squad by the end of this week. But perhaps it's just wishful thinking...? One of his son is already in London, causing immense embarassment to Her Majesty's Government. Earlier this week there was a rumor the whole gang was in the process of relocating to Venezuela but Gaddafi himself said he'll stay in Libya "to the death". Right now it appears the magnitude of butchery has been vastly underestimated: there are thousands of dead and, apparently, more and more army units are mutining every day and melting away or joining the protestors. In all of this we may ask: where is NATO? Where is the UN? Where is the EU? The usually garrulous Ban Ki-Moon, always ready to spout the party line on "Global Warming", is silent. Obama doesn't go beyond the usual "human rights" mantra... European leaders are deeply split: the German government, desperate for popularity following a most crushing defeat in the Hamburg elections, advocates the hard line, backed by the British. Sadly this hard line doesn't involve shooting Libyan bombers out of the sky but "sanctions". Or writing a strongly worded letter. You take you pick. Italy, France and others are still playing the old line "we need Gaddafi to stop unchecked immigration" but the embarassment is evident. If Gaddafi falls his succeros won't look kindly at those who backed him to the last minute. Final line: Big Government. As usual and dangerous abroad as it is at home. Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people | Post Points: 20
I've also heard rumors Mubarak was simply buying time to secure his assets abroad and/or to find somebody willing to give him asylum. He managed to do the former (the money he had in Switzerland and Liechtenstein apparently "disappeared" overnight) but could not find anybody willing to take him in. Saudi rulers were already cursing the fact they gave asylum to Tunisia's Ben Ali while their own internal situation is rapidly deteriorating. Apparently he's still in Sharm-el-Sheikh under "military protection".
Gaddafi has painted himself in a corner. With revolts popping up all over the Arab world he'll have a tough time finding someone willing to offer him shelter, especially after he did what he did. Despite the ferocity of his men his power is broken: regular army units are melting away after he had over a hundred conscripts gunned down for refusing to fire on people. Rebels already control a huge chunk of the country's oil and natural gas. The terrible nature of a civil war is now apparent to all and aggravated by the large numbers of foreign mercenaries employed by Gaddafi: these men cannot expect quarter once the regime is toppled and are fighting like cornered badgers.
It's also evident that there's no "Plan B" like there was in Egypt (putting the military in charge by cashing on their widespread popularity). Europe has been caught napping just like in Tunisia and all the US can offer is the usual military option. In fact Europe has other things to worry about right now and it's apparent her political class is viewing this rightful outbreak of popular fury as a downright nuisance. Let's see if they'll be so high and mighty when it will hit their (our) shores.
Gaddafi showed his appreciation by firing a few Scud missiles on the tiny island of Pantelleria, just for "kicks".
Whoah, I knew about the rockets, but I didn't know they were fired at friendly nation! Has it been shown if he was behind Lockerbie? I've read an account that it was a small Palestinian group "contracted" by Iranians in retalition for the Iran Air Flight 655 that seemed like it was onto something. But somehow it better fits Gaddafi's lunatic profile.
One of his son is already in London, causing immense embarassment to Her Majesty's Government. Earlier this week there was a rumor the whole gang was in the process of relocating to Venezuela but Gaddafi himself said he'll stay in Libya "to the death".
Since then the youngest son has reportely joined the protestors: link
Sorry if I'm going off topic, but are the protesters shooting themselves in the foot by insisting on taking over the whole of Libya? "Libya" didn't even exist before the Italians created it, and it certainly doesn't reflect any demographic necessity. Would the Libyan opposition be better off if they simply declared the areas that they already control to be independent Cyrenaica, and hope for the best in Tripolitania and Fezzan?
Lockerbie has been a tragicomic show. Direct responsibility has always bounced between Gaddafi himself and one of his son-in-laws. The man responsible for the bombing was handed over to Scottish authorities (curious legal case) and has recently been released and returned to Lybia. The reason: he was dying of cancer and had "less than six months left". To last report he was still alive and kicking. This was part of a huge settlement Gaddafi had to agree to have sanctions lifted in 2004. He also had to pay over one and a half billion dollars in compensation money to relatives of the Lockerbie and Berlin victims. He immediately extorted this money back from foreign oil and gas companies, which then went on to pass the higher costs to hapless European consumers.
