Balkanisation of Libya, and international impact?

[Das Uberdog]

the recent killing of US ambassador Chris Stevens along with four other American members of staff has underlined the anarchy prevailing in Benghazi. the government in Libya is currently impotent, and all power effectively resides in a patchwork quilt of Islamist and tribal militias who control various different regions and territories. in Benghazi the problem is magnified, as several groups operate simultaneously over the same territorial ground.

i expected several weeks into the uprising against Gadaffi that a success on the part of the Transitional Government would lead to Balkanisation in Libya, and events since Gadaffi's overthrow seem to have borne this prediction out. so far as i can see, the future of the country looks bleak. from a nation which once boasted some of the highest standards of living in the region with free education and healthcare (the best healthcare in North Africa, along with the highest rates of literacy), it now has some of the lowest. the black population in the country has been mercilessly persecuted by the Arab majority for their association with Gadaffi, with many rumours of massacres and mass migration. tribal clashes seem to be leaving new dead victims every other week in the provinces. in short, a deeply flawed though functioning and effective state has collapsed, leaving nothing in the form of a progressive, democratic alternative in its place.

as a secondary impact, the fall of Gadaffi seems to have also heralded the destruction of the last remnants of organised, anti-Imperialist pan-Africanism. looking at the issue of Africa and independent African development in the future, what hopes are there for independent, progressive and secular political movements to emerge from the current messy mash of backwards-looking Islamist and tribal leaderships? was it worth supporting the fall of Gadaffi for the state that Libya exists in now, as did many on the left in the West?

i'm posting this thread in the hope that others can contribute to current knowledge on events in the country, but also share predictions and strategical opinions on the political future of the African continent as a whole. in my opinion, the death of Gadaffi marked a turn in the road for African history, the end of the most successful attempt to wean Africa away from dependence on the West and towards its own independent development. to a great extent, i see it also as a sign of the dismantlement of the post-colonial secular independence movements in the direction of backwards tribal and ethnic fragmentation and religious dogma. and this from someone who instinctively supported the Libyan uprising in its first few weeks, along with the rest of the Arab Spring.

 

[elbows]

I dont blame anyone for not supporting the NATO intervention in Libya, but I am not chuffed that the conversation on Libya died out, only to return when someone important died.

I am glad the Gaddafi regime is gone. Its anti-imperialist credentials faded ages ago, and its gradual embrace of neo-liberalism made it the worst of both worlds - market freedoms without democratic freedoms. It had secularism going for it, but what use is that on its own? Secular parties need to be able to offer something more to people beyond just being secular, and its hardly surprising if the discredited secular regimes of old and neo-liberalism have harmed their image, especially in countries that are socially quite conservative.

Libya has many challenges and a lack of options that look wonderful. But I'll be damned if I will describe it as doomed simply to backwards tribalism, a failed state, or a place with no democratic potential. They had elections, and the extent to which the state is able to harness a monopoly on violence to exert its authority, whilst limited, is not as non-existant as tends to be suggested by people who only pay attention to violent acts carried out by other groups.

 

[elbows]

As for the elections, the most obvious headline points were:

It didnt go off without a hitch but many of the problems were in the east and overall it was not a total failure or sham.
The Muslim Brotherhood & friends didnt win, although their exact influence in the new setup may have been understated due to the way seats were divided between party candidates and 'independents'.
Both the prime minister & president were long-time exiles with ties to the US etc, and have baggage from armed opposition to the Gaddafi regime a long time ago.
People, including a lot of women, seemed to get a kick out of voting but I wouldnt bank on the honeymoon period lasting too long.

More detailed analysis is complicated by lack of institutions and the low quality of info from Libya, they are great at bullshitting but not so good at maintaining credibility. The precise aims & methods of the various foreign powers interested in Libya is also somewhat hard to dig into, the broad overview is a no-brainer but questions remain as to whether, for example, the agenda of Qatar is completely the same as ours.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Its anti-imperialist credentials faded ages ago, and its gradual embrace of neo-liberalism made it the worst of both worlds - market freedoms without democratic freedoms. It had secularism going for it, but what use is that on its own? Secular parties need to be able to offer something more to people beyond just being secular, and its hardly surprising if the discredited secular regimes of old and neo-liberalism have harmed their image, especially in countries that are socially quite conservative.

i don't think i agree... as mentioned in the OP, Libya had enviable living standards for the region and effectively used its oil revenue (increased through Gadaffi's push to found OPEC) to reinvest back into welfare and the domestic economy. it was a bulwark against the neoliberal 'movement' of the 80s and 90s and still today. further, as noted, Libya was the last remaining outpost of organised and radical pan-Africanism. all of this is lost, and going on to your next points...

