Balkanisation of Libya, and international impact?
- Thread starter Das Uberdog
- Start date
teqniq
DisMembered
elbows
Well-Known Member
That article was very flattering in regards the impact Haftars military campaign has had in Benghazi until now, completely omitting various failures. But towards the end it evokes a different picture, one that makes reference to stalemates of recent months, and the low chances of this latest declaration and fighting leading to a dramatic change in Benghazi.
Personally there isn't much I rule out, though the actual scale of skirmishes and armed forces in Libya over recent years and indeed during the original uprising does lend itself to virtual stalemates and uneasy standoffs, punctuated with death.
teqniq
DisMembered
elbows
Well-Known Member
Sounds like several hundred have been killed by several weeks of the Benghazi fighting.
Obviously know better than to trust much info from Libya straight up, but recent days have certainly featured up-beat messages from the government side, including claims to have retaken a number of bases that they lost in August.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/us-libya-security-idUSKBN0IK1P820141031
Obviously know better than to trust much info from Libya straight up, but recent days have certainly featured up-beat messages from the government side, including claims to have retaken a number of bases that they lost in August.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/us-libya-security-idUSKBN0IK1P820141031
elbows
Well-Known Member
It sounds like government-allied security lost control of Libya's largest oilfield last week.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/11/us-libya-security-oil-insight-idUSKCN0IV1KZ20141111
The beheading of three activists in Derna is enough for the BBC to write a tepid article on Libya:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30011640
In other news from a few weeks back, the government aren't on the Greek car ferry anymore, they are now in a 1970's style hotel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29603393
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/11/us-libya-security-oil-insight-idUSKCN0IV1KZ20141111
The beheading of three activists in Derna is enough for the BBC to write a tepid article on Libya:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30011640
In other news from a few weeks back, the government aren't on the Greek car ferry anymore, they are now in a 1970's style hotel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29603393
Unreported World this week is called Tripoli Burning and may be worth a watch.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
This is quite a good report, but appears to contain much of the content in the link you posted. Have to admit I'd not seen this quote from Obama..
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
:/
teqniq
DisMembered
I think IS are a big problem in Libya, it's not getting reported as much as events in Syria/Iraq, or perhaps to be more precise it hasn't received such a high profile. Lots of info on Twitter though. Just type IS Libya in the search of whatever Twitter client you are using.
Gunmen kill 12 Libyans, foreigners at oilfield raid
Gunmen kill 12 Libyans, foreigners at oilfield raid
teqniq
DisMembered
Actually this article looks like it was written with you in mind
How strong is Islamic State in Libya?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Probably because reporting on Libya in general is shit. And because Libya has a long list of problems, and I'm not sure IS make the top three, at least so far.
teqniq
DisMembered
If anyone wants fairly recent info on all the factions and what they are all fighting over, they could do worse than read this:
The Battle for Libya's Oil
The Battle for Libya's Oil
Last edited:
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
just interested in referring back to Libya from the predictions in this first post - which as far as i can see ended up being fairly accurate. my original intention had been to start a discussion on the UK left's prevailing strategy in light of the situation in Libya (and indeed its attitudes towards the Arab Spring in general). much of the UK left fell in uncritically - effectively on the side of Islamist militias and regional warlords - against Gadaffi's dictatorship. supporting, in principle, 'revolt' effectively removed any serious attempt to geopolitically analyse the prevailing balance of forces in the region, or attempt to seriously assess what was achievable within the confines of the anti-Gadaffi revolt and whether that was worthwhile.
in my opinion, much of the Arab Spring has brought the question of what the left is trying to actually achieve to the fore; what does 'improvement' look like, in practice? is it really true that **any** alternative to a dictatorial but functioning and redistributive state is worth fighting for? imo it's an almost Maoist practice of doctrinal purity that leads many on the left to support 'the oppressed' here and everywhere, without dissecting the mucky realities of dealing in real power; the symbolism of protest and revolt is seen as more important than its expected outcome.
Libya seems, to me, to be a case in point as to the abject failure of the left to see a catastrophe looming under its very nose - cheerleading devastation without any concrete hopes for a progressive or productive alternative, too intoxicated by images of rebellion.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I could probably be accused of cheerleading, so I'll bite on that one.
For a start, perfectly possible to be mesmerised by the sight of people no longer respecting systems of fear that had maintained order for decades in various countries, without being uncritical or naive. If we go back to look at original uprising threads about countries such as Libya, we'll find plenty of concern about outcomes and actions.
