@annie – the capture (and released) SAS. That was a supreme stupidity by the Cameron government in Britain. Giving Gaddafi the best propaganda material he could think of.

Posted by: b | Mar 7 2011 16:08 utc | 3

But this is not a modern youth movement protesting against a dictatorship, this is a developing civil war between tribal entities – not exactly a novelty in Libya.
I must say, there is a creeping sense of cultural superiority in this argument – as if the Libyans are all just a bunch of noble savages who have been fighting tribal wars for thousand of years and are simply not capable of appreciating ‘modern’ representative government. An argument, I might add, that western powers have made for more than a century to justify the support of despotic governments all over the Middle East.
More importantly, your post completely ignores the real cause of the uprising both in Libya and elsewhere: namely, the depredations caused by globalist kleptocratic economic systems that beggar the populace while enriching the leaderships and their foreign clients.
On that score, Libya is by no means different than its neighbors.
The “western” media is reporting the crisis in Libya as something similar to what happened in Egypt and Tunisia.
Well, it started out kinda like the other demonstrations, until Q started using heavy weaponry on the protesters.
Or are you really arguing that Libya is in some hermetically sealed bubble of competing tribes that pays no attention to what is happening on both of its borders, and that the Libyan uprising happened sui generis with nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the leaders of both of its neighbors had recently been deposed?
The misrepresentation of this conflict in the media may well lead to military intervention by “western” forces.
There are a lot of reasons why intervention is being contemplated, some noble and some not so noble, but the most important argument in my view is that the Libyan Army reacted quite differently to the uprisings than did the armies of Tunisia or Egypt. There is no misrepresentation on that score.
This would cost a lot more lives than any situation in which the Libyan people fight this out by and for themselves.
Just because you say it, b, doesn’t make it so. A rationale for why getting rid of Q later than sooner would cause less bloodshed would be helpful.

Posted by: Night Owl | Mar 7 2011 17:04 utc | 5

I posted above without first reading nightowl’s perspicuous response to the cultural chauvinism here masquerading as critique always sensitive to the looming destructive essence of the US empire.
Look forward to r’giap’s complicated defense of Q, with obscure historical annotations, and links to insipidly lachrymose ECM mood jazz.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 7 2011 17:29 utc | 7

Sure seems to be a lot of “Western media” reporting about the factiousness of the Libyan rebellion.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 7 2011 18:09 utc | 9

@5 I agree with some of your insights but there seem’s to be some points worth revisiting in regards to western media’s representation and political interests.
Although the uprising may have been influenced and share similar causes to that of Egypt and Tunisia it nevertheless has its own dynamics: it is happening in a tribalized society that under Q has created a Libyan state that shares power and privilige on tribal basis, the best illustration is the Sudan and of course post-collapse Somalia. The racialized tensions that exist between ‘Arab’ and ‘African’, again has echoes of similar cleavages that developed in Darfur, Sudan during the 1990s, is another cleavage that overlays the tribal structure, i.e. non-Arab Berber tribes are the most politically and economically marginalized, a situation that Q has used to his advantage but which benefited Southern tribes such as the Kal Tamasheq [even one’s living in Algeria, Mali and Niger].
Unlike Egypt where class divisions within the military establishment and across society [workers, peasants allied to ‘middle’ class workers] bound by Egyptian nationalism made analytical sense of what was unfolding, this same ‘formula’ provides a highly superficial picture of Libya’s uprising. Despite calls of unity [with 2 different flags] from both sides – elites on each side, Q and Rebels, have galvanized support on the basis of tribal support, which is the form of modern Libyan nationalism.
There is nothing ‘hermetic’ about Libya, in fact it has had one of the most dynamic and in some cases destabilizing foreign policies of African and MENA states. Yet, power in Libya is tribalized – much like in the Sudan but one could also see a similar system of power in Rwanda – not in a ‘hermetically sealed’ this-is-the-way-it-has-always-been way but as part of it’s modern state making project.
b does well to point us towards the ‘modern’ dynamic tribal alliances that form the workings of the Libyan state and military. Who is in which camp is largely based on the benefits and grievances emerging from Q’s Libya (including grievances from the recent neoliberal upsurge). The black and white representation of this uprising as Q ‘bad’ vs. Rebels ‘good’/pro-democracy is far from reality. Q as an indvidual is a dictator but his regime has existed in a delicate alliance for over 40 years that has given it some legitimacy, so when one says the Q-regime is ‘bad’ and get a new one the question is ‘who’ are the actors that are going to build a post-Q regime and on what basis?
One of these [self-invited] actors does include the western powers. The uprising offers a prime opportunity to assist in establishing a regime that is in line with their own geopolitical interests, whether that brings democracy or not is not relevant for them, in fact I would suggest that a limited form of electoral democracy legitimizing a neoliberal regime (which is a form of authoritarianism) would actually be enthusiastically endorsed, see similar regimes in Algeria, Chad and Uganda. The issue of a No Fly Zone could actually assist the armed rebel movements drive to Tripoli and control of Libya’s oil assets, but it also gives western powers leverage that, based on historical precedent, would certainly endanger the chances for a real popular democracy in Libya. It begs the question of those rebel movements calling for No Fly Zones – do they not care for popular democracy or do they have an inflated sense of autonomy and hunger for power?
I do agree that Libya’s uprising and eventual resolution is an internal matter, despite many pretenders enthusiasm to jump in, and it is for that reason that b’s focus on Libya’s state [not just Q’s biography], the politicization of tribal identity and how it works will help us see the unfolding events in a clearer light.
I have yet to see/hear what the armed rebel movements (consisting of tribal groups that cleaved off Q’s military and political institutions forming new alliances of their own) actually want – no ten point program/clear demands? While there seem’s to be some popular movements, with ad-hoc violent attacks against Q affiliated targets, there are also organized conservative and Q establishment rebel groups that knee deep in the uprising. There is much to be concerned about the Libyan actors – Q and rebels alike.
Finally, there is a difference between the principled stance rejecting Q as a dictator and policies of theft and economic pillage (ironically intimately tied to western democracies) that I share with some of you AND actually explaning what is currently happening.