But I'll be damned if I will describe it as doomed simply to backwards tribalism, a failed state, or a place with no democratic potential. They had elections, and the extent to which the state is able to harness a monopoly on violence to exert its authority, whilst limited, is not as non-existant as tends to be suggested by people who only pay attention to violent acts carried out by other groups

... so what authority does the current state actually have? it has no reliable armed force in either the army (themselves an unreliable collection of hastily gathered militias) or police. it can't even secure the streets of the capital city, let alone the provinces. some of the best funded armed groups are radical Islamist groups with no loyalty to ideas of democracy, many other layers of the former rebels are Monarchists and other leadership elements tribal sectarians...

 

[elbows]

i don't think i agree... as mentioned in the OP, Libya had enviable living standards for the region and effectively used its oil revenue (increased through Gadaffi's push to found OPEC) to reinvest back into welfare and the domestic economy. it was a bulwark against the neoliberal 'movement' of the 80s and 90s and still today. further, as noted, Libya was the last remaining outpost of organised and radical pan-Africanism. all of this is lost, and going on to your next points...

Oh sure, New Labour and the London School of Economics got friendly with the Gaddafi's because they were such a bulwark against neoliberalism this century. Keep dreaming, if the Gaddafi you evoke ever existed in the first place, that version died years before they caught him in a pipe.

... so what authority does the current state actually have? it has no reliable armed force in either the army (themselves an unreliable collection of hastily gathered militias) or police. it can't even secure the streets of the capital city, let alone the provinces. some of the best funded armed groups are radical Islamist groups with no loyalty to ideas of democracy, many other layers of the former rebels are Monarchists and other leadership elements tribal sectarians...

Its not hard to find examples of their authority failing, but that doesnt mean they are utterly impotent. Something has been woven out of a messy web of allegiances, though I cannot form a view as to its chances of survival, and to what extent it will continue to consolidate power. I do expect them to demonstrate some power at some point, because I expect to hear about abuses of said power.

Frequently when discussing power in these countries I am left with the sense that it can be painted as a no win, or people are trying to have their cake and eat it. If power is neatly held in the hands of a few its a tyranny, and if the picture is much messier with lots of groups vying for power, its a failed state.

Much as I can see the appeal of having some 'rogue states' who play the role of enemy or wacky and unreliable partner, casting flies into the ointment of empire and neoliberalism, I dont see why entire nations of people should be subject to dictatorship as a result. Especially when the 'radical' regimes in question were old and tired. Its not the fault of people like me, sitting securely in a chair many miles away from the action and spouting my opinions, that these regimes were a spent force, long past their sell by date. I know its easy to reject this viewpoint by virtue of most of the likely alternatives seeming even worse, but the lack of decent choices does nothing to halt the decay of the old regimes. Maybe they wouldnt have grown so frail in old age if they had their priorities straight, the arab spring certainly thwarted several attempts at dynasty formation, though sadly the countries with established monarchies were not allowed to participate.

Its not like any of these regimes were actually going to thwart global plans or usher in a different way of ordering the world. So at least let these countries be given a window of opportunity to have the sort of flawed regimes that the rest of us have ended up with 'democratically'. Neoliberalism and the empires that thrive on it are more likely to be destroyed or mutated from within, so never mind crap challenges from outside, invite them in, let them join us in this neoliberal church just in time to see it fail. And let there be no dictator that can be blamed for it, no expendable scapegoat leader, let the systemic and ideological failings shine through and bear the full burden of humanities disappointment. This last paragraph may be bollocks, its a work in progress in my feeble mind.

 

[elbows]

I mourn the lack of decent post-mortem on the regime.

I wouldnt hope to get one here in regard to Gaddafi's role in international affairs, because some of the few people who can be bothered to talk about Libya anymore are partly motivated by nostalgia for certain causes and struggles Gaddafi supported back in the day. Im not interested in rewriting history and I dont wish to argue with people who had more interest in those causes at the time than I can claim to have, especially as much of it was before my time.

