Reply #29: Just saw this comment on LouisProyect's blog...........

[AverageJoe90]

From Binh:

"Reality is a bit more complicated than that, methinks.

In my view, the rebels’ biggest mistake was limiting the fight to overthrow Gaddafi to a purely military dimension instead of trying to mobilize the population, especially through strikes, to bring down the regime, as was done in Egypt. This “mistake” was due to the class politics of the National Council, populated by ex-regime figures, and the fact that the Libyan left/working class didn’t have its own organizations to push its interests to shape the upheaval. They were starting from square one politically and organizationally, unlike in Egypt.

Once they cornered themselves into a purely military struggle, the logical corollary was to call for airstrikes from without since they themselves had no airforce or armored tanks, and if those planes were British, American, French, then so be it. The logic of military conflict is now compelling the rebels to accept NATO military advisers as well, including from the Italians(!!). This will hand Gaddafi a great propaganda victory because he will be able to paint them as imperialist stooges while he is defending Libya’s honor and independence.

I’m 100% against all imperialist intervention in Libya. They are seeking to control and limit the rebellion, and so far, they are succeeding. The U.S. has made clear they do not want the rebels to defeat Gaddafi militarily, which is why NATO’s airstrikes let up every time the rebels make advances and pick up again when they retreat. They prefer a stalemate/partition to locally driven regime change because a partitioned Libya will mean that the rebels in the east are dependent on them to protect them from Gaddafi. The imperalists’ preferred endgame is a military coup that either kills Gaddafi and his family or expels them from Libya after which there would be some type of negotiated settlement or “orderly transition” that incorporates Gaddafi’s state machine and the rebels.

I still think the rebel cause — a bourgeois democracy of some sort — is right and just. They are revolting against a murderous and tyrannical government. However, they are becoming enmeshed with imperialists who have zero interest in making sure the rebels are victorious. Unless they break with the imperialists and find a way to mobilize the masses, I don’t see anything other than a bloody stalemate/partition coming out of this. They were very close to winning too — Gaddafi had lost control of almost every city outside of Tripoli and the rebels were able to repel the first few attempts he made to take back the towns closest to the capital, so it’s simply not true to say the rebels lacked “country wide” support. They had it but they blew their chance."

Frankly I myself can't help but wonder if the revolution IS being hijacked. I also agree with Binh when he said he believed the cause of the rebels was a decent one.