Posted by: Minerva | Mar 7 2011 18:21 utc | 11

NightOwl,

I must say, there is a creeping sense of cultural superiority in this argument – as if the Libyans are all just a bunch of noble savages who have been fighting tribal wars for thousand of years and are simply not capable of appreciating ‘modern’ representative government. An argument, I might add, that western powers have made for more than a century to justify the support of despotic governments all over the Middle East.
More importantly, your post completely ignores the real cause of the uprising both in Libya and elsewhere: namely, the depredations caused by globalist kleptocratic economic systems that beggar the populace while enriching the leaderships and their foreign clients.
On that score, Libya is by no means different than its neighbors.

Again, you took the words out of my mouth… I wish I had time to add more Maybe later.
Anyways, thanks for your persistence. I don’t understand the general attitude about Libya here at MOA.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 7 2011 20:58 utc | 13

Lets not forget the reality of Libya:
No Tahrir in Benghazi: A Racist Pogrom Rages On against Black Africans in Libya
by Glen Ford
etc
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/ford030311.html
‘Libya is a deeply traditional society, plagued with some outmoded and bankrupt ideas that continue to surface to this day. In many ways, Qaddafi has had to struggle against the same reactionary aspects of Arab culture and tradition that the holy prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was struggling against in 7th century Arabia – Arab supremacy/racism, supremacy of family and tribe, historical feuding tribe against tribe and the marginalisation of women. Benghazi has always been at the heart of counter-revolution in Libya, fostering reactionary Islamic movements such as the Wahhabis and Salafists. It is these people who founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group based in Benghazi which allies itself with Al Qaeda and who have, over the years, been responsible for the assassination of leading members of the Libyan revolutionary committees.
etc
http://blackagendareport.com/content/libya-getting-it-right-revolutionary-pan-african-perspective
and guess what:
Libya is not Egypt and all rebellions are not Revolutions!
Hands off Libya, Hands off Africa!
Statement from the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party (A-APRP)
http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2011/03/libya-is-not-egypt-and-all-rebellions.html

Posted by: brian | Mar 7 2011 21:47 utc | 15

brian i wish you would stop the repetitive posts, we are not dullards, after all – we get your drift

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 7 2011 22:25 utc | 17

Is a No-Fly Zone What Libyans Want
From the link above, a quote from the Guardian:
“Some Libyan rebels have called for a no-fly zone, but until now – and this may change – the mood of the Libyan uprising is that this is their fight and their fight alone … The moral strength of the Libyan rebels and their political claim to represent the true voice of the people both rest partly on the fact that, <>like the Egyptians and the Tunisians, they have come this far alone.
Interestingly, a March 5 decree from a ‘Interm National Transitional Council in Benghazi’ states:
“we request from the international community to fulfil its obligations to protect the Libyan people from any further genocide and crimes against humanity without any direct military intervention on Libyan soil.”
The call for protection for civilians is clear in international law (its application a d/f matter) – but protection of armed groups in what looks like a civil war is a political act that becomes party to the conflict – on this reasoning what the f*ck is the ‘international community’, i.e. Security Council, doing about the civilian casualties and mass refugee crisis associated with electoral violence in Ivory Coast or even the literaly 1000X armed violence/rape against civilians esp. women by the RPF-Rwanda military and local proxy forces in the long suffering Congo-DRC? What about applying the same logic in French dominated Chad to get rid of its French-client dictator, why not help the rebels there?
Does calling Q’s state violence and the rebels sporadic killings amount to genocide in Libya? Who is being targeted in whole/part? This reads way to much like the labeling of genocide in Darfur by some parties to justify military intervention and the demonization of the Sudanese government as a genocidal regime rather than the actual on-the-ground happenings as noted by UNHCR and other organizations. The ‘interm’ council sure sounds like their asking for military intervention from foreign powers.