But on the domestic front I would like to know more about how he actually retained power, and whether any particular aspects of his state have remained intact for the new rulers to use. Primarily Im thinking about the internal intelligence apparatus. Some attention was given to his jails and subjects such as torture, but it was also frequently claimed that rather a large percentage of the population were spying on each other. I've no way to judge the actual scale of that, and Im obviously interested in whether any of its structure remains, either in institutional, data or capability terms, or as something that may have infected Libyan society in a way that could take more than the death of a regime to eliminate. Old habits die hard?

At the end of the day people are finding it far too easy to only see signs of savage Libya, driven by what english and probably other media focus on. Is it Libya or its revolutions fault if we wont talk about the state of the presss in Libya now compared to under Gaddafi? Or the political parties, which may as well not exist as far as this place has been concerned. Or the economy, which is also not on the radar it seems. Have or will people try to establish unions at some point?

And as for tribal aspects, its neither a subject worthy of cheap smear nor something that was magically suppressed under Gaddafi. He did deals, played them against each other when it suited, had his favourites etc. Why not compare tribes to regional level government in some ways? Pushed too far this is an absurd comparison, but I think it works on some levels.

 

[elbows]

Regarding regimes getting old and stale, some of the pointers are hardly obscure.

Imagine there is a revolution in the country you live. How long is it reasonable for the regime to have in order to make the changes? Should they expect to be able to rest on their revolutionary rhetoric for more than a few decades? We get bored with governments blaming the last government for everything after a few years, and whilst a revolutionary change of government is not the same and may take many more years to cement the gains, I dont think we can blame people anywhere for getting more than a bit sick of it after 30+ years!

 

[Das Uberdog]

Oh sure, New Labour and the London School of Economics got friendly with the Gaddafi's because they were such a bulwark against neoliberalism this century. Keep dreaming, if the Gaddafi you evoke ever existed in the first place, that version died years before they caught him in a pipe.

strictly speaking New Labour were never neoliberals... neoliberalism politically died out towards the end of the 90s and New Labour represented a shift to ideological nowheresville as a replacement. the most powerful political residue left in the vacuum of politics was indeed neoliberalism but it was no longer a dynamic force (publishing books and theses and pushing a completely different view of the world). not that this makes the Gadaffi's connectionswith Blair in London somehow appealing - but he never did forge any agreements which involved fucking over the third world and enforcing free-trade agreements against the interests of small nations, and he actively invested billions in surrounding African nations as an alternative to Western aid/dependency projects. i also think the living conditions of Libyans under Gadaffi is also a really strong argument in his favour, and the current collapse of welfare infrastructure is really quite a terrible side-effect of his government falling.this is all material, tangible stuff - not just vague ideological babble.

Its not hard to find examples of their authority failing, but that doesnt mean they are utterly impotent. Something has been woven out of a messy web of allegiances, though I cannot form a view as to its chances of survival, and to what extent it will continue to consolidate power. I do expect them to demonstrate some power at some point, because I expect to hear about abuses of said power.

even ignoring the many, numerous accounts detailing the failings of state power i can't see what real tangible authority the present state in Libya actually has. this may well be due to ignorance on my part (as you say, the quality and reliability of information coming out of Libya is not great) but i do not see how the patchwork of militias in the country can be brought to heel under the authority of the central government, even theoretically, on the basis of the current balance of forces. what are the aces up their sleeve? what do they actually have? i only make this point and ask this (genuine) question because, so far as i am aware, they have nothing other than UN funding. and even that is not completely reliable; if i remember the story correctly (can't find a link just now) a shipment of dollars to be deposited in the central reserve a few months ago was hijacked and stolen from Tripoli airport from under the noses of the government's most reliable troops.

Maybe they wouldnt have grown so frail in old age if they had their priorities straight, the arab spring certainly thwarted several attempts at dynasty formation, though sadly the countries with established monarchies were not allowed to participate

i think this is too fatalistic, and underestimates what a forthright left in international politics would be able to achieve with a clear enough voice. it's always been my opinion that the new left, in disassociating itself from Stalinism, has thrown a lot of babies out with the bathwater... not least, a refusal on principle to engage at all seriously on the level of geopolitics. crude ideological formations, usually endorsing brash and sometimes nihilistic outpourings of 'justice', have overcome a sobre and reflective analysis of the strategic and political pros and cons of the battles between international power blocs. the innate 'right' of an individual to a life without oppression is now, by itself, seen as reason enough to revolt - without any kind of long-term assessment or plan for the future or what might come next. my opinion is that life in the new Libya will be worse than under Gadaffi. not only this, but the political independence of Africa as a continent has been weakened by the fall of his regime, which will be to the long-term political and economic disadvantage of millions of Africans over the coming decades. what have the left gained from supporting Gadaffi's demise without any view to the future? to me, it seems like nothing - other than an intangible sense that 'justice' has been done (even if that is to the active disadvantage of millions).

