Libya: Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons

[Skybird]

http://www.ip-global.org/2011/08/26/doing-the-right-thing-for-the-wrong-reasons/


The Libyan revolution, with some help from the West, seems about to reach its first goal, the removal of dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi from power. What will come of Libya after the rebels take over is as unclear as ever. However, it is high time to congratulate the daring revolutionaries, and show high respect for their willingness to risk their lives in the pursuit of a better future.

Here in Europe, however, the Western intervention raises very substantial questions about the role of values in foreign policy. Now that victory looks certain, those who were skeptical of the intervention, including myself, look slightly silly. No one expected much of an enlightened argument from a pacifist, for sure, but what about those self-proclaimed realists, who allegedly abhor values in international relations, are willing to compromise with despots, and showed small-minded reluctance to grant the besieged rebels in Misurata a life-saving intervention? Has Libya not proven that a values-guided foreign policy is the only credible way forward?

Not so fast. Though rhetoric about spreading democracy through military intervention seems to be vindicated, idealistic and values-based considerations were not the primary motivations for many of the nations involved***8212;certainly not for France, which was much praised for its firm leadership. Self-interest, even selfishness, prevailed in almost all of the involved governments***8217; rationales. Take France: Despite the fiery rhetoric, principled humanism took a back seat in Nicolas Sarkozy***8217;s decision-making. The domestically weakened French president was driven by a need to bolster his pre-election poll rating by demonstrating some firm international leadership. In this, he was assisted by the king of the French juste-milieu, Bernard-Henri Levy, whose personal engagement with the president made Sarkozy believe that he could reconcile with parts of the French intellectual left. Furthermore, the French president needed to save his country***8217;s reputation in the region, ruined by cozy relationships of cabinet members with dictators and their affiliates in northern Africa. Thirdly, he saw an easy chance to score a few brownie points, and maybe even potential votes, with the considerable number of Muslim voters in his country.

Sarkozy clearly wanted to be on the right side of history, not because he cared about freedom and human rights in the region, but because standing up for them was politically useful for him. Values played a role, but a purely instrumental one, as it mostly does in international politics. It is true that the outcome was still the right one. One can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. But neo-cons and other idealists should not believe that France (and Britain, a very similar case) showed great leadership based on fundamental Western principles. Rather, it paid off politically to appear as if one was acting on principle. (I don***8217;t even want to talk about Italy, which made it very clear from the beginning that it wanted to protect its investments in the former colony, or about Germany, which failed on all fronts: strategically, morally, and in terms of its own self-interest, but that***8217;s another story.)

Very rarely do values, morals, and humanitarian principles play a primary, non-instrumental role in their own right. Traditionally, they are inserted into international politics in one of two ways: either as a fig leaf to make pure power politics look better, giving them some legitimacy, or as a public moral outcry, creating considerable momentum and media attention, and forcing governments to jump on the bandwagon as they do not want to look cold-hearted or cynical. The Libya case clearly falls in the second of the above categories. Yes, there are plenty of reasons to be happy about what has happened there, at least for the time being. But there is very little reason for interventionist triumphalism and for feverish op-eds congratulating the West on its great leadership in defense of freedom. All who do so undermine the very values they support, because they give praise where no praise is due and turn the debate upside down. The false is seen as true. Spin is taken for truth. Show is taken for substance.

The West got lucky. It did the right thing for once. Libyans are thankful for the immense help they were given. But they also know now that Western convictions are skin deep. To get the debate about values in foreign policy right, we should be very self-critical rather than applaud ourselves. Maybe next time we can do the right thing for the right reason.

JAN TECHAU is a research advisor at NATO Defense College, Rome.

[Castout]

I stopped reading when Sarkozy is mentioned as having helped the Libyan people to rally his faltering image and popularity.


That really makes no sense. You don't try to rally political support by supporting foreign people with military action. It would be folly.

That article argues with hindsight so I won't take it seriously.

Russian officials tried to portray the same thing of Sarkozy but really there's no credible evidence and reason to believe their argument. Those Russians are merely politicking and nothing more but they were so bad at it (since what else can they argue) that any critical minded person can see through it.

Now I must ask why does Putin with his waning popular support not support the Syrian people by taking military action in Syria through the UN? WHY?? If Russia wants to lead a military intervention in Syria I'm sure Europe will be willing to take supporting role.

You really think that you can rally domestic support (since regional support is less crucial) by waging military action for foreign people in foreign land especially under the current economic situation in Europe and US? Can you imagine the risk? What a baloney.