I didn't like Libya being called a failed state because at the time I thought that was premature - it was a possible outcome but it was rather presumptive to write everything off at that stage. And I certainly didn't like comparisons with Iraq and Afghanistan, because I thought the nature of the violence and political balances were different in Libya, such comparisons didn't do the situation justice.
To be honest, even in situations where 'our country' did not intervene militarily or with copious quantities of propaganda, I have a problem with the way support or condemnation of an uprising by people is so easily framed. Its often ends up sounding rather patriarchal in the style of the British Empire, either cheerleading people to their doom or condemning their struggle as unrealistic. Besides, the pressure that can build up, the fault lines that can develop, after decades of blatant dictatorship is not something that can be overridden with simple facts such as whether the uprising will do more harm than good in the end, or how progressive it is. It's a phenomenon thats unleashed, complicated by international meddling, and no matter how poor the outcome these aren't phenomenon I'd rather see crushed or suppressed.
The best I could do was be keen to point out lies and atrocities on all sides, even when hugely inconvenient to the idealised case I'd rather be cheerleading.
For a start, perfectly possible to be mesmerised by the sight of people no longer respecting systems of fear that had maintained order for decades in various countries, without being uncritical or naive. If we go back to look at original uprising threads about countries such as Libya, we'll find plenty of concern about outcomes and actions.
I didn't like Libya being called a failed state because at the time I thought that was premature - it was a possible outcome but it was rather presumptive to write everything off at that stage. And I certainly didn't like comparisons with Iraq and Afghanistan, because I thought the nature of the violence and political balances were different in Libya, such comparisons didn't do the situation justice.
To be honest, even in situations where 'our country' did not intervene militarily or with copious quantities of propaganda, I have a problem with the way support or condemnation of an uprising by people is so easily framed. Its often ends up sounding rather patriarchal in the style of the British Empire, either cheerleading people to their doom or condemning their struggle as unrealistic. Besides, the pressure that can build up, the fault lines that can develop, after decades of blatant dictatorship is not something that can be overridden with simple facts such as whether the uprising will do more harm than good in the end, or how progressive it is. It's a phenomenon thats unleashed, complicated by international meddling, and no matter how poor the outcome these aren't phenomenon I'd rather see crushed or suppressed.
The best I could do was be keen to point out lies and atrocities on all sides, even when hugely inconvenient to the idealised case I'd rather be cheerleading.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Plus if it is even possible to collectively judge the response of 'the left' to the arab spring, other possible outcomes would also have ended up presenting problems and contradictions for the left too.
For example even if uprisings hadn't been crushed, hadn't given rise to power for islamists, or of massive amounts of outside interference, or civil war, there would have been the political and economic nature of some of the most overtly progressive opposition movements in some of these countries - liberal - to be dealt with. Some of them were fighting and dying in order to enjoy the sorts of freedom and democracy we have, and had they got that, they would have discovered all its flaws. I consider the liberal drive behind some of this stuff be be rather ironic given that one of the energising inputs into the arab spring and some other uprisings has been the global agenda to erode fuel subsidies, and liberals are part of the problem on that front, hardly the solution.
For example even if uprisings hadn't been crushed, hadn't given rise to power for islamists, or of massive amounts of outside interference, or civil war, there would have been the political and economic nature of some of the most overtly progressive opposition movements in some of these countries - liberal - to be dealt with. Some of them were fighting and dying in order to enjoy the sorts of freedom and democracy we have, and had they got that, they would have discovered all its flaws. I consider the liberal drive behind some of this stuff be be rather ironic given that one of the energising inputs into the arab spring and some other uprisings has been the global agenda to erode fuel subsidies, and liberals are part of the problem on that front, hardly the solution.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Where Libya is a stark example is that 'international opinion' and the opinions of us were directly relevant at one moment. The buildup to violent intervention from the skies.
That propaganda campaign was a doddle. Unlike Iraq, it happened really bloody quickly which made the propaganda much easier. They were able to inject a sense of great urgency into it ('Benghazi will fall'), Gaddafi & Son played their parts perfectly because of their murderous dehumanising rhetoric early on, and there were few international complications because Gaddafi had few real mates and his regime was not considered indispensable by many.
Some people here did protest NATO intervention at the time, but I don't think the opposition to it had much of a chance to get going before it was all over. The odious pro-Gaddafi goofery of a vocal minority of the opponents to the bombing really didn't help at crucial moments either.
I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the downfall of the Gaddafi regime. The least I must do in return is to keep paying attention to Libya, and then not simply shrug or wring my hands with some guilty progwessive twist on white mans burden.