Its not like any of these regimes were actually going to thwart global plans or usher in a different way of ordering the world. So at least let these countries be given a window of opportunity to have the sort of flawed regimes that the rest of us have ended up with 'democratically'.

if what were to replace Gadaffi were in any remote sense going to resemble Western democracy, i would support it to the hilt. the fact is that it will not; neither in economic wealth and freedom, nor in internal democracy and freedom. Libya, so far as i can see, will continue to be run by unaccountable militias at a community and indeed regional level. the people of the country will live in daily fear and instability; the infrastructure of the country will continue to deteriorate. no voices will be heard, and no new culture of participation will be able to meaningfully flourish. the 'sham' of democracy, in countries not at the top of the economic power-pile, is magnified 1000% - and particularly in areas where true authority so patently resides in unaccountable militias, it is a farce.

i'm happy to be corrected in light of data i haven't yet seen, but nothing i've seen would point to any other outcome...

 

[elbows]

i also think the living conditions of Libyans under Gadaffi is also a really strong argument in his favour, and the current collapse of welfare infrastructure is really quite a terrible side-effect of his government falling.this is all material, tangible stuff - not just vague ideological babble.

Its strong compared to some alternatives we might imagine, but it wasn't exactly hard for Gaddafi to balance the books and provide for people given Libya's total population and oil wealth. And if he hadn't played geographical favourites with which regions in Libya he invested in, his regime might not have come unstuck quite so easily in the east.

even ignoring the many, numerous accounts detailing the failings of state power i can't see what real tangible authority the present state in Libya actually has. this may well be due to ignorance on my part (as you say, the quality and reliability of information coming out of Libya is not great) but i do not see how the patchwork of militias in the country can be brought to heel under the authority of the central government, even theoretically, on the basis of the current balance of forces. what are the aces up their sleeve? what do they actually have? i only make this point and ask this (genuine) question because, so far as i am aware, they have nothing other than UN funding. and even that is not completely reliable; if i remember the story correctly (can't find a link just now) a shipment of dollars to be deposited in the central reserve a few months ago was hijacked and stolen from Tripoli airport from under the noses of the government's most reliable troops.

My willingness not to lose all hope for Libya has never been based on a rose-tinted impression of the security situation. Its not good, and has been showing some signs of deterioration quite independently of what happened to the US in Benghazi the other day. So Im not going to completely disagree with your characterisation of the situation. I dont think the government have any aces up their sleeve, but they are the government and their level of authority is not 0%. They have not dealt with militias, or built an effective new police & military. But they have strung something together, which has kept the security situation from resembling an utter vacuum in all areas. They created a security committee which has brought some of the rebels & militia forces together on a few levels, to varying extents and with mixed results. Militias and sectarian agendas are often allowed to take place under the noses of those who are supposed to be the muscle of the state. However there are some occasions where some kind of government force has been used to deal with a militia that has gone off on an especially bothersome path. eg when a group decides to seize an important airport as part of a dispute they are not allowed to take it over for too long before the situation is dealt with one way or another.

There is no doubt there is a web of uneasy loyalties which restricts their options, but there are other factors of which we know precious little that may be vital in properly analysing the current picture. Specifically it is so easy to see signs of an absence of power and authority, that the actual power that is being brought to play in Libya every day may be obscured. Especially when it comes to agendas that go beyond the local/personal/tribal levels, and involves questions about who are the puppets and which ones are being controlled by which meddling nations?

I expect there was also a variety of corruption under the Gaddafi regime, some of which may have survived intact, and no shortage of opportunities for fresh corruption to take place now.

If I were a betting man I would not be putting my money on Libya turning out just great. There are hard and ugly lessons yet for Libyans to learn most likely, but I couldnt just write their revolution off. Especially having seen the contrast between the looks on their faces when waving the green flag and that when walking round the Gaddafi's compound with all its shattered symbolism. They had some fun, fresh air and space to think when tearing up that shit, even if the consequences arent pretty and the fresh hopes soon die.