Logic dictates it was merely an act of goodwill on the part of France, Britain and Obama.

Now the world hopes that the Syrians be helped even through merely diplomatic, political and economic pressure and hope that the Syrians could benefit from those actions and the sufferings can be alleviated or lessened or that a solution from within can present itself through these International pressures.

[NeonSamurai]

Good will my butt. The powers almost never do anything for good will, or if they did they would be more proactive in countries where genocide is going on, that do not have access to oil or other resources.

No they did this mostly for economic reasons involving oil and military equipment.

[Tribesman]

Logic dictates it was merely an act of goodwill on the part of France, Britain and Obama.

Oh dear:nope:
Reality dictates that the people who backed the "alternative" government are very concerned that their rebels might not be the rebels who get in power and also that their "rebels" might not be able or willing to deliver on any agreements they may have made or implied.

Still look at it on the bright side, there is no suggestion so far that the western backed new regime have really been working for Iran all along:O:

[HunterICX]

Good will my butt. The powers almost never do anything for good will, or if they did they would be more proactive in countries where genocide is going on, that do not have access to oil or other resources.

No they did this mostly for economic reasons involving oil and military equipment.

^This

The UN doesn't stick it's neck out if there's nothing to gain from it.

HunterICX

[Betonov]

^This

The UN doesn't stick it's neck out if there's nothing to gain from it.

HunterICX

Neck, the UN has a neck ?? I always thought you need a spine if you want to have a neck

[HunterICX]

Neck, the UN has a neck ?? I always thought you need a spine if you want to have a neck

I stand corrected :know:

HunterICX

[STEED]

Good will my butt. The powers almost never do anything for good will, or if they did they would be more proactive in countries where genocide is going on, that do not have access to oil or other resources.

No they did this mostly for economic reasons involving oil and military equipment.

No argument from me. :up:

[Jimbuna]

Aye the hypocrisy and double standards are quite embarrassing really :nope:

[Tribesman]

Aye the hypocrisy and double standards are quite embarrassing really
Only if you expect any different.

The UN doesn't stick it's neck out if there's nothing to gain from it.

The UN is only as good as its members, on major issues it is only as good as the big five all want it to be.

[Jimbuna]

Yes I do expect something different but being a realist I doubt I will ever witness any difference in the short term.

[MH]

http://www.ip-global.org/2011/08/26/doing-the-right-thing-for-the-wrong-reasons/


JAN TECHAU is a research advisor at NATO Defense College, Rome.

I wonder if the same could have been written about Iraq but without the lucky part at the end.

Its all in proper marketing.

[Castout]

No they did this mostly for economic reasons involving oil and military equipment.

They saved many many Libyans lives. I wouldn't care a damn about oil. All I see is that NATO saved lives.

There may be gains that could be made in every revolution but saying Sarkozy helped to rally his waning political support is baseless.

If the temptation was so great at little risk why did the US politicians backing off? Why did the AU not give their support early to the rebels? Why did Russia and China insisted on defending Gaddafi?

WHY? If it was merely about easy oil why the hell did the US politicians backing off from their country's involvement in Libya?

Why the so many people's argument that Libya was going to be a stalemate like Afghanistan and or Iraq? Many even still believe there's going to be insurgency...long persisting insurgency throughout Libya and or that the country is going to descend to prolonged civil war between the rebel factions. Only time will prove them otherwise and time will silent these people.

Now I tell you there is OIL in Syria. Come and get it!!! Why don't they rush? Is it because Syria's military is far tougher but but there's OIL!!! If you said Gaddafi's army wasn't tough why did US back off from their involvement. easy picking right? Oil to be gained after all!

In the end our beliefs make our judgment. And we quite objectively, are quite irrational beings when it comes to opinion.

The fact is the West involvement in libya has saved many Libyan lives and has changed their lives forever. Those people who were once under the burden of servitude and persecution to Gaddafi are now free people. Those who have suffered and suffered a lot now can live in peace as decent human being. If some people decided to betray this revolution to raise another dictatorship then curse them but each revolution is a worthy struggle to be tried.

Oil in my opinion will always profit either this or that foreign faction. If now it will tend to benefit the European bloc then so be it. Everyone gets what they deserve. Cest la vie, happy for these people. AND now the Libyans can enjoy the benefit of their oil rather than the money be pocketed by Gaddafi.

if only the Eqyptians could have a more genuine and lasting revolution. It is true that most systems are run by simple psychopaths(there is never a sophisticated psychopath), defective and failing human beings, functional chaos at best, deterioration to elite anarchy at worst. Self made kings undeserving of such titles, unrefined people who think too highly of themselves, damn annoying little people, regressed and backward.