Posted by: Minerva | Mar 7 2011 23:02 utc | 19

the egyptian & the tunisian security forces killed many hundreds of people – the exact numbers are yet to be defined bit considering the massacres that took place in alexandria & in other towns & villages of egypt – the brute numbers would be similar
the numbers of dead in the arab revolts is far from clear & in libya it is the most unclear. night owl is deliberately misreading the sense of what b is saying
i have made my own position quite clear though i am thankful for minerva’s postings – your own, nightowl, are seeming not a great deal different from that delivered by cnn
& personally i was hoping the arab revolts would show exactly how western ‘democracy’ is just as polluted, just as corrupt essentially as the tyrants in the middle east
the pollution of political culture in the west stinks to high heaven

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 7 2011 23:34 utc | 21

being sister stations, i wonder why al jazeera arabic is talking of an offer by gaddafi to resign while there is no mention of it all all on aje

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 7 2011 23:41 utc | 23

Either way, how exactly is a NATO intervention, and let’s face it a NFZ is an intervention, justifiable by the very forces you claim have helped inculcate this dissidence on the part of the Libyan people?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Mar 8 2011 0:37 utc | 25

the egyptian & the tunisian security forces killed many hundreds of people – the exact numbers are yet to be defined bit considering the massacres that took place in alexandria & in other towns & villages of egypt – the brute numbers would be similar
more specious nonsense.
Libya has a population of roughly 6 million people. Egypt has over 80 million.
If the ‘brute’ numbers are indeed similar (an open question), it’s only because there aren’t more Libyans for Q to slaughter.

Posted by: Night Owl | Mar 8 2011 2:51 utc | 27

Time for another media class compare and contrast assignment:
Benghazi 2011 and South Ossetia 2008
Also, interesting site: http://benghazipost.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Biklett | Mar 8 2011 5:13 utc | 29

Minerva,
Despite calls of unity [with 2 different flags] from both sides – elites on each side, Q and Rebels, have galvanized support on the basis of tribal support, which is the form of modern Libyan nationalism.
Your implication here seems to be that ‘unity’ and ‘tribal’ are somehow incompatible.
On the contrary. A confederation of various groups of like-minded individuals is the foundation of any real democratic system. Indeed, it’s the very variety of these ‘tribes’ that makes a union stronger, not weaker. (Just ask the Germans. 😉)
The black and white representation of this uprising as Q ‘bad’ vs. Rebels ‘good’/pro-democracy is far from reality. Q as an indvidual is a dictator but his regime has existed in a delicate alliance for over 40 years that has given it some legitimacy, so when one says the Q-regime is ‘bad’ and get a new one the question is ‘who’ are the actors that are going to build a post-Q regime and on what basis?
Please go here (comment 124) for my view on your historical relativism argument.
One of these [self-invited] actors does include the western powers. The uprising offers a prime opportunity to assist in establishing a regime that is in line with their own geopolitical interests,
In case you were not aware, since at least 2004 the Q regime has been in line with the West’s geopolitical interests. (see same link above)

Posted by: Night Owl | Mar 8 2011 7:24 utc | 31

@Night Owl – Stop avoiding the issue. Germany is a representative democracy of the type that you believe the Egyptians and Tunisians deserve but not the Libyans because of their ‘tribal’ makeup.
Where please do you read that I believe that Libyans do not deserve what the Egyptians and Tunisians deserve? I never wrote such a thing.
So please stop interpreting something into my words that I have never said or meant.
The only issue my above post was pointing out is that Libya does have a tribal background, is pretty much an informal confederation of tribes, and that this anthropological fact is relevant for analyzing the current situation. That is neither an orientalist interpretation nor does it have anything to do with any opinion on who deserves what.

Posted by: b | Mar 8 2011 10:24 utc | 33

night owl, i am not a cheerleader as you seem to be for foreign intervention – simply on what facts we are able to possess i attempt to interrogate the dominant narrative, that is all, there is no affection historical or otherwise for gaddaff – also i do not see this revolt in libya in the way that you interpret it, which is roughly the same as cnn’s

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 8 2011 11:47 utc | 35

Slothrop may be right, afterall, an intervention in Libya may not be just about oil……there are other factors to consider.
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/virtually-unknown-in-west-libyas-water.html

The 1st of September marks the anniversary of the opening of the major stage of Libya’s Great Man-Made River Project. This incredibly huge and successful water scheme is virtually unknown in the West, yet it rivals and even surpasses all our greatest development projects. The leader of the so-called advanced countries, the United States of America cannot bring itself to acknowledge Libya’s Great Man-Made River. The West refuses to recognize that a small country, with a population no more than four million, can construct anything so large without borrowing a single cent from the international banks……
The Great Man-Made River, as the largest water transport project ever undertaken, has been described as the “eighth wonder of the world”. It carries more than five million cubic metres of water per day across the desert to coastal areas, vastly increasing the amount of arable land. The total cost of the huge project is expected to exceed $25 billion (US).
Consisting of a network of pipes buried underground to eliminate evaporation, four meters in diameter, the project extends for four thousand kilometres far deep into the desert. All material is locally engineered and manufactured. Underground water is pumped from 270 wells hundreds of meters deep into reservoirs that feed the network. The cost of one cubic meter of water equals 35 cents. The cubic meter of desalinized water is $3.75. Scientists estimate the amount of water to be equivalent to the flow of 200 years of water in the Nile River.
The goal of the Libyan Arab people, embodied in the Great Man-Made River project, is to make Libya a source of agricultural abundance, capable of producing adequate food and water to supply its own needs and to share with neighboring countries. In short, the River is literally Libya’s ‘meal ticket’ to self-sufficiency.