 

[ayatollah]

A lot of the arguments being put up as a justification for mourning the passing of the policy erratic family kleptocracy that was Gaddafi's Libya, could have been argued in the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of pretty much any dictatorial regime in the 20th century. It was pretty damned chaotic in ex-Vichy France in the first years after Liberation -- personal vendettas being pursued,, crime rampant, rape rampant, tens of thousands of collaborators being shot (quite rightly) after pretty minimal bourgeois justice processes. Was it a "good thing" that Europe was liberated from the "stability" of fascist rule - even though by solidly capitalist allied powers ? I think so.

Gaddafi's regime had the extraordinary advantage of access to amazing oil revenues on seizing power. Yes the regime built a "welfare state" system in healthcare and education, but it also set up a viciously oppressive police state which tortured, imprisoned,almost at random, and doled out jobs and privileges on the whims of the ruling elite - grouped around the Gaddafi family dynasty. For all the "anti-imperialist rhetoric , and , yes, handing out cash and arms to many liberation struggles. But when the changing political situation suited Gaddafi it was a real "Ribbentrop/Molotov" type turnaround, with reprochment with the US and western capitalism, and a lurch to neo-liberalist economic policies - to the direct enrichment of the Gaddafi family kleptocracy.

Come on Das Uberdog, everybody but the elite and regime collaborators lived in a state of constant fear in Gaddafi's dictatorship of Libya -- the regime eventually imploded from mass popular discontent. Forget the NATO conspiracy stuff .. the regime just imploded because the mass of the population had simply had enough crap from the mercurial Gaddafi and his corrupt regime -- and knowing the incredible oil wealth of Libya, most Libyans thought it could be spent better and more wisely, with some real popular/democratic input. This isn't to decry the "Great Manmade River" project, or the welfarism aspects of the regime -- but for me, the socialised education and medical care of the Soviet Union don't justify 70 years of vicious oppression, the Purges, and all the other crimes of that dictatorship either. "Lefties" being "tough minded " about the need for lots of other people to suffer gross tyranny for generations, to serve some very patchy and nebulous "anti imperialist" role by dictatorial regimes like Gaddafi's Libya, is the hallmark of so many "armchair" anti imperialists in the comfort and safety of the Western democracies over the years.. it's a pretty unedifying spectacle. Gaddafi's regime was shit ... good riddence. Give the Libyans a bit of slack , timewise, before they are written off as doomed to fall into tribal backwardness, because of their mass rejection of the Gaddafi regimes unattractive "offer" of some limited "welfare "handouts----- plus unlimited mercurial oppression.

 

[elbows]

I probably paid special attention to Libya because I am interested in symbolism and the fascinating times when symbols are torn down and pissed on. Gaddafi's Bond-style wackiness lead to a spectacle ranging from umbrella impersonations, golden guns and people nicking his golf buggies, to rebel forces breaching his wardrobe and wearing his hat. Then there was the lynching and and his son allegedly being caught with sand on his face pretending to be a simple camel herder. Well there are no lack of opportunities in this world to see regimes and symbols gain power and bind people into horror, so Im not likely to miss an opportunity to indulge in a psychological holiday from the same old shit by making the most of a rare opportunity to see the opposite in effect.

In some ways this marks in my mind the end of the first, rather strange cycle of this century as my mind saw it. From John Ashcroft singing 'let the mighty eagle soar' to Gaddafi's eagle being defaced and featured in a war museum.

For numerous reasons Egypt offered a less tainted means by which I could view some world events with genuine hope and amazement and somewhat recharge my batteries which remained depleted by the Bush years. Im not exactly used to cheerleading civil war, but I seem to have developed a taste for stubbornly refusing to lose hope or write things off. Old regimes are not eligible for this offer.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Come on Das Uberdog, everybody but the elite and regime collaborators lived in a state of constant fear in Gaddafi's dictatorship of Libya -- the regime eventually imploded from mass popular discontent

The initial revolt was a mass example of -- incredibly militant and brave -- discontent. The civil war which followed was, from very early stages, lead by defected Army Colonels and tribal warlords. From week two it looked to me that the new Libyan state under a successful rebel government would fracture, and as the title of this thread suggests, the region would become 'Balkanised'. Such predictions appear to be being borne out.The question really was whether or not it was correct to support the overthrow of Gadaffi, with no progressive alternative, even in absence of NATO intervention. I don't think it was. I'm not passing judgement on whether or not the Libyan people should wish to live under the Gadaffis, they obviously shouldn't. I'm asking as a tactical question why literally any alternative to Gadaffi was deemed by many of the left to be preferable during the civil war.