[Reece]

What ever happened to The Prime Directive?:hmmm:

[Castout]

In all dealings there must be mutual benefits to be gained by all parties otherwise there wouldn't be any deal made.

When deals are made where one side doesn't benefit whatsoever from it it is then called charity.

Now most deals are not charity.

Cest la vie.

Even love today often are not free. People have criteria whom they CAN and CANNOT, WILL and WILL NOT love as marriage is a deal for mutual benefits and not a charity.

So when it is as such on the personal level why the sneers at Libya's intervention when ALL parties involved benefit, especially the millions of Libyans.




If you see someone who helped another person greatly and then say he only helped to get a favor aren't you forgetting(and being a cynic) that that person did help greatly when he could have just done nothing?

Any human being even an evil person knows how to return a favor.

[Tribesman]

They saved many many Libyans lives. I wouldn't care a damn about oil. All I see is that NATO saved lives.

Did they?

Why the so many people's argument that Libya was going to be a stalemate like Afghanistan and or Iraq?
The arguement was that it was going to be a bloody mess with lots of long running complications.
It is.

[Castout]

Did they?


Have you watched the tv? Gaddafi forces killed more than a hundred people they had detained arbitrarily in a single place when rebels entered Tripoli.
They also killed many already detained peaceful political activists before they fled.

You certainly have the God given brain to think yourself or perhaps you're simply lacking the courage to admit the truth?

This point is really not arguable from your stand of point.

REALLY you want to insist on your really? Simply because it had gone otherwise? It doesn't take a genius to know most Libyans would suffer greatly if the rebels didn't win.


The arguement was that it was going to be a bloody mess with lots of long running complications.
It is.

Nah they meant it would be a long stalemate.

but to be fair perhaps that was your personal point of view so,

Do you consider loss of lives in war a bloody mess? Is there a single war or arm struggle without the shedding of blood or loss of lives?

Long running complications? Could you please be specific? ANY regime change will bring long running consequences for all involved and complications to some. But ultimately this is not about you or me this is about the Libyans, their lives have become for the better simply by the nonexistence of Gaddafi and his severe regime. So to most Libyans this bring a big RELIEF than complications.

[HunterICX]

REALLY you want to insist on your really? Simply because it had gone otherwise? It doesn't take a genius to know most Libyans would suffer greatly if the rebels didn't win.

They'll suffer as much now the Rebels do win, it doesn't take a fool to know that.

They're already executing people they accuse of beeing Gadaffi's Loyalists or Mercenary...so is there any difference between two sides?

HunterICX

[Tribesman]

Have you watched the tv?
No.

Gaddafi forces killed more than a hundred people they had detained arbitrarily in a single place when rebels entered Tripoli.

So NATO didn't save them then.
They also killed many already detained peaceful political activists before they fled.

Or them.

It doesn't take a genius to know most Libyans would suffer greatly if the rebels didn't win.

Leaving aside that your statement is pure conjecture and you have no evidence to show that Libyans will not suffer greatly if the rebels do win(whatever win means), can you explain to me who you think are the rebels?

Nah they meant it would be a long stalemate.

perhaps you should explore their views before you state what they meant.

Do you consider loss of lives in war a bloody mess?
War is a bloody mess, that is the nature of war, it always has been and always will be.

Long running complications?
Yes.
Could you please be specific?
Where do you want to start?
A good starting point would be for you to establish who you think the rebels are, after all they are a very diverse grouping with their own aims and agendas and the "official" rebels are already feeling the pinch.

their lives have become for the better simply by the nonexistence of Gaddafi and his severe regime
Have they? Didn't they same the same when the Tsar had his regime end?
They said the same when Smith went, funnily enough they said the same when Sihanouk and Nol went one after the other, they did say the samewith both Batistas rise and fall......it goes on and on, it is a well established pattern

[Skybird]

Castout,

you have stepped back from reality by a very huge step when thinking Sarkozy was only about kindness and love for mankind. Let me remind you of a handful of facts and contradictions in your position.

1. Sarkozy is known for aggressive foreign poltical moves in order to raise domestic popularity. From his diplomatic initiave (or shall we call it diplomatic aggression?) when trying to broker a deal between Russia and Georgie, to his total mismanagem,ent of the Tunisian revolution, from him being on the offense over hostage dramas in North Africa, to displays of diplomatic hyperactivity on the European floor.

