Laaska News Sept. 12,2011
Volkhonsky Boris
Photo: AFP
As reported by Agence France-Presse, on September 10, two groups of Libyan rebels from three towns clashed in a fierce battle. As a result, at least 12 people were killed, dozens wounded. No more details have been reported, but the reason for the clashes is the years-long enmity between the inhabitants.
Now that the Libyan rebels have captured most of the country’s territory and are launching an offensive on one of the last Gaddafi’s strongholds, the town of Bani Walid, the question arises: what’s next?
And despite the promises by the interim government that it is going to respect the law, the future of Libya (as well as of any other country that has experienced a revolution) does not seem too bright.
From Libya’s neighbor Egypt’s experience we can see that the triumph of the revolution has not stopped the crowd. On the contrary, the revolutionary fervor has created a feeling of impunity and permissiveness that provokes the crowd for further violent actions like the pogrom of the Israeli embassy, or clashes with the police.
In Libya, until now no one has answered the most crucial question – what is the true nature of the insurgency? Toppling Gaddafi might have been a noble cause, since there has never been any doubt about him being a dictator. But what’s next? And won’t the new leadership be of a nature that will make Gaddafi look like a schoolboy?
There have already been signs that a strong faction among the rebels represents radical Islam and is sympathetic to Al Qaeda. The same can be said about several other Arabic countries which have experienced the effects of the “Arab spring”, but where the revolutions have not yet triumphed – like Syria and Yemen.
So, now the question is – was it worth waging the massive NATO campaign in support of the rebels if the only possible alternatives are either the triumph of forces much more dreadful than Muammar Gaddafi, or complete chaos?
Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that even a 100 thousand-strong Western military presence is no guarantee of internal stability. In Libya, officially, there are no foreign troops on the grounds. For the time being, the common enemy personified by Colonel Gaddafi might have kept the rebels more or less united.
But the general rule of any revolution is that once the enemy is eliminated, internal conflicts and contradictions are going to surface exponentially. In Libya this happened even before the ultimate triumph – the possibility of Gaddafi’s comeback cannot be wiped out completely.
It seems that in rendering its political and military support to “revolutionary” forces throughout the “Great Middle East”, the West has not learnt a single lesson from its own experience. Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has ended in the rise of internal violence and terrorism, and – in the case of Afghanistan – in a drastic growth of drug production. In Egypt, the revolution has brought forth radical Islamism and complicated the prospects for any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue.
In Libya, the rebellion is not over yet, but its consequences are already felt. The internal clashes between two or three tribes could be easily disregarded, if it were not a symptom of a broader phenomenon common to all revolutions in the history of humanity – any revolution tends to devour its own children.
But most probably, in the Western eyes this seems a minor effect. The major cause of the “Arab spring” is, the Western (primarily, the U.S.) domination of the “Great Middle East”. Against this background, the West is ready to tolerate such trifles as the death of 12 (or, 12 thousand) local inhabitants.
VOR.
.
Laaska News.
www.laaska.wordpress.com
LAASKA NEWS AND ANALYSIS 
LIBYA WAR:What is next for Libya?
Laaska News Sept. 12,2011
Volkhonsky Boris
Photo: AFP
As reported by Agence France-Presse, on September 10, two groups of Libyan rebels from three towns clashed in a fierce battle. As a result, at least 12 people were killed, dozens wounded. No more details have been reported, but the reason for the clashes is the years-long enmity between the inhabitants.
Now that the Libyan rebels have captured most of the country’s territory and are launching an offensive on one of the last Gaddafi’s strongholds, the town of Bani Walid, the question arises: what’s next?
And despite the promises by the interim government that it is going to respect the law, the future of Libya (as well as of any other country that has experienced a revolution) does not seem too bright.
From Libya’s neighbor Egypt’s experience we can see that the triumph of the revolution has not stopped the crowd. On the contrary, the revolutionary fervor has created a feeling of impunity and permissiveness that provokes the crowd for further violent actions like the pogrom of the Israeli embassy, or clashes with the police.
In Libya, until now no one has answered the most crucial question – what is the true nature of the insurgency? Toppling Gaddafi might have been a noble cause, since there has never been any doubt about him being a dictator. But what’s next? And won’t the new leadership be of a nature that will make Gaddafi look like a schoolboy?
There have already been signs that a strong faction among the rebels represents radical Islam and is sympathetic to Al Qaeda. The same can be said about several other Arabic countries which have experienced the effects of the “Arab spring”, but where the revolutions have not yet triumphed – like Syria and Yemen.
So, now the question is – was it worth waging the massive NATO campaign in support of the rebels if the only possible alternatives are either the triumph of forces much more dreadful than Muammar Gaddafi, or complete chaos?
Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that even a 100 thousand-strong Western military presence is no guarantee of internal stability. In Libya, officially, there are no foreign troops on the grounds. For the time being, the common enemy personified by Colonel Gaddafi might have kept the rebels more or less united.
But the general rule of any revolution is that once the enemy is eliminated, internal conflicts and contradictions are going to surface exponentially. In Libya this happened even before the ultimate triumph – the possibility of Gaddafi’s comeback cannot be wiped out completely.
It seems that in rendering its political and military support to “revolutionary” forces throughout the “Great Middle East”, the West has not learnt a single lesson from its own experience. Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has ended in the rise of internal violence and terrorism, and – in the case of Afghanistan – in a drastic growth of drug production. In Egypt, the revolution has brought forth radical Islamism and complicated the prospects for any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue.
In Libya, the rebellion is not over yet, but its consequences are already felt. The internal clashes between two or three tribes could be easily disregarded, if it were not a symptom of a broader phenomenon common to all revolutions in the history of humanity – any revolution tends to devour its own children.
But most probably, in the Western eyes this seems a minor effect. The major cause of the “Arab spring” is, the Western (primarily, the U.S.) domination of the “Great Middle East”. Against this background, the West is ready to tolerate such trifles as the death of 12 (or, 12 thousand) local inhabitants.
VOR.
.
Laaska News.
www.laaska.wordpress.com
Rate this:
Share this:
Related