The Masters of the Universe do not like self-sufficiency. No one shall be allowed self-sufficiency….ever.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Mar 8 2011 12:19 utc | 37

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive
moa’s resident pentagoon spokesman nightowl is on a roll to day hehehe

Posted by: denk | Mar 8 2011 16:32 utc | 39

Oh my, b. Benjamin Barber? Please.
Next thing, we’ll have R’giap quoting George Will in support of non-intervention.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 8 2011 17:22 utc | 41

Benjamin Barber knows him just about as well as any Western intellectual. Barber — president of the CivWorld think tank, distinguished senior fellow at the Demos think tank, and author of Strong Democracy and Jihad vs. McWorld — was among a small group of democracy advocates and public intellectuals, including Joseph Nye, Anthony Giddens, Francis Fukuyama, and Robert Putnam, working under contract with the Monitor Group consulting firm to interact with Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi on issues of democracy and civil society and to help his son Saif implement democratic reforms and author a more representative constitution for Libya.

So a guy (who used to be?) on Q’s payroll pushes the divided tribal Libya meme. Gee what a surprise.

Posted by: Night Owl | Mar 8 2011 17:52 utc | 43

Very relevant article linked to by Morocco Bama about the Libyan Great River Project and some of the comments about this on the Poor Richard’s blog site, if true, are just as enlightening. Here is one comment of interest:

victor ksiezopolski said…
I was a part of the project working as a Polish hydrogeologist on American-Polish-Egiptian join venture project in 1973 in the Misurata desert area and as a hydrogeologist-consultant for a Libyan Company on a contract in 1978-1983. I was supervising and documenting water wells drillied 50 km south of Jalo Oasis in Cireneica desert and in Ubari area. The project of Man Made River was well known and only sufficient amount of water wells was required to start it on. I was in the UN FAO roaster as an expert and only my immigration to Canada stopped my further services. We could reach 250 m3/h of groundwater from wells drilled in the desert at the depth of 250 meters. This was really a great project but done and proceeded by foreign specialists only. Mr. Khadafi put only his name and money to it. I wrote a book about that time.
March 6, 2011 9:18 PM

Oh well, looks like all the “waring tribal groups” got along well enough back then that such a wide area project could be considered. (Sorry, couldn’t help the sarcasm.)
What follows is some random ramblings so feel free to stop reading here or forever hold your restraint, especially on the many different spellings of Quadaffi.
Again, I don’t understand the great horror about a No Fly Zone (NFZ). The idea is shunned as even a hypothetical discussion as how to be done properly. As both Night Owl and myself predicted, the “West” appears to be in no hurry to help the Libyan people. Defense Secretary Gates has said flat-out, a NFZ, or any military intervention is not in the cards right now. Of course you have the NeoLiberals and NeoCons clamoring for not only a NFZ, but even further intervention for probably less than noble reasons, but ‘what else is new’?
On another note, I find so many articles/posts here and in the overall media comparing the Libyan revolution to other recent and even less recent revolutions…everything from Tunisia to the U.S. Civil War. (OK, I may be exaggerating a little here.) And so many comparisons (some specifically troubling from Gaddafi apologists) comparing Gadaffi’s response to the Libyan rebels to past insurrections of other nations, or even hypothetical future military responses to revolutions yet to come in the “West”. All these comparisons are meaningless… now is now and Libya is Libya. But hey , I might as well venture a comparison also: How about comparing Gadiffi’s attempt to stay in power to the US. attempts to remain/gain control of Iraq after 2003? Seems just as valid as anything else I have read lately at least in some respects. Both the U.S. and Gadaffi blame al-Qaeda, whatever that is. The only big difference is, at least for the people involved and contrary to the Libyan tribal warfare meme, is that pro-Gadaffi air pilots seem reluctant to drop bombs on their own people. In the videos I have seen, the bombs miss every time by a long shot – one can only assume the Libyan pilots are missing on purpose. American pilots weren’t so nice. Oh sure, they had their original “Shock and Awe” moment that was designed to be a “humane” show of superior force, but after a few U.S. dead soldiers came back to America, U.S. pilots had no national identity to the Iraqis for restraint. It appears many here and in the U.S. Administration are waiting for any current restraints to wear off in Libya and let the death/destruction proceed full force. The latest news seems to point in this direction, that is, the airstrikes in Libya are becoming more frequent and more deadly. Currently, the ground action is similar to what happened in “America’s Iraq”, that is, pro-Gaddifi forces come into a town, time and time again, kill/wound/terrorize a few, then leave. This sort of reminds me of the tactics of the U.S. patrols in Iraq, especially at night. It all makes me wonder how much “western training” occurred with Gadaffi forces. Combined with increasing air attacks, the end result is destruction and desolation/desertion of towns, and these are not all small villages, many in the tens of thousands of people. The high number of refugees from the fighting is similar to Iraq also. Yet the thinking by some here is more of the opposite point of view, that the West have incited, armed, and even trained these rebels. If so, the West did a very poor job and has not learned a thing from past mistakes, but again, ‘what else is new’? Even so, are the videos of Libyan youth learning to use anti-aircraft weapons by “on the job training” false and just more of this supposed media propaganda? I doubt it.
There is another notion floating around in the background of these posts that is troubling. That is, that the people of a nation are always able to dislodge their chains from outright slavery or a bad dictator completely on their own. History has not shown this to be a fact as generations upon generations have lived in slavery. A baby can be born in slavery, live its entire life in slavery, and die in slavery, likely at a younger age than any of us would prefer. Now there can be a valid argument made that nations need to mind their own business. Unfortunately in these times, the word “business” means an awful lot. But to the point, why is it wrong to assist those in dire trouble, whether such assistance comes from an individual, a small group, or a nation? Of course, the arguments against assistance in this case are: Gadiffi is not so bad (ie., it is the media that is misleading us), or why support one tribe over another, or why support sectarianism over religious extremism, or the West is worse with its ulterior motives, so they should stay out completely. None of these arguments are positive whether or not one accepts them at face value, and specifically, none address a real need by innocent people. I see little to the positive on these posts here at MOA. Therefore, I appreciated Night Owl’s contributions as something more positive. And what I say next is not mutually exclusive: Do not prejudge or underestimate the positive qualities and abilities of these people, both young and old, from east to west, who are seeking their Libyan revolution towards more freedom. And let us not think we know more of their situation, their background, their hopes and desires, than they. To put it crudely, they are not fish in a fishbowl.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 8 2011 19:16 utc | 45

