Time: "Why Gaddafi Has Survived" Could the WEST be WRONG on Libya??

[Distant Observer]

Time magazine has been one of the few popular rags to provide any indepth treatment of the revolution in Libya. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2045328,00.html

Viviene Walt's article "Libya: Why Gaddafi Has Survived the Rebellion" dares to introduce some facts to that tend to be ignored or denied in the current anti-Gaddafi fervor. For instance: the "strongman" Gaddafi is very popular among many in Libya even as he is opposed by many. In my opinion he may well have majority support, but this is not even imagined by most consumers of the mainstream press.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2059233,00.html

As the G-8 leaders and the U.N. Security Council continued debating a no-fly zone over Libya on Tuesday, the country's capital erupted in wild celebrations after reports that Muammar Gaddafi's forces had retaken the crucial rebel-held town of Ajdabiyah
....
"The West's interpretation was very, very stupid," says Mustafa Fetouri, director of the M.B.A. program at the Academy of Graduate Studies in Tripoli, who spent decades living in Europe. "They just gambled on the wrong thing, and made a huge, stupid mistake."

One crucial error by Western leaders, says Fetouri, has been to downplay Libya's complex web of tribal loyalties, which has helped to keep Gaddafi in power for more than four decades — an impressive achievement, given several assassination attempts and years of Libya being an international pariah under stiff economic sanctions. Some tribal alliances date back decades to the bloody rebellions against the Italian colonial forces before World War II, and even some tribal leaders who hold grudges against Gaddafi, for having failed to deliver services or cutting them out of certain privileges, rushed to his defense once the antigovernment demonstrations in Benghazi became an armed rebellion. For those people, says Fetouri, "they will die for Gaddafi, because he belongs to their tribe."


I lived in various countries in Africa for about 10 years, and while many of the elites might make jokes about Gaddafi's antics or lack of western polish, most respected him for the brutal bluntness of his rants -- calling out western imperialist for exploition of developing countries and lambasting the Arab potentates for their opulent lifestyles and the squadering of their countries' oil wealth -- the very things that have made him hated by other rulers.

Gaddafi has also put his money where his mouth is: he implemented a program of education and social welface that compares favorably with any in the region (subsidized food, inexpensive housing, free medical care and education, and profit-sharing were among the benefit provided to every citizens. See U.S. State Dept country summary etc) and the Libya sovereign fund has been made a reliable source of investment for progressive projects throughout the African continent and beyond.
Western critics, cynically call Gaddafi's largess to poor countries, "buying friends"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16mali.html?_r=1


From Liberia to South Africa to the island of Madagascar, Libya’s holdings are like a giant venture capital fund, geared to make friends and win influence in the poorest region in the world.

But from my experience these were often ideologically driven investment in socially meritorious projects that no one else would consider. Gaddafi, with his personal practice of bedoin tent-life, has certainly not been a good capitalist investor, but his investments has earned broad support in the rest of Africa.

In the ongoing conflict, the fighting may be described as ruthless, brutal etc, but it does not seem more so than in other civil wars. The Libyian govenment has repeatedly called for dialog, mediation and has offered unconditional amnesty to all rebels.

The US posture of calling for support from Arab leaders for action against Gaddafi is either devious or missinformed. Gaddafi is not viewed as a leader of and "Arab" country, but the leader of an African country with a large Arabic population. The West would certainly not get support against Gaddafi from the African Union.

Once again, perhaps deliberately, the West has got it Wrong.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Distant Observer]

3. Not pro-Gaddafi anymore that pro-Chavez, just wish we progressives were

a little more sceptical of the usual biases present in our media when it comes
many countries that have been antagonistic to US policies in the past.

[karynnj]

2. Libya is an Arab country - and it is disengenuous to say it is an "African" one

I would bet that the majority of its people who self identify with "Arab" more so than "Africa"

You say:
The US posture of calling for support from Arab leaders for action against Gaddafi is either devious or missinformed. Gaddafi is not viewed as a leader of and "Arab" country, but the leader of an African country with a large Arabic population. The West would certainly not get support against Gaddafi from the African Union.