For all the "anti-imperialist rhetoric , and , yes, handing out cash and arms to many liberation struggles. But when the changing political situation suited Gaddafi it was a real "Ribbentrop/Molotov" type turnaround, with reprochment with the US and western capitalism, and a lurch to neo-liberalist economic policies - to the direct enrichment of the Gaddafi family kleptocracy

Come on though, realistically what does this mean? When were the Gadaffis ever really reconciled to the US? And when did Gadaffi support international trade policies being enforced across the third world, liberalising trade? As I argued above, the old neo-liberal world changed to accomodate Gadaffi rather than the other way around. He was brought around the table in various different countries (under Blair's Britain as the obvious example) but not as a neo-liberal.

...the socialised education and medical care of the Soviet Union don't justify 70 years of vicious oppression, the Purges, and all the other crimes of that dictatorship either.

Doesn't justify it, no - but are Russians (or the rest of us) better off now it's gone? Even for non-Soviet left traditions the collapse of the SU had a huge negative impact, despite the fall being celebrated by numerous Trot and Anarchist groups. And what's replaced it? Standards of living in Russia and many areas of Eastern Europe collapsed (life expectancy in Russia is still below Soviet levels, despite incredible advances in medical science) and the party dictatorships which governed them replaced by the rule of corporate oligarchs and Russian ex-KGB mafia. Was the principle of the defeat of a perverted form of 'socialism' worth the practical reality of impotence and poverty? Was it worth actively supporting?

"Lefties" being "tough minded " about the need for lots of other people to suffer gross tyranny for generations, to serve some very patchy and nebulous "anti imperialist" role by dictatorial regimes like Gaddafi's Libya, is the hallmark of so many "armchair" anti imperialists in the comfort and safety of the Western democracies over the years.

I think if anything I'm being the opposite of 'tough minded' over this. My opinions have recently been formed through my friendship with a guy from Uganda, a relatively recent trip to Cuba and a few eye-opening glimpses into life in the third world from a reading group I set up during my last two years at Uni (which was attended by quite a number of international students). I've also had the opportunity to travel quite a lot around the former Eastern bloc. It's my opinion that "Lefties" who prefer '68 notions of 'justified revolt' to an actual strategical appraisal of the fight for real emancipation are at the same time being 'tough minded' over millions of lives (though often justified with liberal principles and ideals of democracy rather than economic liberation) and also pretty cavalier.

 

[elbows]

Today I am reminded of why I go out on a limb over Libya. I look for signs of life & hope, do I find it in your words? Or in the actions of the people of Benghazi who just routed a militia? Not hard to make that choice at all.

 

[elbows]

How I wish we had access to better info about Libyan events.

It sounds like there were rather large peaceful protests in Benghazi during the day, and then later some combination of less peaceful protesters and police/military police retook various militia HQ. But in news reports it also mentions trouble and deaths at another militia HQ, and how that militia had ties to the state. Also of note were words of warning from the government about differentiating between the naughty militias and the saintly revolutionary groups. This suggests that the government were trying to use protesters to deal with specific groups, but they didnt have complete control of them and the situation spiralled beyond what the government were after, leading to some deaths.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

This news has made my day

Libyan protesters force Islamist militia out of Benghazi: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/libyan-protesters-militia-benghazi

Demonstrators also attacked compounds belonging to pro-government militias which may have contributed to the casualties.
Looters carried weapons out of the vacated Ansar al-Sharia military base as men clapped and chanted: "Say to Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi will be your inferno."

Chanting "Libya, Libya", "No more al-Qaida" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain" hundreds of men waving swords and even a meat cleaver stormed Ansar al-Sharia's headquarters.

 

[likesfish]

Good news dangerous idiots gett shown the door.