That propaganda campaign was a doddle. Unlike Iraq, it happened really bloody quickly which made the propaganda much easier. They were able to inject a sense of great urgency into it ('Benghazi will fall'), Gaddafi & Son played their parts perfectly because of their murderous dehumanising rhetoric early on, and there were few international complications because Gaddafi had few real mates and his regime was not considered indispensable by many.
Some people here did protest NATO intervention at the time, but I don't think the opposition to it had much of a chance to get going before it was all over. The odious pro-Gaddafi goofery of a vocal minority of the opponents to the bombing really didn't help at crucial moments either.
I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the downfall of the Gaddafi regime. The least I must do in return is to keep paying attention to Libya, and then not simply shrug or wring my hands with some guilty progwessive twist on white mans burden.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
'Cheerleading' would seem quite a dismissive characteriztion of your own posts elbows, which were always chocca full of information and well researched! But thanks for biting nonetheless.
Absolutely it's possible to be mesmerized by it, but I do think reading back over this thread that there was never really an organization on the ground in Libya which appeared capable of developing even a flawed, corrupted liberal 'democracy'. From what I can see, from very early on faith in the Libyan 'resistance' was sustained more by an opposition to the Gadaffi dictatorship rather than any serious belief in the capabilities of his opponents to create something better. I think the situation in Libya should be seen as a lesson (still to be learned from previous incidences, as in Iran) - that in determining support for revolutionary movements the left should pay as much attention to the viability of the alternatives being posed as to the evil they're facing up against.
In practice, this lesson appears to have been effectively learned. With Libya as a disastrous foil against Syria, for example, many of the voices who were up until a year or so ago constantly voicing the evils of the Assad regime have fallen silent in recognition that the FSA represent much the same corrupt and reactionary forces as those which formed the backbone of the resistance to Gadaffi. What would be worse than Assad? For sure, an effective ISIS regime spreading into Syria too, that is the penalty for supporting the righteous reaction against his dictatorship. Rather than simply being unconsciously recognized, however, I think it's important to make the point properly; that large segments of the left in general need to reassess
their responses to 3rd world events if their concepts of international analyses are to remain accurate, relevant and meaningful.
One point here; from the little that was known about the organization of the resistance in Libya from early days, Islamists played a significant role from very early on alongside the tribal warlords and defected generals that constituted what could be called the 'official' (??) movement. I think the lack of attention on this detail was partly explained by the invisibility of ISIS and their atrocities at the time, who at the time of the rebellion still hadn't scored their major victories against the Iraqi army. I think the left and the world - now, with hindsight - are far more attuned to the existence of Islamist elements in such movements today and rightly so, though it's indicative of the same flaws in analytical procedure that such an awareness was absent for so long. If our international analysis lacks an accurate predictive quality, then what use is it other than as a quasi-religious ideological dogma?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the detailed response. Keep in mind that this thread isn't the main one. I did go back and re-read that entire thread once, it is far too huge to consume again really but I wanted to see if my memory had played any tricks on me.
I'm not convinced lessons were learnt by the left over Libya that they then applied to Syria. Well perhaps one lesson - military intervention by the UK was not supported at parliamentary level, scooping some possibilities for Syria. But I think most of the other differences with Libya were to do with timescale - I really think the response by various players to Libya was hugely influenced by the extremely compressed timescale when it came to international intervention. They got that game played very quickly, and the early 'anti-rat' speeches of Gaddafi & son really helped that narrative, as did the defection of many of Libyas diplomats.
I'm not convinced lessons were learnt by the left over Libya that they then applied to Syria. Well perhaps one lesson - military intervention by the UK was not supported at parliamentary level, scooping some possibilities for Syria. But I think most of the other differences with Libya were to do with timescale - I really think the response by various players to Libya was hugely influenced by the extremely compressed timescale when it came to international intervention. They got that game played very quickly, and the early 'anti-rat' speeches of Gaddafi & son really helped that narrative, as did the defection of many of Libyas diplomats.
elbows
Well-Known Member
As for the picture you suggest in regards Libyan groups capabilities to maintain a state, and the role of Islamists, I disagree with your analysis in a number of ways.
I'll start with the Islamists. First of all Islamist groups that indulge in terror in a manner that makes them pretty compatible with other western narratives about Islamists elsewhere, e.g. these days ISIS. They were a rather minor player in Libya for a number of crucial years, up to and beyond the fall of Gaddafi. They only came to prominence once they killed the US ambassador. Since then they have become relevant to the battles in some parts of Libya, mostly specific parts of the east. IS presence needs to be watched with concern, but they are hardly one of the main groups influencing the situation in Libya these days. The exception is over the military battle for Benghazi, which seems bogged down as usual, and where one of the sides is very much described as Islamist.