It is not provable how the African Union would decide, but you go there just to minimize the fact that the Arab League DID ask for a no fly zone.

Was he being humanitarian when he ordered the bombing of Pan Am, killing many college kids returning home for Christmas break while studying abroad for a year?

[Distant Observer]

5. Please see historical maps of the world for definition of Arabia.

I was making a rhetorical point regarding perception. Gaddafi views himself as leader of the African country of Libya. Libya is also part of the "Arab world" and Gaddafi has also be pan-arabic.

Gaddafi is also a recent President of the African Union.

Certainly, some Libyan criticize Gaddafi pan-African approach and his support for African
liberation movements such as the ANC and aid to poorer African countries.

But, only perhaps Mrs. Palin, would question that Libya is part of Africa.

[karynnj]

16. I did not question that Libya is in Africa,

but there is NO question that the people there would argue that they are Arabs. I have known people who are Moroccan and Egyptian, who would not identify themselves as African American. I also also met many Israelis, who would not identify themselves as Asians, though that is most definitely the continent they are on.

The fact is you just want to downplay that the Arab League has taken a side against Qaddafi.

Your post does not read like it was written by someone whose native language is English, are you maybe representing the Qaddafi government?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Yes, because it clearly isn't in Africa.

And, since Brazil doesn't speak Spanish, it can't be in South America! :crazy:

[malaise]

4. Good post but they will unrec you

big time.

[Distant Observer]

27. Its the nature of modern propaganda the people actually believe in the goodness of the biases

that they develop. Their view are always grounded in "truth." So I understand initial reactions given
the current media environment.

[OHdem10]

6. Thanks for presenting another side to the story.

[sabrina 1]

7. So did the West get it wrong when he took over Libya in

an unarmed coup and they backed him then?

Were they wrong when in 2005 they backed him again, going so far as to hire PR firms to rehabilitate his image of someone who financed terror attacks against the West?

How about his cruel, underground prisons for dissenters? Is that something we should have been backing?

In Egypt and Tunisia now, the people have demanded an end to the security apparatus used to keep the people down for so long.

Are you going to tell us that Mubarak should have been left in power? Ben Ali?

I KNOW the WEST wanted all these dictators, including Qadaffi, to survive, but the will of those people, suppressed for so long, living in police states, while the West profited from their resources, was too powerful this time.

The U.S.'s foreign policy is without morals. We support dictators and don't care what they do to their own people.

The West sold Qadaffi the weapons he is now using against his own people. When a people rise up and tell a leader he is no longer wanted, he should go.

In Egypt, the people can now get on a plane without being 'investigated' by the security police for the first time in decades. They are still celebrating the freedoms they won, that people here take for granted.

As for Libya, like so many other countries around the globe, Western colonialism created the situations that now, decades and even centuries later, are being finally dealt with by the people themselves, and not by the dictators installed or backed by The West.

What is owed to the Libyan people now, is to stop the slaughter, and then the West needs to leave Libya and every other former allied dictatorship to the people who live there.

[Distant Observer]

11. I agree with much of this. But, don't remember West "Backing" the 1969 revolution.

It was a fully internal engineered coup that overthrew King Idris who notoriously neglected the welfare of ordinary Libyans.

Idris was originally recognized by the British and Italians as Emir of the territory of Cyrenaica, now the eastern part of modern Libya, the largest city being Benghazi-- the center of the current revolt.

As a reward for support of the Allies during the 2nd World War, Idris was made King of the newly minted LIBYA by the Brittish.

The "West" certainly did not support the Gaddafi coup or the pro-socialist, anti-imperialist revolution that followed.

[sabrina 1]

18. True, they did not support the coup itself, as they have, eg,

supported the coups of Aristede, Chavez and Honduras. But they were ready to deal with Qadaffi if he was willing to give them access to Libya's resources. I know he has always been anti-Imperialism.