 

[elbows]

Libya, defying expectations since 2011

Its a shame that the full story is usually not quite so cheerable, but even so protests in Benghazi have warmed my heart on numerous occasions. In addition to the crowds there at various times during the revolution, including the lad with an umbrella mocking Gaddafi's umbrella speech, they also protested after the fall of Gaddafi. A tent protest popped up a good while back, complaining about the lack of transparency of the NTC temporary government.

I couldnt have predicted what happened with the militias and that story may not be over yet, but it was fun timing that comes to my aid in the earlier debate about how the government could possibly consolidate power.

If I wonder about who is pulling which strings too much then the story can easily sour, but I've been sort of hoping that some of the shitty powers would cancel each other out, and that the people of Libya would continue to thwart the aspirations of a variety of powers as time goes by. I'm sure it wont always live up to my hopes, and Tripoli continues to come across as rather passive and invisible compared to the east and some other locations so its hard to form a full picture, but these events ensure I wont stop droning on about Libya on this forum

 

[elbows]

Libyan protesters force Islamist militia out of Benghazi: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/libyan-protesters-militia-benghazi

The video on that page is amusing, we dont usually get to see flashing blue lights interacting with protesting crowds in quite this manner!

 

[elbows]

An AlJazeera version of events touches on much of the not-so-cheery detail. It does sound like when they picked on the 'wrong' militia, ie one allied to the government, they were subject to bullets and being branded 'Gaddafi loyalists'. Not very subtle.

 

[elbows]

And so as usual with Libyan news, layers soon start to peel back slightly to offer an unclear glimpse of other goings on. What is first presented as something the government can use, then seems like it may be the opposite.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/bodies-six-militiamen-found-benghazi

Take your pick of these new details for example:

The Libyan city of Benghazi was tense after the bodies of six militiamen apparently executed after the storming of a base on the southern outskirts were discovered in a field.

The interior minister, Fawzi Abdul Al, who was criticised for his failure to launch a full investigation of the murder of Stevens and three fellow diplomats, criticised the action of the crowds, saying the militias should have been given more time to incorporate into the official security forces

City hospitals were braced for more violence after the Rafallah al-Sahati militia reoccupied its looted base. Several hundred unarmed people gathered outside. "This is not good, they should not be here. When the funerals have finished there will be trouble," said Ashraf Saleh.

Police remained in control of the Ansar al-Sharia compound, which is now a looted ruin. A spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia, whose units have dispersed outside the city, insisted they had withdrawn rather than confront protesters "for reasons of security".

The chaos at the heart of Libya's government remains, with some angry that Rafallah was attacked after it had formally been incorporated into the Libyan army. Such designations are lost on many ordinary Libyans, who say many militias from last year's revolution have simply cut deals with ministries, enabling them to form what are in essence private armies.

Rumours are sweeping Benghazi that one of the two US compounds in the city that came under attack housed a small "black ops" unit that had moved to Libya after the rocket attack on the British ambassador in the city in June. The US has yet to explain why some 30 diplomats needed to be evacuated from a consulate that might be expected to have less than half that staff.

 

[elbows]

Crowd control by state text message is alive and well in Libya:

While the compound was being looted, the government texted Benghazi mobile phones asking citizens to go home and "not allow saboteurs to destroy your noble and successful demonstration".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...itia-swept-out-of-benghazi-bases-8165538.html

Go home, you are attacking the wrong militia!

 

[elbows]

Interesting times.

Authorities in Libya have announced a decision to dissolve all militias and armed groups that did not come under the authority of the state after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, state media reports.​

The announcement was made by Mohammed al-Megarief, the head of the Libyan national assembly, late on Saturday during a press conference.​

"We're disbanding all the armed groups that do not fall under the authority of the government. We're also banning the use of violence and carrying of weapons in public places. It's also illegal to set up checkpoints. We've instructed the appropriate government agencies to ensure that these directives are implemented," he said.​

The announcement of the ban came hours after two armed groups said they would lay down their weapons and leave their bases in the eastern city of Derna.

Derna residents say five military camps are now empty, after Abu Slim and Ansar al-Sharia, the two main militias in the area, withdrew.
"Abu Slim had three camps and Ansar al-Sharia had two. So it's five. Empty. All empty," Siraj Shennib, a 29-year-old linguistics professor who has been part of protests against the militia, told the Reuters news agency by telephone.

