Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy

    On the point concerning continuing significant support for the Gadhafi dictatorship, today's edition of The Washington Post reported:

    But six days into the allied bombardment of Libyan military targets, it is clear that Gaddafi can count on the fierce loyalties of at least a significant segment of the population in the vast stretches that lie beyond the enclave of rebel-held territory in the east...

    ...Even Gaddafi’s opponents, who dare murmur their dissent only out of earshot of regime loyalists, concede that the man who has governed Libya for nearly 42 years does command genuine support.


    How significant that support is remains to be seen. IMO, it almost certainly is greater than the 25% of the population suggested by one of Gadhafi's opponents. The on-the-ground lack of manpower for the anti-Gadhafi forces (only about 1,000 trained persons according to a recent New York Times article and lack of sponantaneous uprisings elsewhere, even during the previous peak advances by anti-Gadhafi elements) suggest that the dictatorship's support is much greater than 25%. Continued support from a majority of the population cannot be ruled out, but that is uncertain.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-25-11 at 07:57 AM.

  2. #12
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In numerous threads, I noted that major sections of the population still support the dictator. In other words, the anti-Gadhafi revolution is not broad-based. Now, there is a news report that raises questions as to whether the anti-Gadhafi revolution even comes close to representing a majority of Libyans. Tonight, The New York Times reveals:

    After the uprising, the rebels stumbled as they tried to organize. They did a poor job of defining themselves when Libyans and the outside world tried to figure out what they stood for. And now, as they try to defeat Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s armed forces and militias, they will have to rely on allied airstrikes and young men with guns because the army that rebel military leaders bragged about consists of only about 1,000 trained men.

    If the anti-Gadhafi elements truly represented a majority of Libyans, the number of trained armed members would be perhaps 10-20 times the current size given how many Libyans have actually had training with firearms. If this data is accurate, then military defections have also been rare and very limited.

    IMO, this snippet of information raises grave questions about the nature of the revolution and how much support it actually commands. It also increases the risk that the Western coalition could increasingly engage in tactical air strikes to compensate for the anti-Gadhafi forces' lack of manpower--a development that seems to have begun on 3/23--as emotions continue to trump interests. Furthermore, even if the dictatorship is toppled, a revolution representing possibly only a minority of Libyans could further elevate the risks of post-dictatorship civil war, especially if the revolution succeeded largely due to foreign military intervention.
    Lets say that your sources are right and that every thing else you say is right, would it be okay with you if Gadhafi shoots down 100 or 1000 demonstrators, what number would be okay?

    The President has stated over and over that we are there to prevent the killing of civilians not to remove Gadhafi and that gives another element to those who think that the only reasonable outcome has to include the removal of Gadhafi.

    It appears that some of the Nato countries involved want him gone, but as the President has said our policy would be to have him removed but our involvement is targeting the protection of those who want to assemble to protest. It appears that some people are having a hard time understanding that we don't have to go after Gadhafi to achieve the stated goal of protecting innocent civilians.

    Should we be involved? The NATO alliance is finally working as it should to come together to confront if nothing more a known terrorist so is this the time to say we will not support Nato?

    Final question if this was a Bush or Reagan administration what would the general concenus be on our involvement? Is all of this opposition to our involvement a continued effort to effect the 2012 elections?

  3. #13
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy

    It's certainly not complicated, unless one listens to too much television. Libya has lots of easily recoverable "sweet crude" and the large Corporations that control the "Centralized Distribution Network" want the OIL in their network. Any other stated scenario is abslolutely bullsh*t. It is the Corporations that own the politicians, not the people. Democracy, freedom, killing of innocents, attacking his own (who are the "rebels" attacking?), and other buzzwords should wise you all up quickly. Doesn't Libya have free housing, free education, free healthcare, and boy o boy, that's gotta be undemocratic.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •