Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 14, 2011
Libya: The “West” Is Finally Acknowledging The Tribal Conflict

On March 7 I wrote:

The "western" media is reporting the crisis in Libya as something similar to what happened in Egypt and Tunisia. 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.

Five month late the so called paper of the record finally acknowledges these facts:

While the rebels have sought to maintain a clean image and to portray themselves as fighting to establish a secular democracy, several recent acts of revenge have cast their ranks in a less favorable light. They have also raised the possibility that any rebel victory over Colonel Qaddafi could disintegrate into the sort of tribal tensions that have plagued Libya for centuries.

In recent weeks, rebel fighters in Libya’s western mountains and around the coastal city of Misurata have lashed out at civilians because their tribes supported Colonel Qaddafi, looting mountain villages and emptying a civilian neighborhood.

I was accused of arguing from a feeling of "cultural superiority" when I wrote that March piece about Libyan tribes. Maybe I was, though I don't think so, but at least I was right.

My piece finished with this:

With "western" intervention the situation on the ground would quickly deteriorate. This would cost a lot more lives than any situation in which the Libyan people fight this out by and for themselves.

The New York Times finishes with a somewhat similar sense:

Members of the tribes close to Colonel Qaddafi — like his own tribe, the Qaddafa, or the larger Maghraha, and small tribes associated with them — may face the greatest danger from “tribal revenge,” George Joffe, a Libya expert at the University of Cambridge, wrote in another e-mail. “And, of course, the longer this struggle continues, the more likely and bitter that will become.

It is time to stop any support for any side of this conflict. Let the Libyans fight it out for themselves. That would, in the end, be a much less bloody affair than onside support for this or that tribe.

Comments

the “west” should finally let the African Union – and Arab countries – try it. I suspect these “tribes” are both sides of any of the many Libyan borders.
the conflict will get worse not better if prolongued.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 14 2011 6:32 utc | 1

I can’t see the point of quoting the NYT. They don’t know any more than anyone else. George Joffe, the person you quote in the penultimate para, was involved with Saif al-Islam Qaddafi in financing the centre at the LSE, according to Wiki. He’s a well-known very conservative pundit.
The point is that nobody denies that there is an element of tribal conflict in Libya, but it is not all, and in particular it is not where it started. The conflict started as an anti-megalomaniac dictator movement, because that is what the previous Arab Spring movements were.
Qaddafi and his friends would like very much for the war to be a tribal conflict, as that gets them off the hook. So you are doing a favour to Qaddafi in this post.
By the way, fighting is reconfirmed in Zawiya: Libyan rebels poised to take Zawiya. Which is, of course, a very, very, long way from Tripoli. Qaddafi is quite secure. Well it’s about 50 km, half an hour in a fast car.

Posted by: alexno | Aug 14 2011 13:21 utc | 2

Of course NATO are running on a timer that is quickly running out of sand. On September 19th (little over a month away) the UN General Assembly meets. The NATO military operations are scheduled to expire on September 30th. So the Sept 30th deadline will likely be decided at the 19th meeting.
It’s unlikely that NATO will get through September with an extension for another 90 days. Not only would Russia and China be able to interupt it at the Security Council on the 19th but Italy and Canada have both said they will not vote for another extension. To make matters worse for America, the Palestine declaration of independence is being voted on on the 20th September. So the US will have to try russle up support with the Chinese and Russians to vote with Israel with the whole Libyan mess playing in the background.