Had he been more willing to share the wealth of his country with his own people, rather than enrich his own family and attempt to basically set up a monarchical system in Libya, he would not be facing the revolution of the people now.

The people want democracy. Just as the people of every other revolting country in the Arab world is demanding now. No people should be subjected to the kind of oppression these countries were for so long.

The times are changing, if he had just left his position once it became clear that he was no longer wanted by a majority of the people, that it was time for a democratic government in Libya, he might have survived in retirement as so many other former Western allied dictators have. But once he started slaughtering his people, bringing in mercenaries to kill them, he became a war criminal. And even those who had mixed feelings about him before that, could no longer support him.

I understand how complex things are in that region of the world and that from where we are we cannot even imagine what the people there have suffered for so long. But in the end, we can only judge by what we are seeing now, and refusing to accept the changing world where dictators are no longer going to be tolerated, where Western influence which has done nothing but harm those people, is going to be rejected, revealed just how brutal he is willing to be to hold on to power.

Iow, no matter what good he may have done in the eyes of people there, when he fired on peaceful protesters, as is happening in Iraq eg, although getting far less attention, he became a criminal.

That doesn't diminish the hypocrisy of the West who are also slaughtering people in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. What it should mean is that the West and their dictator friends around the world need to get out of the affairs of these countries unless they are willing to support democratically elected leaders, which as of now, they are not.

[Distant Observer]

23. Again, I generally agree with you. I do think the FACTS re. the huge investment in Social Welfare

in Libya under Gaddafi and the judicious investments of the Sovereign funds when compared to other rulers in the region compares very favorably.

I also think Gaddafi seems in another world a lot of the times (some call it CRAZY) and that any firing on peaceful protestors is monstrous and should be prosecuted.

[pinboy3niner]

8. Some don't see his work in Africa as "socially meritorious":

Libyan Oil Buys Allies for Qaddafi

By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Published: March 15, 2011

...


But Colonel Qaddafi’s involvement in sub-Saharan Africa, said J. Peter Pham, editor of the Journal of the Middle East and Africa, has been “nothing short of catastrophic.”

His meddling in Sudan’s Darfur region and arming of Arab militias there helped lead to the rise of the notorious janjaweed, armed groups that have terrorized civilians for years. His support of the former strongman Charles Taylor in Liberia added to the bloodshed and mayhem in that country. His backing of various rebel factions across the Sahara has destabilized Mali, Chad, Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and others, allowing Al Qaeda to grab a foothold in the vast, unpatrolled deserts.

In the 1970s and 1980s, he recruited thousands of Africans into his Islamic Legion, an experimental Muslim army that failed on the battlefield in places like Chad and then sent so many young men drifting back to their home countries embittered — and heavily armed.

The various African wars that Colonel Qaddafi helped stir up “took hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions, and their ripple effects continue to this day,” Mr. Pham said.

Mr. Sissouma’s response to such criticism: “Nobody’s an angel.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16mali.html

[meow mix]

9. truck loads of arms and legs.

your hero.

[walldude]

10. Yes we have it wrong... He's not out there

killing people. There is no slaughter going on. His private army isn't out there SHOOTING PROTESTERS. It's all rainbows and ice cream with a cherry on top.

Hey thanks for coming in here and telling us that Gadaffi is not an insane dictator, how he's this great guy who's just got some tribal problems. We would have never known what a humanitarian he was if it weren't for you.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Distant Observer]

13. FACTS, PLEASE. From our perspective Gaddafi IS "CRAZY," but he has

not acted much differently than many other autocrats around the world that we are not demonizing and threatening.

Please try to separate FACTS from careless language used by Western press or opposition propaganda.
The US DOD itself said they had not seen evidence for much of the stuff you are citing.

[walldude]

15. So you are saying that there is no fighting?

There are no rebels and they aren't being slaughtered?