night owl
the dominant narrative is that a no fly zone be put in place with all that means – that is what i witness whether it is french italian or english speaking media including al jazeera & that is what you have suggested from the very beginning
you attempt to read a sympathy for gaddafi that i have made clear from the beginning – does not exist – i know exactly the relationship libya has had in recent years
surely, i do not have sympathy for the constituents of the revolt especially the libyan national salvation front & those who seem the most prepared & organised are salafists who have a very strong connection with fis/gia in algeria & with corrupt elements within the algerian state
you criticize b for not offering a clear position but it is a far from clear situation – i’m not ashamed of my own confusion – the situation is far more oblique than tunisia or egypt – other than offering a general support for the arab revolts – i can’t see what you actually want him to say
b’s work on georgia & iran have been vindicated by the real, the concrete situation, b’s instincts, his geostrategic understanding is more highly developed than my own & i trust that instinct
my own concern was simply stated at the beginning – that whatever the situation was in libya, i hoped it did not threaten the momentum of the arab revolts & secondarily a weakened imperialism is capable of great great damage & i fear that they are working rapidlly to degrade the effect of these revolts, already evident in oman, bahrain & saudi arabia
i apologize for the jibe but i certainly do not read the situation as you do

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 8 2011 19:24 utc | 47

to put it bluntly – whatever he’s for, i am against

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 8 2011 19:39 utc | 49

Diana Johnstone on Libya as the new Kosovo…excellent article
http://www.counterpunch.com/johnstone03072011.html
those out to attack gadafi may like to look at who they are supporting:
Meet the ‘rebels’
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27621.htm

Posted by: brian | Mar 8 2011 20:48 utc | 51

what’s the big deal about a no-fly zone?
“To establish a secure no-fly zone, we would have to bomb radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries, missile sites, and airfields, and destroy the Libyan air force on the ground, to keep the skies secure for U.S. pilots. These would be acts of war against a nation that has not attacked us. Where do we get the legal and moral right to do this?” — Pat Buchanan, U.S. right-wing commentator, arguing against intervention
http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/03/07/its-their-war-not-ours/

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. | Mar 8 2011 21:06 utc | 53

if richard cheney, david addington, ‘scooter’ iibby, john yoo, paul wolfowitz, richard perle & donald rumsfield were placed in the docks – judged for their crimes at the icc then i would believe in ‘justice’ & then i might be able to understand why gaddafi should appear there but until that moment – the court is an instrument of ideology &its judgements, worthless, not worth the copious paper they have been written on
it appears gaddafi has offered to resign -conditional on guarantees, this is something as i noted aj arabic talks about but aji does not – it would seem there is no attempt at what the soi-disant ‘international community’ likes to call ‘conflict resolution’
as each day passes the narrative gets a little more bizarre – meanwhile yemen kills protestors in the streets, bahrain applies its security apparatus on the orders of saudi arabia who themselves are tightening the screws on the opposition. so too in jordan
eanwhile hariri & his criminal gang are up to their normal tricks

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 8 2011 21:46 utc | 55

the opposite view

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 8 2011 23:47 utc | 57

Behind Libya Rifts, Tribal Politics

Many members of the new ruling class taking shape in eastern Libya are from long-privileged tribes that were relegated to second-class status under Col. Gadhafi.
Many of the leaders now emerging in eastern Libya hail from the Harabi tribe, including the head of the provisional government set up in Benghazi, Abdel Mustafa Jalil, and Abdel Fatah Younis, who assumed a key leadership role over the defected military ranks early in the uprising.
“If you scratch the surface, you’ll find a lot of the new leaders, a lot of those who defected to the rebels early, are from old tribes and families who served the Senussi monarchy,” said Jason Pack, a Libya scholar at Oxford University.

