Libya

[Student of Trinity]

This deserves a thread.

 

I don't really know all that's going on, and I'm worried about how it will all turn out. But at this stage, at least, there is still room for lots of optimism.

 

Maybe the Libyan rebels have really got their act together. Maybe this time the western powers found a genuinely helpful response that didn't come at too high a price. The chances of everything working out ideally are pretty near zero, but maybe things will work out well enough.

 

Oh, there's always time to wring hands, and there'll be lots of times to weep. We should take the rare occasion now passing, to stand up and cheer.

[AethirWeb]

I don't know what's happening either...but I think I might support the rebels. I haven't heard the word Libya in a long time.

[Necris Omega]

Eh, no matter how this comes out, it's long past time.

 

Honestly, while I don't see this turning into the next Turkey in terms of progressive Middle Eastern-ish states, without the screwball in charge, at least there's some hope. Sadly, revolutions like what America enjoyed are rare, and this may go the way of post-Imperialism Mexico. For the Libyan's sake, God forbid…

 

No, I don't see them going all pro-west, but it's not like anything is lost in that scenario. Gaddafi was already as flag wavingly anti-west as a dictator can get, and on top of things was crazier than Charlie Sheen on a bad day.

 

Maybe the rebels will shock the world and forge a country they can truly be proud of. Maybe it'll melt down into an Afghanistan like wasteland of disparate tribal rule. Worst case scenario is it turns into another Iran. But, at least there's the hope and potential for change, and really, I do think it would be easier to improve things in the long run then make them worse.

[Harehunter]

What worries me is the coincidence of Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, and now Libya, all having uprisings at once. Or is it simply coincidence?

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

nothing is a coincidence.....heh heh heh

[nikki.]

If my neighbour buys a new TV, I begin looking at my set and wonder if I could improve upon it.

 

Likewise, Libya sees other countries having rebellions and revolutions, and it starts looking at its own government.

 

(Not saying that's the only reason, but it's there. Also note that this has been happening in Libya since Febuary, just a few weeks after the Egyptian uprisings.)

 

Edit: Correction: it started in January, before the Egyptian uprising, but it seems that the protests then were successful in that the Government gave the protesters what they wanted. After that 'Jamal al-Hajji, a writer, political commentator and accountant, "call[ed] on the Internet for demonstrations to be held in support of greater freedoms in Libya" inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions'. 1

[Necris Omega]

Eh, I see it as a simple case of copy cat syndrome. Revolutions (and many, many things) are much easier to start and get going if someone next door recently did it.

[Kyronea]

The protests originally started in Tunisia, over a fruit cart that was all the owner had, that was his life for many years--the figure I usually hear is twenty--being burned and destroyed by police for no real reason. It was then filmed on a cellphone and uploaded to the internet.

 

The internet is really the cause of why these spread so far and so quickly. It's so hard these days to keep the sort of state censorship and crackdown on the spread of information and ideas that dictatorships across the world--particularly in the Middle East--are so used to, and they're struggling to catch up.

 

Without easy internet access, that little event would have gone down like so many others: important to the man involved, to what little he had for family, and that's about it. With the internet, it became the spark that lit the fire of Middle Eastern revolution.

[Alorael at Large]

However it works out, the rebels in Libya, and in the other countries going through uprisings, have a chance to make things better. I hope they seize it, and I hope the rest of the world helps them seize it and knows when to back off and let them make their mistakes.

 

Revolutionary fervor has more penetration in these populations than internet access. The internet might be important, but I think we also might overstate its role. The biggest catalyst was probably too much time under too crushing a government until there was really not much left to lose. The internet might help give the spark more spark, but the Middle East has been a bunch of political dry tinder for a long time.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think other revolutions happen quite like the US revolution because almost nowhere else in the world has what was essentially part of a country far away from the rest of the country separated and then done their own thing. The circumstances are too rare: it requires non-colonized population (ironically, given that the USA was born from thirteen colonies, no prior history as a country, and no arbitrarily imposed borders. It's also noteworthy that the American Revolution should really be called a civil war.

[Rowen]

I wouldn't say the internet was the spark, just a median for it.

[Necris Omega]

I honestly think tribal/ethnic hurdles are the most likely thing to make this revolution in Libya fly off the rails in the long term.

 

With the US, differences between the colonies weren't matters of life and dead, and went back for mere decades at the time of the revolution. Hostilities weren't at a fevered pitch between groups at the time, and any disputes weren't matters of blood.

 

In this region, you can be looking at violent conflicts stretching back ages. Gaddafi might escape and rear his ugly, hideous head, but the greater problem is keeping his ejectors all on the same side when he's no longer there to give them a common enemy.

[Enraged Slith]

How many more lame messages of encouragement does world leaders have to give before they give to us their oil? It's amusing to read how hard everyone is trying to appear relevant in their eyes.

[Micawber]

I don't think they'll exactly give us their oil. There's a reason why Libya is the richest African country.