There's another twist in the story. After sanctions were lifted in 2004 Libya signed a deal with France to install nuclear power plants, mostly to replace her rapidly aging Soviet reactors. After the fall of the USSR Libya had problems obtaining fuel and turned to the now infamous "Khan network", which supplied them with centrifuges and other uranium-enriching equipment. Yellowcake uranium was obtained from Gaddafi's African allies/satellites. Part of the deal was to hand over the Pakistani-supplied equipment to NATO for "studies". This equipment slowly found its way to Israel where it was used to develop the "Stuxnet" virus which crippled Iranian uranium enrichment capabilities in a single stroke.
shazam: Sorry if I'm going off topic, but are the protesters shooting themselves in the foot by insisting on taking over the whole of Libya? "Libya" didn't even exist before the Italians created it, and it certainly doesn't reflect any demographic necessity. Would the Libyan opposition be better off if they simply declared the areas that they already control to be independent Cyrenaica, and hope for the best in Tripolitania and Fezzan?
Speaking of which, I read some days ago that a few bright Libyans actually advocated secession of the liberated eastern part, but where rebuffed b the other protesters as unpatriotic. On their head be it!
It seems that my prediction may be unfortunately accurate: The rebel offensive toward Sirte completely failed and now their only hope is to keep the Gaddafi forces from shelling Benghazi.
From a Boetiean perspective, how is it possible that Gaddafi now has the upper hand? Does this disprove that civil disobedience is sufficient to oust a regime? Or does this just demonstrate that Gaddafi actually had much more support than originally thought?
shazam: Or does this just demonstrate that Gaddafi actually had much more support than originally thought? This is what I think. And I repeat myself: the rebels should have gone for independence when they had the chance. A great lesson for resistance everywhere: nationalism is the first enemy. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 35
Or does this just demonstrate that Gaddafi actually had much more support than originally thought?
This is what I think. And I repeat myself: the rebels should have gone for independence when they had the chance. A great lesson for resistance everywhere: nationalism is the first enemy.
Merlin: This is what I think. And I repeat myself: the rebels should have gone for independence when they had the chance. A great lesson for resistance everywhere: nationalism is the first enemy.
Yea I, too, wondered why they didn't just declare their region a seceeded region and move forward from there.
Bread and circuses. I'm sure most people in Western Libya are happy receiving a nice monetary hand-out from the regime rather than having the mercinaries wandering their streets.
Even at the height of the crisis, when the various Western "leaders" were thundering against Gaddafi mercenaries were being flown into the country on a daily basis, often under the very nose of the usually meddling and garrulous UN. Tribesmen, whose loyalties lay with whom can pay them the most, have been recruited wholesale. That's why he has made a come back.
Truth to be told my first impression was Gaddafi would have weathered even this storm. The reason is very, very simple: the West, for all its clamoring, is still behind him. There were a million things European governments could have done to stop the butchery. Freezing his assets immediately would have deprived him of the funds to pay for his mercenaries. Pressuring all those French and US semi-client States like Chad and Uganda into not allowing Lybian recruiters on their soil would have reduced the flow of fresh troops. In the end they did nothing but put up a smoke and mirrors show for the public's consumption. They still prefer having to lick Gaddafi's boots a little harder than dealing with the unknown. And of course after he triumphs we'll be made to make up for old Muammar's losses by paying even more for natural gas and oil.
Also Lybia is useful to send a warning to the rest of Arab world: do not attempt anything funny. Any attempt at overthrowing "our" people will be dealt with extreme prejudice. As we speak Saudi and UAE troops (incidentally mostly made up of Bengali and Pakistani mercenaries) are arriving in Bahrain where the local ruler is under siege. It takes little immagination to think what will happen next.
Sadly all of this blood is on our hands. Blowback theory anyone?