Posted by: Minerva | Mar 9 2011 1:43 utc | 59

Coup or Insurrection

Coup or insurrection? The more we learn about how the ‘insurrection’ in Libya unfolded the more it appears that behind the demonstrations a coup was being launched. Nothing else explains the overnight appearance of weapons including attacks on arms depots and military installations accompanied by well-timed rumours of atrocities being committed by Ghadafi’s air force and ‘African mercenaries’.
So what prompted such an apparently instantaneous revolt? This is where it gets murky.
The most likely explanation is some kind of power struggle within the ruling elite aided by elements of the military/security forces that capitalized on popular discontent to escalate the confrontation from day one. So for example, in the early days of the revolt it’s not clear which side fired the first shots but clearly from the very beginning both sides were using arms.

Posted by: Minerva | Mar 9 2011 1:52 utc | 61

Those that pointed out the differences between the Libyan violence and that of Egypt Tunisia and Bahrain etc back in late February were howled down by exactly the same posters who are hysterically denouncing any criticism of the Libyan ‘protesters’ now.
It is difficult to comprehend the motive to be anything other than some ego driven need to be correct, so that the patently ridiculous contention that the civil war in Libya is one-sidedly violent, is clung to as if it were a shattered spar in a throiling sea – the only possible way of staying afloat- no matter how tenuous or uncomfortable that may be.
The ‘protests started with the arson of two police stations in Beyida eastern Libya on the 16th of February. Within a week the arson of government buildings especially police stations had spread to the much larger Benghazi. It was around that time AJE which had been reporting on Libya daily but not saturation, stepped up the coverage, neatly drowning out stories about Bahrain, Jordan & Qatar & others.
No post I have seen in here has defended Muammar Qaddafi, but it seems that as far as a couple of posters are concerned, even suggesting that the leaders of the insurrection may not be any better and may in fact be worse (being members of the two tribes most deeply implicated in the monarchical and Italian colonial administrations) than Qaddafi is tantamount to a war crime.
The ugly racist subtext of as-Senussi and Warfalla tribal leaders was alluded to by a poster in here over a week ago. A shame that those determined to believe that all North African and Arab ‘revolutionary’s are as pure as the driven snow haven’t stopped to consider the true nature of the likely horror for the people of Libya that will result from going back to the bad old divide and rule days of colonial & royal Libya.
Qaddafi is a tyrant, but like Saddam Hussein he didn’t really discriminate in who he oppressed. That is to say just as women were substantially better educated in Iraq than anywhere else in the ME under Saddam, people were promoted or sacked in Qaddafi’s Libya without regard to their clan. But the Warfalla tribe plus one or two other clans originating within eastern Libya make up a narrow majority of the Libyan population. This is why clan leaders in the east have been at odds with the Qaddafi regime so constantly and ferociously since the early 1990’s.
They can see a good chance of controlling all Libya if only they can remove Muammar.
Now about the resident zionists nagging on claiming there were parallels between the sectarian violence in Iraq which led to a civil war and that of Libya.
As far as it is possible to judge the tribal (note Libya is a tribal/clan division, not a sectarian/religious difference) conflict of Libya has been entirely driven by idiots within Libya. However as we should all know, in Iraq where the Saddam administration had endeavored to have an inclusive tyrannical regime, the US was implicated in ‘false flag’ attacks on mosques and other religious sites, culminating in the Al-Askari Mosque bombing in 2006. The destruction of the golden dome was the final match which lit up Iraq and caused the civil war. Watchmen had reported hearing english spoken by some of the mine laying team. The resulting slaughter absorbed the energies of Sunni and Shia opponents of the US invasion.
oafs who maintain the us doesn’t do that need to check out the peculiar perambulations of a man called Ray Davies -he is unrelated to the founder of the kinks incidentally. R Davies is a US agent who entered Pakistan claiming to be a Xe contractor. However after he got arrested for murdering Pakistanis, the Shirley Temple administration decided that Davies was a diplomat entitled full diplomatic cover. Shirley told the world Davies was a CIA employee. The Lahore police discovered maps and cell phone records of known members of Tehreek-e-Taliban of Pakistan (TTP) and sectarian Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ).
It seems Davies was the organizer of those two groups’ activities against Pakistani civilians. Keeping the Pakistan govt wrong footed, by using the alleged islamofascists, then calling in drone attacks on villages that were totally unrelated to the attacks. No wonder investigators found US links to the 2009 Mumbai attack.
The empire keeps the pot simmering, stirs up trouble either for direct political gain or to be a distraction from their real nastiness.
As above there is nothing to link the US to the slaughtering in Libya yet, but that cannot be used as some sort of proof to deny the US’ deliberate strategy of creating sectarian conflict in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon to name a few.
The Iran ructions of a coupla years back must have left some delicate petals over-sensitive to the asinine claims of zionists and their ilk that those who expressed reservations at the true nature of the post election riots in Iran were hypocrites. The only truth in any of that stupidity is that those making that claim are either ignoramuses carelessly revealing their flawed thinking to the world, or conniving game players who are more interested in winning an argument than exposing the depravities humans squashed at the bottom of the imperial shit heap are forced to endure.