2. To launch a war in order to boost domestic popularity is as old a tactic of political leaders as the history of civilisation. It is a m ixture of distracting the mob, and profilating oneself as a great leader. However, in this case, Libya, Sarko may have miscalculated the potential benefit indeed, with his polls before Libya having been down to 20% and now still being below one third, it seems that the French people simply do not like him anymore. But still: waging wars is a proven tool to boost support for oneself at home.

3. Sarkozy was the most dominant voice that helped to establish Gaddafi as an acceptable poltiical leader in the wetsern capitals. It was also Gaddafi negotiating deals over the Bulgarian nurses, the Libyan demand to erase Switzerland as a nation. And it was Sarkozy who delivered Gaddafi latest European Milan-ATGMs in violation of treaties with Germany, promising even more weapon deliveries including tanks and fighters, and offering the Libyans to give them the needed technology and knpowhow to build a French-licensed nuclear powerplant, with the option of delivering more, and also to other Arab states.

4. Establishing a mediterranean alliance of states from South Europe and North africa, is a klnown longterm strategic effort of top priority in French foreign policy as a tool to gain influence over thes eother states by dominating such a union. The long history of French intervention in North africa must be seen in this light. It is not only memory of the imperial past, but also an eye towards the wanted future of becoming a dominant power in the region, b that coutnering the influence of Central and Northern European nations in form of the EU.

5. It has been revealed this year that there have been several dirty deals about bank trades and weapons, in which French banks and Libanese negotiators are involved and that focus in Libya and the Gaddafi clan - and Sarkozy, by presidential sponsoring. In a time when Sarko wants to get re-elected but sees his numbers down at the bottom, he canot afford to let these stories find easy evidence, so he needs to silence those who could give verdict of his personal involvement.

6. France has been very forgiving about the crimes of the Gaddafi regime, but with the revolution breaking out there was the risk from beginning on that the rebels would reveal the ugly face of the regime - the crimes we now learn about. For that case, so sdarkozy calculated, France needs to prepare by having lined up with the forces of the light, else it would be remembered for having been in bed with the power of darkness.

7. Wars are too expensive to wage them over "ideals" only. Afghanistan was no war over ideals. Iraq 91 and Iraq 03 were no war over ideals. Kosovo was no war over ideals. The first three were over solid starategic and economic interests, mostly focussing on protecting ground for pipelines, military bases, and business contracts, the last one was about the EU's ideologic claims for regional dominance and the effort to shut down a fire dangerously close to the centre of the EU zone itself. Love for the people, kindness and humanitarian concerns had little to do with these wars. And see what wars today are there that nobody wages: not in Somalia where hundreds of thosuands have been massacred by Muslim militias. Not in Kenia where hundtreds of thoiusands got killed, mutilated, tortured, raped. Not in syria where a regime on the lose sends tanks against civilians. Not in case of Saudi arabia intervening with combat special forces in a neighbouring country to supress the revolution. Not in - well, you watch the daily news yourself, don'T you. What do these countries have in common? Their economic value is too low as if the West would invest into military engagement.

8. China, Russia over Libya. Big surprise they opposed Western military action. Must I really explain this in detail? They also defend North Korea against Western demands. I wonder why. Humanitarian concerns and love for the Libyan or Northkorean population certainly are not the reasons.

Meaning it well, is okay, Castout. But you pass the line where you mistake the reality you want to see and that you wish to be true, with the reality that really is. And that is naivety of almost danmgeorus proportions, becasue this kind of naivety has done incredible damage and suffering in human history: by mistaking the reality that it wished to be for the reality that really was. Meaning it well, means nothing. It simply is not enough.

[Skybird]

The glossy shine of the humanitarian engagement of the West against Libyan injustice gets more cracks.

Western media have started to report about secret documents found in Libya that reveal how close ties have been between Britain, the US and Gaddafi when it came to CIA suspects being tortured in Libyan prisons, and Britain betraying dissidents in Libya and giving info about them to the regime. Britain also played a key role in polishing Gaddafi'S image in Europe to make him acceptable again.

Dirty business as usual from all sides. Back then - and now, too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/moussa-koussas-secret-letters-betray-britains-libyan-connection-2348394.html


Secret files have been unearthed by The Independent in Tripoli that reveal the astonishingly close links that existed between British and American governments and Muammar Gaddafi.


