Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[elbows]

Continuing the Afghan comparisons since you brought it up, may actually get something out of the comparison if we are prepared to contrast, rather than try to make them seem the same.

The main similarity is that other countries used armed groups within the country to provide the bulk of the fighting force on the ground. But as already mentioned, the key difference between what happened next in Afghanistan and what you suggest is in store for Libya, is that in Afghanistan the various factions were persuaded to support the new government and not fight with each other.

So how was this accomplished? Many of the fighters were successfully integrated into the new national army, and there was a program to disarm others. Various people from the alliance were included in the government.

I'm sure this task was made much easier in Afghanistan because of the continued threat from the Taliban, providing a continued common cause and a heightened risk of losing much by fighting amongst themselves. Afghanistans lack of wealth also had the potential to make it easy to buy people off with outside money, though its hard for me to judge quite how much of a factor this was.

If Libya continues on the trends seen in recent weeks, there isn't going to be a substantial pro-Gaddafi force threatening the new government, so Libya won't have that factor to keep the new power groups united. And their oil industry means that there are spoils at home to fight over, rather than only having the option to look outside the country for peacekeeping bribes, although Im sure thats still quite a factor.

 

[elbows]

I should probably reiterate that my occasional optimism that things will not split in as violent a way as you predict, is partially sponsored by how pragmatic people can be. Various factions vying for more influence will not necessarily descend into violence, although of course they might. But they might be able to compromise and get what they want by flexing their muscles and calling on their supporters to should loudly, we shall see.

Now then, whats going on with Bani Walid? Negotiations are variously reported to have stalled, failed or succeeded in recent days, and the story also changes in regard to how many armed pro-Gaddafi forces, or sons of Gaddafi, may remain in the area. The latest twist that I've read about is from AlJazeeras live blog last night and earlier today:

Al Jazeera's Sue Turton, reporting from north of Bani Walid, said the negotiations to reach a peaceful resolution in Bani Walid have failed as the representatives, upon their return to deliver the message, were fired upon.

The five Bani Walid representatives went back with the assurances from NTC, but as they approached the city, they were fired upon. They quickly came back to the rebel territory to take shelter for the night. We have talked to commanders and people here. They believe two of Gaddafi sons are still in the city, thats why no negotations work here

And then later

Libyan town of Bani Walid is ready to come under the National Transitional Council's authority despite pockets of resistance, a chief negotiator told AFP news agency on Wednesday.

“The negotiations were successful yesterday and we are waiting for the NTC to give us the green light to go in," Abdullah Kenshil, who held talks with Bani Walid elders on Tuesday, said.

"The elders have joined the revolution," he said, adding that some of them were now in Tripoli, and others were back in Bani Walid, where pro-Muammar Gaddafi armed men initially prevented them from returning.

He said the aggression against the elders had angered members of the community.

"Armed men waved their weapons at the elders... and this angered the community," Kenshil said.

Witnesses reported seeing the tribal elders heading away from Bani Walid, 170Km southeast of Tripoli, towards the nearby town of Tarhuna late on Tuesday.

 

[dylans]

Not so fast. You predicted many gloomy things, and you seem to have quietly dropped the ones that have not born fruit so far. The most obvious example of this is the regime loyalists, which you used to liken Libya to post-Saddam Iraq, suggesting that they would lurk and engage in urban warfare.

A couple of things about this. First, while it is true that Tripoli fell faster than I expected what has emerged is indeed protracted urban warfare, perhaps not in Tripoli but as I write in several towns such as Sirte and Beni Walid. For all the propaganda about "regime diehards" etc it is clear that the old regime enjoys substantial loyalty in these towns and because of that they are now under siege. They have water and electricity cut off by rebel forces(both of which are war crimes) are suffering massive NATO bombing and are facing armed attack. What is that if not protracted urban warfare? As an aside, the siege of these towns gives the lie to the NATO claim that they are protecting civilians. It seems the civilians of loyalist towns can expect no such protection.

Secondly, while I accept that I was wrong about the speed of the fall of Tripoli, this was never the heart of my critique and it isn't the substance of my post above. My main point and one I have made again again since NATO intervened in this civil war was that it would result in theinstallation of an unrepresentative and factional regime that risked descending into a second civil war. Everything that has happened since has suggested I am right. The Tripoli military council is led by a founding member and former Emir of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Anyone who seriously believes that armed Islamist forces are going to coexist for long alongside a pro Western regime headed by former regime members and CIA sponsored exiles is terminally naive.Conflict is all but inevitable.

Third. It is difficult to get a true picture of events in Tripoli and though I accept that the Gaddafi regime appears to be soundly defeated in the Capital, there are numerous reports of mass arrests of those suspected of loyalty to the old regime (not to mention anyone with a black skin) and there is no reason to assume that the new regime enjoys popular support in the Capital or that it is anything but sullenly accepted and quietly resented.