Sorry just because you and Gadaffi say it isn't happening doesn't mean it isn't.

And if you think that a guy who goes on TV and claims that Osama Bin Laden has put LSD into the drinking supply and that is what caused the "uprising" is sane and capable of leading a nation, you are out of your fucking mind. And that is a FACT.

Take this shit elsewhere.

[Distant Observer]

17. FACTUALLY compare this CIVIL WAR to others in US, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka ....

[walldude]

19. What does comparing have to do with anything?

What, because he's not as bad as someone else that doesn't make him a loony? The guy is a fucking NUTCASE. Period. End of debate. You can talk about Sudan and Nigeria all you want, it's not going to change the fact that Gadaffi is mentally unstable not to mention an evil piece of shit, and has no business running a country.

But hey go on with your "facts". They are really helping. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[pinboy3niner]

22. He's a model of sanity - LIBYA: GOVERNMENT- WE WILL HIT ANY TARGET IF ATTACKED

18:47 17 MAR 2011

(AGI) Tripoli - The government in Libya threatened to strike civilian, military and naval targets in the Mediterranean. The threat is contingent on there being an armed international intervention in the country. "Any military operation against Libya will put air and maritime traffic at risk across the Mediterranean", claims the Defence Minister. "Any military and civilian target could be struck." . .

Posted in LBN by Turborama:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4775524

[Distant Observer]

24. It is CRAZY -- Just like the Allies destruction of German and Japanese CIVILIAN targets. WAR IS EVIL

[pinboy3niner]

29. Indiscriminate targeting of civilian air/sea craft outside the conflict zone?

How far back do you want to reach for comparisons to make Gaddafi look good?

What next--compare him to Vlad the Impaler? Attilla the Hun? Or...could it be...could it be...




:evilgrin:

[readmoreoften]

26. He's lost so many of his people that he's hired mercenaries to run his tanks.

He's not popular.

[cali]

12. He is slaughtering his own people. enough said.

[Distant Observer]

14. It is HORRIBLE. That is what a CIVIL WAR does. The opposition is not new

-- it has been historically regional, has attempted coups in the past, and quickly turned the wave of protest to armed revolt which was marching against pro-Government populations centers.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS. CIVIL WAS INEVITABLE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH OUR WITHOUT GADDAFI because there
are opposing groups in Libya regardless of Gaddafi.

[sabrina 1]

20. If Qadaffi has so much support in Libya, then why was it

necessary for him to bring in foreign mercenaries to kill his own people? A leader with popular support would have been easily able to deal with the protests of opposition groups.

I'm sure there are supporters, there are always are. Those who benefited most from his regime will naturally want him to stay.

However, nearly every Libyan diplomat around the world has denounced what he is doing. Many in the military are joining the revolutionaries. It seems that a majority of the people want democracy, and they want him to go.

[Distant Observer]

21. Please check historical FACTS. You are quoting from opposition propaganda

I OPPOSE THE CIVIL WAR, but ever thread of truth seems to be distorted in current environment.

Gaddafi has always view himself as something of a bedouin of the desert.
Libya was one of the few north African countries that liberally allowed entry of other peoples
regardless of national identity. That is why there were so many migrants leaving as the conflict began.

There have been many fighting Tuareg nomads signed up for jobs in the small scattered brigades that formed Libya's rather weak national security. This has been so for decades. Just as there are many immigrants and "undocumented" in the US army.

There are currently reporters covering all sides on the ground.
Let's not needlessly distort the present horrible situation.

[sabrina 1]

25. I am quoting the reports from people who are there, and from

media reports, including Al Jazeera, that people have been brought in from other African nations to fight against the revolutionaries. What was wrong in those reports? We here in the U.S. know our own criminal government hires mercenaries also, which may be why they have not condemned anyone else doing so.

I am not sure what you are saying. I have reports including photos of the paperwork of captured people who were not Libyans, fighting against the Libyan people.