The documents chart how prisoners were offered to the Libyans for brutal interrogation by the Tripoli regime under the highly controversial "rendition" programme, and also how details of exiled opponents of the Libyan dictator in the UK were passed on to the regime by MI6.

The papers show that British officials actually helped write a draft speech for Colonel Gaddafi while he was trying to rehabilitate his regime from the pariah status to which it had sunk following its support for terrorist movements. Further documents disclose how, at the same time, the US and UK acted on behalf of Libya in conducting negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

With the efforts they had expended in cultivating their contacts with the regime, the British were unwilling, at times, to share their "Libya connection" with the closet ally, the US. In a letter to his Libyan intelligence counterpart, an MI6 officer described how he refused to pass on the identity of an agent to Washington.

The documents, many of them incendiary in their implications, were found at the private offices of Moussa Koussa, Col Gaddafi's right hand man, and regime security chief, who defected to Britain in the days following the February revolution.

The papers give details about Tony Blair's visit to the Libyan dictator in Tripoli - with the vignette that it was the British prime minister's office that requested that the meeting take place in a tent. A letter from an MI6 official to Mr Koussa stated "No 10 are keen that the Prime Minister meet the Leader in the tent. I don't know why the English are fascinated by tents. The plain fact is that the journalists would love it."

The material raises questions about the relationship between Moussa Koussa and the British government and the turn of events following his defection. Mr Koussa's surprising arrival in Britain led to calls for him to be questioned by the police about his alleged involvement in murders abroad by the Libyan regime, including that of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher and opponents of Gaddafi. He was also said to be involved in the sending of arms to the IRA. At the time David Cameron's government assured the public that Mr Koussa may, indeed, face possible charges. Instead, he was allowed to leave the country and is now believed to be staying in a Gulf state.

The revelations by The Independent will lead to questions about whether Mr Koussa, who has long been accused of human rights abuses, was allowed to escape because he held a 'smoking gun'. The official is known to have copied and taken away dozens of files with him when he left Libya.

The papers illustrate the intimate relations Mr Koussa and some of his colleagues seemingly enjoyed with British intelligence. Letters and faxes flowed to him headed 'Greetings from MI6' 'Greetings from SIS', handwritten Christmas greetings, on one occasion, from ' Your friend', followed by the name of a senior British intelligence official, and regrets over missed lunches. There were also regular exchanges of gifts: on one occasion a Libyan agent arrived in London laden with figs and oranges.

The documents repeatedly touched on the blossoming relationship between Western intelligence agencies and Libya. But there was a human cost. The Tripoli regime was a highly useful partner in the 'rendition' process under which prisoners were sent by the US for 'enhanced interrogation', a euphemism, say human rights groups, for torture.

One US administration document, marked secret, says "Our service is in a position to deliver Shaykh Musa to your physical custody similar to what we have done with other senior LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) members in the past. We respectfully request an expression of interest from your service regarding taking custody of Musa".

The British too were dealing with the Libyans about opposition activists, passing on information to the regime. This was taking place despite the fact that Colonel Gaddafi's agents had assassinated opponents in the campaign to eliminate so-called "stray dogs" abroad, including the streets of London. The murders had, at the time, led to protests and condemnation by the UK government.

One letter dated 16th April 2004 from UK intelligence to an official at the International Affairs Department of Libyan security, says: "We wish to inform you that Ismail KAMOKA @ SUHAIB [possibly referring to an alias being used] was released from detention on 18th March 2004. A panel of British judges ruled that KAMOKA was not a threat to national security in the UK and subsequently released him. We are content for you to inform [a Libyan intelligence official] of KAMOKA's release."

Ironically, the Libyan rebels who have come in to power after overthrowing Colonel Gaddafi with the help of the UK and NATO have just appointed Abdullah Hakim Belhaj (please check spelling), a former member of the LIFG, as their commander in Tripoli.

Other material highlights the two-way nature of the information exchange. One document headed "For the attention of the Libyan Intelligence Service. Greetings from MI6 asks for information about a suspect with the initials ABS [full name withheld from publication for security reasons] travelling on Libyan passport number 164432.

"This remains a sensitive operation and we do not want anything done that might draw S's attention to our interest in him. We would be grateful for any information you might have regarding S."

One of the most remarkable finds in the cache of documents is a statement by Colonel Gaddafi during his rapprochment with the West during which he gave up his nuclear programme and promised to destroy his stock of chemical and biological weapons.