The six dead men were bodyguards of a colonel in the regular Libyan army who went missing on Friday, and the prospect that the killings and kidnapping may have been the work of a militia group suggested there could be more tension between the army and militia in coming days.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/2012922231155740677.html

 

[Das Uberdog]

i'd be happy to be proven wrong... very interesting developments indeed

 

[elbows]

It might get a bit tricky later:

They say they have begun arresting protesters who stormed their base and other militia bases on Friday night, accusinmg them of instigating revolt. This has caused a lot of confusion here in Benghazi, because the police are insisted that they won’t make arrests.
In fact the police want to arrest the Rafallah people for the shooting for four unarmed protesters outside the base. There is a fairly combustible situation coming here. You have the Islamic brigades digging their heals in, and the protesters, now backed by the army and police, insisting that they go. And the government in Tripoli is really sitting on its hands.
The issue is likely to come to a head later today during protests against the arrests, Chris said.
The 4pm protest [against the arrests] is really going to be one to watch.
The mood changes by the day. After the militias left, and said they would disband, there was this tremendous outpouring of breath here. But then again this morning everything is very tense because overnight there seems to have been these arrests. Police sources say they are kidnappings because the Islamic brigades have no authority to arrest.
This march again today may start off peacefully but what happens after that no one is really sure.

And more on the US activities in Benghazi:

One official said: “It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss. We got our eyes poked out.”
The report said:
The CIA's surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya include Ansar al-Sharia, a militia that some have blamed for the attack, as well as suspected members of Al Qaida’s affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

The rumour here is that the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were being targeted by what one might call a black ops group or a CIA group, since June when the British ambassador’s convoy was attacked by an RPG. The Americans inserted this team into this second compound, and this team were busy poking around with Ansar al-Sharia and Ansar al-Sharia got word of it and decided to bite back. A lot of people her are asking why were there so many diplomats in what was quite a sleepy consulate.? Why do we have this figure of up to 30 people who needed to be evacuated and what were they all up to?
One of those wounded in the attack was not on the consulate’s manifest. Who was he and what was he doing in a combat uniform.

All of this is from the live blog page on the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/mid.../24/libya-takes-on-militia-live?newsfeed=true

 

[elbows]

Its been a long time since we heard about Bani Walid. Ages ago it sounded like it was completely beyond the control of the government, but news has been hard to come by since.

Well its back in the news now, because one of the young men who caught Gaddafi is now dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19727448

Mr Shaaban was kidnapped by armed men in July and held for 50 days in the town of Bani Walid, a former Gaddafi stronghold that lies south-east of the capital Tripoli.
He was freed last week following the mediation efforts of Mohamed Magarief, Libya's interim leader and president of the ruling General National Congress (GNC).
Mr Shaaban arrived in Misrata with torture marks on his body and a bullet wound near his spinal cord, according to reports. He was taken to Paris for treatment, but died on Monday.

 

[elbows]

This article focuses on how dodgy 'arrests' by militia groups have fuelled the backlash against them.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/uk-libya-militias-idUKBRE88P1DU20120926

Also contains news from yesterday about them replacing the leadershp of two large 'official' militias with military leadership:

The government said on Monday it was replacing the civilian leaders of February 17 and another powerful Benghazi militia that operates its own jail, Rafallah al-Sahati. The leaders of the two militias, among the most powerful men in the country, are to be replaced with uniformed army colonels, putting their forces fully under the army chain of command.

As far as the 'official' militias go, only time will tell if recent moves have been purely cosmetic in response to public anger, or whether they will actually seriously speed up attempts to reform these militias into something more typical of official 'respectable' state muscle and the rule of law.

 

[elbows]

The PM's proposed list of government ministers didnt go down very well and he had to withdraw it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/10/201210572211744750.html

 

[elbows]

Well there goes the PM, axed due to failure to reach agreement over the cabinet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19864136

I had a little look at some footage from their political chamber earlier. Dont understand a word of it, but I see they have quite a few female representatives, and they got a cheesy song that goes on forever (can hear it from approximately the 45 second mark) and some nice chairs sorted.

 

[elbows]

Plenty of stuff has happened that I would normally post about but since even I get bored of talking to myself eventually, I've mostly given up.

However since Bani Walid is being shelled I thought I would make an exception.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/10/2012101883633221527.html

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

[quote="elbows, post: 11525107, member: 8936" the decay of the old regimes.[/quote]

If what uberdog said about social conditions in Libya pre-overthrow is correct; then what form did this decay take in Libya?