Posted by: UreKismet | Mar 9 2011 4:25 utc | 63

hey hey MoA
battle zones
but that’s okay
when typing from the safety zones
proxy boxing
for some
is entertainment
(employment?)
who can say?

Posted by: lizard | Mar 9 2011 4:59 utc | 65

copeland has no evidence
u are a liar mr

Posted by: denk | Mar 9 2011 5:16 utc | 67

Go carry Ghadhafi’s slippers for him, denk. It’s almost nighty-night.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 9 2011 5:37 utc | 69

Copeland
We just saw this happen in Egypt. Most folks who read at MoA have come to the conclusion that people don’t become saints if they are forced to take up arms against tyranny. No one knows if the outcome of bloody civil war in Libya will mean a better government or not. And who are we to judge how pure or impure the people in the insurrection are?
Well put.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t happen to recall too many people around here questioning the morality of the Egyptian protesters in such conspiratorial terms, or taking such heroic pains to diminish the legitimacy of their protests.
I guess the moral of the story is that semi-peaceful protests (those with a lot of rocks and some molotov cocktails) are brave and noble movements, but if the protesters end up getting gunned down in the streets, they must have had it coming.

Posted by: Night Owl | Mar 9 2011 5:54 utc | 71

denk, you distorted the very effective irony of Night Owl’s paragraph by pulling the phrase *they had it coming* out of context, and presenting it, as if it were a declarative sentence. Either you cannot read english effectively, in context; or like a troll, you are being deliberately dishonest.
But some of it may have to do with having fixed ideas. We have all have been guilty of that at times; but when I see a response like yours above (at #76), I can only think that you are trying to slap us silly with your ideas without any respect for our intelligence.
And when you write “who else but u say it owl” you both condescend and distort at the same time.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 9 2011 7:48 utc | 73

Video – The Battle for Zawiyah (long version)
The ant-Qadaffi forces have some pretty serious weapons …

Posted by: b | Mar 9 2011 9:24 utc | 75

Ivory Coast: rebellion, fighting, “genocide”, rape. No fly zone? Carrier force? Intervention to promote democracy?Hahahahaha. Why not? NO OIL. West indifferent.
Burma recently. Same. NO OIL , so no “humane” intervention.
We gotta get that oil, so get rid of Gaddafi/Qaddafi/Khadaffi/etc

Posted by: hilerie | Mar 9 2011 11:45 utc | 77

Re Moroccobama 37:
Libya’s Great Man-Made River Project. This incredibly huge and successful water scheme is virtually unknown in the West, yet it rivals and even surpasses all our greatest development projects.
Even in quoting Poorrichard, this issue is being misunderstood. This is a good idea, in its way. But you should understand that what it does is to pump water out of wells in the desert and send it by pipe to the coast for irrigating the agriculture of the coastal plain.
The main problem is that it is fossil water, never replaced by new rainfall. It is water that fell as rain during the last wet phase in the Sahara 25,000 years ago. My geography professor back in the 80s, who studied the project, said the water would last 30 years. Well, 30 years are nearly up. Maybe he was too pessimistic, but still…. The project evidently has no long term future in spite of all the money spent on it.

Posted by: Alexno | Mar 9 2011 12:48 utc | 79

There were like 8000 UN troops in Ivory Coast with more being deployed after Gbago refused to step down after the presidential elections. When the civil war was happening there was a direct intervention by the French army. And other than the ‘important’ cocoa production (to be exported, processed and profited in western countries) there is oil.
You can hardly say there is no intervention there. It’s a different matter if it’s being reported in the Mass For Dummies Media. In fact the situation is very similar including the tribal undertones. So on your next attempt to troll use a better example.