The Libyan leader said "we will take these steps in a manner that is transparent and verifiable. Libya affirms and will abide by commitments... when the world is celebrating the birth of Jesus, and as a token of contribution to a world full of peace, security, stability and compassion the greater Jamhiriya renews its honest call for a WMD free zone in the Middle East and Africa."

The statement was, in fact, put together with the help of British officials. A covering letter, addressed to Khalid Najjar, of the Department of International Relations and Safety in Tripoli, said "for the sake of clarity, please find attached a tidied up version of the language we agreed on Tuesday. I wanted to ensure that you had the same script."

When Libya's high command expressed worries about how abandoning their WMD arsenal would leave them vulnerable, the UK proposed helping to bolster conventional defences using Field Marshall Lord Inge, a former head of the UK military as a consultant. In a letter from London dated 24th December 2003, a British official wrote: "I propose that Field Marshal Lord Inge, whom you will remember well from September, should visit two or three senior officers to start these talks."

"No. 10 are keen that the Prime Minister meet the leader in his tent"
*A sizeable amount of correspondence in the cache was devoted to the visit of Tony Blair to meet Muammar Gaddafi in March 2004 at a time when Britain was playing a key role in bringing Libya in from the cold.
The documents show how involved MI6 was with organizing the trip and the role of conduit played by Moussa Koussa. Unsurprisingly for the Blair administration, presentation was seen as of paramount importance.
An MI6 officer wrote to Mr Koussa, saying: "No.10 are keen that the Prime Minister meet the leader in his tent. I don't know why the English are fascinated by tents. The plain fact is the journalists would love it. My own view is that it would give a good impression of the Leader's preference for simplicity which I know is important to him. You may have seen very different press conference in Riyadh. Anyway, if this is possible, No.10 would be very grateful."
Colonel Gaddafi, apparently, had wanted to meet the British Prime Minister at Sirte, his birth place. At present the town is under siege from opposition fighters. The MI6 officer states: "No.10 are expecting that the visit will take place in Tripoli and not Sirte. Apparently it is important that the journalists have access to hotels and so on where there may be facilities for them to file their stories to their newspapers."
However, the spies were there to make sure that their and the national interests was being protected. The officer continued, "No.10 have asked me to accompany the Prime Minister so I am very much looking forward to seeing you next Thursday. No.10 have asked me whether I could put an officer into Tripoli a few days before the visit... I think this would give them comfort and everything would work out well."
Colonel Gaddafi had earned his approval from the West partly because of his stand against Islamist terrorism, the shadow of which, after the Madrid bombings, hung over the visit. The letter, dated 18 March 2004, said "No.10 have asked me to put to you their request that there be no publicity for the visit now or over the next few days - that is well in advance of the visit since Madrid, everyone is extra security conscious.

[MH]

The glossy shine of the humanitarian engagement of the West against Libyan injustice gets more cracks.

Western media have started to report about secret documents found in Libya that reveal how close ties have been between Britain, the US and Gaddafi when it came to CIA suspects being tortured in Libyan prisons, and Britain betraying dissidents in Libya and giving info about them to the regime. Britain also played a key role in polishing Gaddafi'S image in Europe to make him acceptable again.

Dirty business as usual from all sides. Back then - and now, too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/moussa-koussas-secret-letters-betray-britains-libyan-connection-2348394.html


Shocking....
The romance between UK and Libya was quite obvious.

[joegrundman]

well, good reasons always make excellent cover for things done for less good reasons.

daffy is gone, which is not in itself a bad thing.

it took a lot longer than i expected it to. at first i assumed the us was chipping in all the way, but after the us left it to britain and france it took much longer.

is it a good thing or a bad thing that it took so long?

i would argue that this has been a good thing.

for several reasons.

one: the world is suffering somewhat from US-fatigue, and despite the obvious fact that obama's opponents will make hay out of his 'leading from behind' strategy, it works well for the us at this point to have achieved its objectives in such a low-key and low-investment way.

two: had it been over quickly, due to overwhelming western firepower, the country would have been a faction-ridden and infantilised populace, resentful that yet again they are reduced to enacting the victim role in a western military adventure.

three: now while western support was decisive, both from airpower and special forces, the military training of the rebels was probably most decisive, and there can be no doubt that the rebels did most of the ground fighting. that it took so long has given them a chance to resolve factional differences and forge a coherent entity.

while it is not obvious that it won't fall into factionalism (and bloody revenge is already apparent), we can be hopeful that the features of pride, self-reliance, and a coherent group will mean that of all the toppled muslim regimes, this one will be the one that isn't followed by disaster.