Small Wars Journal

The Libya Gamble Part 2: A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’

Wed, 03/02/2016 - 5:39pm

The Libya Gamble Part 2: A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’ by Jo Becker and Scott Shane, New York Times

It was a grisly start to the new era for Libya, broadcast around the world. The dictator was dragged from the sewer pipe where he was hiding, tossed around by frenzied rebel soldiers, beaten bloody and sodomized with a bayonet. A shaky cellphone video showed the pocked face of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, “the Leader” who had terrified Libyans for four decades, looking frightened and bewildered. He would soon be dead.

The first news reports of Colonel Qaddafi’s capture and killing in October 2011 reached the secretary of state in Kabul, Afghanistan, where she had just sat down for a televised interview. “Wow!” she said, looking at an aide’s BlackBerry before cautiously noting that the report had not yet been confirmed. But Hillary Clinton seemed impatient for a conclusion to the multinational military intervention she had done so much to organize, and in a rare unguarded moment, she dropped her reserve…

Read on.

Comments

HeidiRed

Fri, 12/24/2021 - 5:08am

Excellent to read the article. So, how was your break from PG Slots? I'm sure you're all eager to get back into the swing of things and see what new content has been released. Well, let's not keep you waiting any longer! Here's a breakdown of what you can expect in Season 2 and also they can check https://chiefcasinos.com/fastest-payout-casinos/ site for fastest payout casino. Thanks!

Bill C.

Sat, 03/05/2016 - 10:35am

Edited somewhat from my earlier offering:

In "The Libya Gamble Part I," I advanced the argument that our problems, in Libya and elsewhere post-the Old Cold War, could be traced to our misguided belief in such concepts as "universal values" and "the end of history" (the western versions of such ideas);

Concepts which suggested that those matters that we -- and other "expansionist" nations -- had formerly had to routinely deal with and overcome (to wit: the contrary/differing wants, needs, desires and beliefs of other states and societies); these such problems:

a. No longer existed or

b. No longer had sufficient power to stand in the way of "progress" (in our case, defined as the transformation of outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines).

Thus, we came to believe that these previously normal/routine "contrary" matters -- that expansionist nations routinely had to deal with -- they no longer needed to be planned and prepared for and, thus, no longer needed to be taken on.

Based on these such erroneous beliefs, "liberating populations from their oppressive regimes" (the only essential military task in a "universal values"/"end of history" world?) came into -- and for far too long a time thereafter stayed -- in vogue. This, even with the massive evidence that was piling up to the contrary.

Libya, thus, to be seen:

a. In the "universal values"/"end of history" light offered above.

b. In the corresponding "liberating populations from their oppressive regimes" compulsion based there-on. And

c. As something of a "one last ditch attempt" at this approach. This, based on the fact that Libya was thought to offer somewhat different circumstances. (Libya lacks the deep sectarian and ethnic divides that hindered our other recent such "liberation" attempts?)

Question: If the "universal values" thesis has, now finally, been properly jettisoned -- this being replaced with a more-valid "confrontational" thesis/premise/worldview -- then (a) does the "liberation" theory and (b) a military role based thereon (1) still exist and (2) still have power/pull/a constituency?

Answer: Yes.

But now such ideas appear to be properly found within the "confrontational" setting of a New/Reverse Cold War (U.S./the West now doing "expansion;" while our opponents today are now doing "containment"/"roll back," etc.). This New/Reverse Cold War setting often being described today using the less-encompassing (and thus less-clear and less-correct) term "the gray zone."

And, as one would expect in such a conflict/competition/cold war setting, these ideas of liberation of the population, and the use of one's military to achieve same; these ideas are found nestled and nurtured today (as they would be in the Old Cold War setting of yesterday?) within the "unconventional warfare" realm. In this regard, consider the following:

"Advocates of UW first recognize that, among a population of self-determination seekers, human interest in liberty trumps loyalty to a self-serving dictatorship, that those who aspire to freedom can succeed in deposing corrupt or authoritarian rulers, and that unfortunate population groups can and often do seek alternatives to a life of fear, oppression, and injustice. Second, advocates believe that there is a valid role for the U.S. Government in encouraging and empowering these freedom seekers when doing so helps to secure U.S. national security interests."

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/NewsArticleView/tabid/7849/Article/6…

Thus:

a. While Libyan "liberation" -- based on the erroneous premise of "universal values," etc. -- was, indeed, "a gamble" (or simply a grave mistake),

b. Our New/Reverse Cold War UW "liberation" approaches -- based on our now more-valid confrontation/conflict/cold war setting/worldview -- these appear to have a better chance of success? This, due to the more-historical and more-valid premise (conflicting wants, needs and desires and conflicting values) upon which they are based?