Posted by: ThePaper | Mar 9 2011 13:18 utc | 81

said the water would last 30 years.
30 years based off of the grand plans they had in store for it. From what I gathered, those plans have not yet come to fruition, and the water still largely remains in the ground….waiting for that rainy day. I may be wrong, but I wonder if there are any reliable resources we can find that state the case objectively.
Assuming the water angle is not an angle at all, Alexno, why do you believe Libya is of strategic interest to the West, aside from the obvious. In otherwords, why is the media building a case for possible intervention in Libya versus anywhere else we are seeing uprisings? What is it about Libya?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Mar 9 2011 13:54 utc | 83

When the west elite sees pictures like this, actions will follow. This is big in a psychological sense.
Sidre Oil Port
http://twitpic.com/47slaa

Posted by: Rick | Mar 9 2011 14:37 utc | 85

re 83
Alexno, why do you believe Libya is of strategic interest to the West, aside from the obvious.
I don’t. And I don’t believe the West will intervene. It would be a bad idea. They’re anxious at the moment, it’s understandable.
If they want to get rid of Gaddafi, they should supply the rebels covertly with arms. Robert Fisk had a story at the weekend in the Independent about the US negotiating with Saudi Arabia to do precisely that. The Angry Arab pissed on Fisk’s story. No idea whether there was any truth in it. But it’s the right idea.
But if Gaddafi wins, there will be negative long-term consequences. Libya will be destabilised until Gaddafi does finally disappear. There’s no future in a Gaddafi win; Libya just goes on hold. Libyans won’t accept a second-generation Gaddafi now, except by force. There’ll be a continuing destabilising force to the ME oil production scene.
And it will be embarrassing for the US to be forced to watch an ugly massacre right in front of its television cameras (or rather those of al-Jazeera, and thus not watched), another proof of things that go on in the world quite outside of its control.

Posted by: Alexno | Mar 9 2011 15:13 utc | 87

The ant-Qadaffi forces have some pretty serious weapons …
As I’ve said previously, I think Az Zawiya is the key to the whole conflict right now. Az Zawiya is the major oil and gas terminal for the entire west of the country. With his reversals in the east up to and including the oil facilities at Ras Lanuf, Q desperately needs the facilities at Az Zawiya if he wants any realistic hope of prolonging the war.
Q has made the maximum effort there in recent days and, while reports have been sketchy, he appears to have come up short. In the process, he has lost a number of tanks and other equipment that he can’t replace and now finds himself weaker and still without control of any of Libya’s strategic oil assets.
In this context, it’s not surprising that Q floated a second round of overtures to the opposition on a way out (the first coming from Chavez after Q’s loss at Ras Lanuf).
Meanwhile to the west of Tripoli, Q has also been repelled at Misrata, which blocks his ability both to relieve Sirte and to concentrate his forces for a last ditch offensive to retake Ras Lanuf.
So long as Az Zawiya in the east and Misrata in the west both hold, Q’s days appear to be numbered.

Posted by: Night Owl | Mar 9 2011 15:59 utc | 89

Night Owl,
I would think, and a retired Egyptian General mentioned this on AJ today, that any areas far from Tripoli Q will have a hard time to retake and hold because long supply lines needed. These are cities in the desert separated by long distances . b would be better to comment on this as he did an excellent job describing these problems in Afghanistan. I wonder if the coastal cities would be exempt from this tactical problem.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 9 2011 16:51 utc | 91

would be better to comment on this as he did an excellent job describing these problems in Afghanistan
Well, no, actually.
b’s position was that supply routes over the Khyber would be effectively cut off by the taliban, which hasn’t happened. Meanwhile, b said that Russia would never permit transit of matériel through Russia and the former southern republics would not acquiesce, which hasn’t happened.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 9 2011 17:08 utc | 93

Az Zawiya has mostly fallen – had no chance at all – the eastern areas will fall too – yes, the supply lines are long for Qadaffi to send his military to the east – so what – he has the resources.
I believe your assessment is overly pessimistic, especially with regard to the situation in the east. But as always, time will tell.
If you want to know the area and supply problems, read up on the Germans fighting there – they didn’t have the resources the US/British forces had.
As a student of those campaigns, I’m sure you’re aware of the necessity of an unhindered flow of gasoline for any offensive to succeed.
Currently, Q is running solely on his reserves, so unless he can pacify Az Zawiya to the point where he can get the gas flowing from there again, I have a tough time seeing how he can sustain any offensive operations at all, let alone operations that could carry him to Benghazi.

Posted by: Night Owl | Mar 9 2011 23:32 utc | 95

The Chris Floyd article is a good one. As far as Gadhafi is concerned, it would be to his advantage to present his regime as opposing the imperial powers; it’s what served him so well during the years when he was more in possession of his faculties. But early on in the revolt he was still complementing Obama, calling him a nice man and so on. Gadhafi is still reluctant to burn those bridges behind him, at least in his own mind. There is some kind of delusion at work when he claims al_Qaeda is behind the revolt, or suggests that the instigators are feeding the rebellious youth psychoactive drugs.
Milne’s observations just expose the whole false facade American diplomacy. Obama for his part has just given the Guantanamo base he once promised to close, a perpetual lease on life, by signaling that the military tribunals can be empaneled to sit there, and judge prisoners who are left to rot in its legal limbo. And the example being made of Pfc. Bradley Manning has become even harsher; as his friends report that he was force to stand naked outside his cell for seven hours, where he is held in military custody in Virginia.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 10 2011 1:28 utc | 97

why are my comments not being posted?

Posted by: brian | Mar 10 2011 7:26 utc | 99