Of considerably more interest and influence are a slightly different flavour of Islamists - those who went for the political route, and the fighting militia forces that are most often labelled as being from Misrata. Since they have Tripoli and an alternative government of their own they are a very big factor, but at no stage have I seen satisfactory analysis of them. In part I believe thats due to outside interference and backing from regional players, and associated proxy wars. That stuff has been widely acknowledged (Qatar etc), and also plays into what happened to the political islamists of the MB in Egypt, and the subsequent military support by the Egyptians towards the non-Islamist Libya government. But there is not much detailed analysis around beyond the obvious suspicions.
As for whether Libya ever stood a chance of building anything else, thats one of the issues I was referring to in an earlier post. I find it to be unfair to people anywhere to form conclusions about what they may be capable of, especially when it plays so well into classic versions of political history where the western excuse for backing dictators was that the locals couldn't do democracy. Plus in the case of Libya there were promising signs early on from the Benghazi region. Lawyers and activists were involved, and there were sometimes very large, peaceful protests there which demonstrated some kind of civic phenomenon and new-found freedom of expression. Since then many activists and others have been executed in Benghazi, an obviously the wider political and security situation deteriorated massively, but I would not suggest that it was always this hopeless.
Not that it would ever have been easy. Gaddafi form of dictatorship paid even less lip-service to state institutions than many dictatorships do. He went for the 'lets pretend to have a direct democracy and prop that illusion that up with a deep domestic spying system, and divide and conquer along regional and tribal lines'. Post-Gaddafi, there was much pent up energy to be released along these fronts, and it was very easy for political opponents to play games with concepts such as whether any 'Gaddafi regime loyalists' had power and influence under the new setups, and how few associated with past political, military etc positions in Libya could really claim to be free from the taint of Gaddafi.
I'll start with the Islamists. First of all Islamist groups that indulge in terror in a manner that makes them pretty compatible with other western narratives about Islamists elsewhere, e.g. these days ISIS. They were a rather minor player in Libya for a number of crucial years, up to and beyond the fall of Gaddafi. They only came to prominence once they killed the US ambassador. Since then they have become relevant to the battles in some parts of Libya, mostly specific parts of the east. IS presence needs to be watched with concern, but they are hardly one of the main groups influencing the situation in Libya these days. The exception is over the military battle for Benghazi, which seems bogged down as usual, and where one of the sides is very much described as Islamist.
Of considerably more interest and influence are a slightly different flavour of Islamists - those who went for the political route, and the fighting militia forces that are most often labelled as being from Misrata. Since they have Tripoli and an alternative government of their own they are a very big factor, but at no stage have I seen satisfactory analysis of them. In part I believe thats due to outside interference and backing from regional players, and associated proxy wars. That stuff has been widely acknowledged (Qatar etc), and also plays into what happened to the political islamists of the MB in Egypt, and the subsequent military support by the Egyptians towards the non-Islamist Libya government. But there is not much detailed analysis around beyond the obvious suspicions.
As for whether Libya ever stood a chance of building anything else, thats one of the issues I was referring to in an earlier post. I find it to be unfair to people anywhere to form conclusions about what they may be capable of, especially when it plays so well into classic versions of political history where the western excuse for backing dictators was that the locals couldn't do democracy. Plus in the case of Libya there were promising signs early on from the Benghazi region. Lawyers and activists were involved, and there were sometimes very large, peaceful protests there which demonstrated some kind of civic phenomenon and new-found freedom of expression. Since then many activists and others have been executed in Benghazi, an obviously the wider political and security situation deteriorated massively, but I would not suggest that it was always this hopeless.
Not that it would ever have been easy. Gaddafi form of dictatorship paid even less lip-service to state institutions than many dictatorships do. He went for the 'lets pretend to have a direct democracy and prop that illusion that up with a deep domestic spying system, and divide and conquer along regional and tribal lines'. Post-Gaddafi, there was much pent up energy to be released along these fronts, and it was very easy for political opponents to play games with concepts such as whether any 'Gaddafi regime loyalists' had power and influence under the new setups, and how few associated with past political, military etc positions in Libya could really claim to be free from the taint of Gaddafi.
teqniq
DisMembered
I think a more realistic assessment of western support for dictators everywhere is that they are a convenient and brutal method of control, especially if say, the alternative was some form of socialism which would often be completely at odds with western interests as for example in Iran before the shah and Chile before Pinochet.
Similar threads