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Aug 14 2011 13:26 utc | 3

the view from China
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-08/14/c_131048754_2.htm

Posted by: somebody | Aug 14 2011 14:48 utc | 4

A relative of mine was ‘stuck’ in Nature when the conflict in Lybia ramped up with the West’s intervention. He had nothing to hand except a complete Britannica from some date between the two W wars, pulled it out, read the entry and looked at the map – Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, Fezzan – and said to himself, yes I understand, I get it.
The question is, why is it that the PTB and the media as conduit and creator do such a staggeringly abysmal job? Is it really stupidity, lack of knowledge, no history, no insight, and no desire to understand? That is not credible, though it certainly applies to some, or many, individuals. That framing and interpretation take place to construct a narrative that makes sense in a certain world-view, and serves self-interest, whether deliberately or not, is unsurprising. Yet, when the gap between ‘reality’ – a slippery concept – and the story line becomes so large it is disquieting. (The gap itself is of course a matter of perception as well.) What purpose is served? What aim is to be accomplished?
The US and its satellites (EU first) are increasingly resembling a wildly dysfunctional family, where members stick to the story, no matter how weird and obviously at odds with multiple facts, for as long as possible, to then make an about turn when pressured. Again, we see the media publishing BS to then kinda make a ‘minor correction’ to present another POV to be ‘balanced’ (as habit, maybe at bit of a stretch in this case) or ‘review‘ the situation, etc.
The media actually does, I think, represent somewhat what goes on in higher reaches (though alexno about the NYT is right, and that is not a contradiction), which is quite scary.
So we live in a world where Sarko is jealous of Blair and wants to bomb people too because it is a manly thing. Gotta get his war creds. And the US, the arms merchants, and a lot of other scum, slaver at other wars, interventions, etc. To make it very short.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 14 2011 15:12 utc | 5

“The conflict started as an anti-megalomaniac dictator movement, because that is what the previous Arab Spring movements were.
Qaddafi and his friends would like very much for the war to be a tribal conflict, as that gets them off the hook. So you are doing a favour to Qaddafi in this post.”
There were two points made on MoA that are worth repeating: 1. for a Spring movement the uprising in Libya (and Syria) went to the military option VERY Quickly, in sharp contrast to what happened in Tunisia, Egypt etc.
2. The insurgents (or whatever we want to call them) have committed far to many crimes (murders, property theft and destruction etc) of unarmed civilians (also true in Syria) again in sharp contrast to the REAL spring movements.
You may be right in that it did not start as a tribal conflict but it hardly started as a Spring freedom movement either. And it may be the case that as the fighting has gone on it has devolved into a tribal conflict. But if it is/does become a tribal conflict will it really matter how it got there? And is it not doing a disservice to the REAL Spring Movements to classify the conflict in Libya (or Syria) as a spring movement at any stage of its existence?

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Aug 14 2011 15:37 utc | 6

@ Noirette
The media and the PTB have always been like this. We’re just noticing it because we have been schooled in their lying ways during the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan. We have the internet now and that really does make a difference. We ourselves are better able to analyse the media reporting
Once upon a time I actually believed that the media, despite it’s faults, at least made some attempt to be accurate – over the last 10 years I, and many others here I suppose, have jettisoned any notion that the media is anything other than a propaganda wing of a corrupt Corporatocracy.
RE: Sarko. He certainly does have some internal issues regarding his masculinity. IMHO, at the risk of offending shorter-people, I think it all comes down to his height.
A few years back naked photos of Carla Bruni were being auctioned. On the day of the auction Sarko made sure to be photographed with a number of VERY large, VERY obvious Phallic symbols: French Nuclear Submarines. It gave me quite a laugh at the time

Posted by: Hu Bris | Aug 14 2011 15:40 utc | 7

Hu bris, you are right of course. banging the same drum gets tired .. (me)
Carlita is now with child, too sweet. that is worth 5% of the vote, or more.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 14 2011 15:56 utc | 8

it is very bad, so even Al Jazeera has to notice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZQNXOes52o&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: somebody | Aug 14 2011 17:52 utc | 9

The NYT has long been a paper that hires talented fiction writers…and buttressed the neocon view of the world.