[Callie]

The interim government in Egypt hasn't seemed to progressed that much, and people are getting disappointed. I would not be surprised if a similar situation happened in Libya, especially since the US (disguising itself as NATO) intervened in the situation. After all, we don't know a whole lot about the rebel leaders. Sure we're under the impression that they want to institute a better government, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Additionally I would never trust any sort of interventionist military action the United States participates in. Look at the Contras. Look at the Mujahideen. Look at Iraq. Look at Lebanon, etc., etc., etc. Heck, the US once assassinated the leader of Chile, and it was even allied with Hosni Mubarak's government.

 

But, I should probably mention that I was opposed to any intervention in the first place, and strongly agree with politicians like Dennis Kucinich on the issue.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Micawber

I don't think they'll exactly give us their oil. There's a reason why Libya is the richest African country.

Really? I would think it would be South Africa. Huh.

Originally Posted By: Necris Omega

I honestly think tribal/ethnic hurdles are the most likely thing to make this revolution in Libya fly off the rails in the long term.

With the US, differences between the colonies weren't matters of life and dead, and went back for mere decades at the time of the revolution. Hostilities weren't at a fevered pitch between groups at the time, and any disputes weren't matters of blood.

In this region, you can be looking at violent conflicts stretching back ages. Gaddafi might escape and rear his ugly, hideous head, but the greater problem is keeping his ejectors all on the same side when he's no longer there to give them a common enemy.

Not really. Turkey is a great example of how, with properly applied military coups, it's possible to transform a insular, Islamist country to a modern Western liberal democracy that's still quite compatible with strong religious belife so long as it stays out of the public sphere and sticks to people's personal lives. I have no doubt that if someone along the likes of Ataturk (but Libyan) emerges, much the same thing could happen. It would actually be easier, because the country has oil wealth that Turkey would have lacked, so it's way easier to get Western interests to lend a helping hand.

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

The interim government in Egypt hasn't seemed to progressed that much, and people are getting disappointed. I would not be surprised if a similar situation happened in Libya, especially since the US (disguising itself as NATO) intervened in the situation. After all, we don't know a whole lot about the rebel leaders. Sure we're under the impression that they want to institute a better government, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Additionally I would never trust any sort of interventionist military action the United States participates in. Look at the Contras. Look at the Mujahideen. Look at Iraq. Look at Lebanon, etc., etc., etc. Heck, the US once assassinated the leader of Chile, and it was even allied with Hosni Mubarak's government.

Um, from what I've heard, this isn't a case of the US disguising itself as NATO or the UN, but rather Britain and especially France doing so, and the US then trying to take a big chunk of credit for it so we look like we can do a Middle East war right.

[Alorael at Large]

Libya isn't the richest African country. That honor definitely goes to South Africa. Libya has higher per capita GDP, but still not the highest in Africa.

 

—Alorael, who thinks Libya has a substantial advantage in its educated population. It has the human capital to build a functioning state. Now it just needs the human willingness. (An swift and successful end to the civil war wouldn't hurt either.)

[Callie]

Even though many of the ships, aircraft, and military personnell involved in the operation are French and British, the US contributes a significantly greater portion of NATO's budget than any other member state. I highly doubt French and British money is funding most of the effort.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Even though many of the ships, aircraft, and military personnell involved in the operation are French and British, the US contributes a significantly greater portion of NATO's budget than any other member state. I highly doubt French and British money is funding most of the effort.

So? If it's British and French ships, aircraft, and personnel, then it's a British and French intervention. Nobody's claiming that the First Gulf War was a Japanese intervention instead of an American one, even though the Japanese underwrote the majority of the costs. The nation with boots on the ground, or in this case planes in the air and ships in the sea, is the one "intervening", not the one who writes the check, or even a portion of it.

[Aoslare]

The Japanese underwrote $10 billion out of a total cost of $60 billion. Apparently Saudi Arabia underwrote $36 billion!

 

EDIT: More to the point, it was the U.S. that largely organized the coalition, wasn't it? I think "who makes the case for war and organizes the war" counts, too.

[Student of Trinity]

NATO doesn't have any significant budget of its own as such — not by military standards. It's around a billion dollars a year, and that just covers the joint NATO headquarters and administration, which are pretty large. The organization was supposed to run one half of World War III, after all. But NATO is a treaty organization, not a super-state. Its members act with their own forces.

 

The reason the US makes up most of the total military budgets of NATO powers (as opposed to the budget of NATO itself) is just that the US armed forces make up the majority of NATO forces. But what the other countries do put in, they pay for themselves. So in Libya right now, France and Britain and everybody else are paying for their own bombs and fuel and pilot salaries.

 

Or at least their fuel and salaries. Gates complained that some NATO allies had run out of their own munitions within a few weeks, and had to use American stockpiles. I don't know whether these were given or sold. I'd expect sold, but Gates would still have had a right to complain even so. The luxury of only having to pay for the bombs you actually need is convenient, but if everybody did that, nobody would be prepared for war.

[Callie]

After googling for over an hour, I could not find any recently updated breakdown of forces involved in the operation. In fact, the most recent one I could find was from May. Reading through NATO's media updates for Operation Unified Protector only list the number of sorties and whatnot, but do now specify which country did what. So unless someone can find a more recent article, Dantius and I don't have a discussion.

 

Note: NATO officially took over command of the operation on March 25.