Posted by: brian | Aug 14 2011 21:27 utc | 10

Irans Press TV has been taken over by NATO..at least thats how id read the following anon piece:
From Press TV, aug 14 2011:
‘Over the past six months, forces loyal to Gaddafi have killed thousands of Libyan civilians.
NATO says its air campaign over Libya is aimed at protecting civilians. However, Libyan officials say hundreds of civilians have died in the bombings. ‘
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/193941.html
How does the writer get libyan army to be killing thousands of Libyan civilians?! Notice how NATO gets the caveat: ‘NATO says its air campaign over Libya is aimed at protecting civilians. ‘ and any death due to their bombing is purely coincidental! While Libyas army ,whom most libyans suppport, gets the active tense. No evidence..no : NATO alleges or TNC alleges….One for Ripley, as here irans state press TV is clearly acting as a propaganda agent for NATO! Are they hoping NAT will then not attack Tehran?!
Anyone reading Press TV knows that its readership is solidly with Gadafi and the Jamahirya! so Press TV is whittling away at its own base…

Posted by: brian | Aug 14 2011 22:12 utc | 11

Tribal sounds ‘primitive’ yet also equals regional, geographical, city/country, cultural, etc. divides – Lybia is a large land…
Noteworthy is that the ‘rich’ region, the center of power (tripoli…), has not tried to secede or rumbled about it (see yugoslavia, italy, spain…) but rather that late in the day, perhaps at the last minute, more marginal / removed from central control region(s) latched onto the Arab Spring meme.
Why? Because they are the ones, roughly, who are actually sitting on the oil wealth (south east, ex Cyreneica, or xyz districts, wiki will inform.) Kadhafi always went the long haul to promote Lybian Unity, and a quick glance at the oil pool maps shows why.
On 15 February 2011, the IMF wrote a very laudatory report on Lybia. And DSK in an interview praised Kadhafi! Summary (IMF):
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2011/pn1123.htm
Lybia had become a west darling – cooperative projects, oil cos entering, etc.
30 some days later. France attacks! (short version.)
Conclusion: was prompted by internal Lybian events and opportunistic, ignorant hubris.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 15 2011 17:11 utc | 12

Things are moving fast. At the moment, Zawiya is partly occupied.
The road from Tunisia is closed today: that is clear. It is vital for Qaddafi. He will put all his efforts into reopening the road.
If he doesn’t succeed, we know the result. Tripoli cannot feed itself now without imports from Tunisia. And we’re not talking about refining hydrocarbons (petrol) for his vehicles.

Posted by: alexno | Aug 15 2011 19:37 utc | 13

tribal is primitive? You mean the corrupt society of europe or america is to be preferred? LO: not really

Posted by: brian | Aug 15 2011 21:44 utc | 14

tribal is primitive? You mean the corrupt society of europe or america is to be preferred? LO: not really

Posted by: brian | Aug 15 2011 21:44 utc | 15

Libya shows signs of slipping from Muammar Gaddafi’s grasp
Is it true? I’m really not sure. Are we on the edge? We will see.

Posted by: alexno | Aug 15 2011 22:01 utc | 16

alexno, you have to look for the unreported news like what is going on in Misrata
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/16/c_131053298.htm
you get an idea what is going on, by looking at what Nato is bombing:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_71994.htm
you also get an idea of what is going on from where CNN and al jazeera are not reporting from
the way this is run, NATO bombs targets in the places where the rebels are meant to go, Ghaddafi soldiers flee, the rebels come, the media films celebrating rebels (there are always very few rebels on those pictures and the population seems to be non existent, let me guess they have fled), Ghaddafi soldiers take the place back.
Look up Potemkin. He invented this.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 16 2011 11:07 utc | 17

and finally the Western Media notices the gunfire in Benghazi
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2088749,00.html
it has been the backdrop of Al Jazeera Videos from the beginning, I remember a female reporter shrugging her sholders when she got interrupted by a loud explosion “you hear this here all the time..” it was called celebrating then …

Posted by: somebody | Aug 16 2011 12:34 utc | 18