 

[elbows]

Its long been known that certain locations would not fall easily, and certainly we are seeing unpleasant conditions in places that have fallen under siege.

I don't think I can quite call it protracted urban warfare, depends how long it drags on for, its only been weeks since Tripoli fell. And there is far too little actual fighting going on in any of these places right now for it to quite match your earlier predictions, we will see if they give up without a fight or not. Loads of journalists are waiting outside the town, so when something does shift we will hopefully get a proper look for at least short time afterwards.

We know NATO hit a lot of targets there, we don't have much info about how many innocents may have been caught up in that. We don't know where the loyalties of the people lie, clearly there is some support for the regime there but I think this NY Times piece does this topic more justice, discussing a couple of different estimates for levels of support, and other factors such as regime loyalists congregating there, and pro-rebel people having left the town or been locked up earlier in the year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/world/africa/07rebels.html

Im not trying to pretend its not grim, but its not got anywhere near the worst-case possibilities yet. The potential for splits and new conflicts exists, but so does the potential for people to do deals. So I reject the idea that disparate groups can never co-exist, have you never heard of unusual bedfellows? What would be terminally naive is to bank on anything right now, especially as we don't know the half of whats going on.

 

[elbows]

Well as the Friday deadline that the NTC gave the town of Bani Walid looms, things seem to be heating up. Loyalists seem to have fired Grad rockets from inside the town, and more anti-Gaddafi fighters have been sent towards the town in preparation for a possible showdown.

There is also news of a key valley outsie Sirte having been taken by anti-Gaddafi forces, though as usual with that sort of news I'l take it with a pinch of salt for now.

Also as senior leadership of TNC seem to have finally dared to show face in Tripoli, beget some quotes that fit right in with whats been discussed on this thread recently, such as this doozie:

On his first visit to Tripoli since the civil war, Mahmoud Jibril, Libya's interim government chief, warned allies who helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi not to start "political games" against each other until Gaddafi's supporters were completely defeated.

"This is a stage where we have to unify and be together," he told a news conference. "Once the battle is finished ... the political game can start."

All of the above gleaned from the AlJazeera live blog on Libya at http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

there is no reason to assume that the new regime enjoys popular support in the Capital or that it is anything but sullenly accepted and quietly resented.

Yeah right! They're still celebrating.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Anyone who seriously believes that armed Islamist forces are going to coexist for long alongside a pro Western regime headed by former regime members and CIA sponsored exiles is terminally naive.Conflict is all but inevitable.

They're going to step down and allow elections to take place without them as they said time and time again. And who are these Islamist forces? Don't tell me the LIFG - they don't count.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Im not trying to pretend its not grim

Grim? Anything but. It's a remarkable time. My friend who's gone back to Benghazi struggles for words to impress the sense of happiness and freedom that now exists. It's the same in Tripoli where friends and relatives say the same thing.

 

[dylans]

They're going to step down and allow elections to take place without them as they said time and time again. And who are these Islamist forces? Don't tell me the LIFG - they don't count.

Who are you trying to kid? The Tripoli military council is led by a founder member and Emir of the LIFG and a former ally of Ayman al Zawahiri . Abdul Hakim Belhaj is arguably the single most powerful military figure in Libya right now and you think he doesn't count? Your carefully constructed self delusions are about to blow up in your face my friend.

Belhaj’s biography is interesting, to say the least: the founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), he traveled to Afghanistan in the 1980s, where he met Osama bin Laden and fought against the Soviet-backed regime. After the war, he eventually returned to Libya, where he founded the LIFG and took the nom-de-guerre Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq. An Islamist revolt in Eastern Libya, led by the LIFG, was defeated by Gadhafi in 1996, and Belhaj fled the country for his old stomping grounds in Afghanistan.​

He was welcomed by the Taliban and al Qaeda, where he was especially close to Mullah Omar. LIFG set up two training camps in Afghanistan, one of which was headed up by Abu Yahya, now Al Qaeda’s top ideologue, also a Libyan national. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the LIFG was listed as an Official Terrorist Group and Belhaj was targeted by the US.​

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/09/06/islamist-neocons/​

 

[dylans]

Grim? Anything but. It's a remarkable time. My friend who's gone back to Benghazi struggles for words to impress the sense of happiness and freedom that now exists. It's the same in Tripoli where friends and relatives say the same thing.

unless you're black.

When the sun sets on the refugee camp for black Africans that has sprung up at the marina in this town six miles west of Tripoli, the women here brace for the worst.
The rebels who ring the camp suddenly open fire. Then they race into the camp, shouting "gabbour, gabbour" — Arabic for whore — and haul away young women, residents say.
"You should be here in the evening, when they come in firing their guns and taking people," one woman from Nigeria said Wednesday as she recounted the nightly raids on the camp. "They don't use condoms, they use whatever they can find," she said, pointing to a discarded plastic bag in a pile of trash.
As she spoke, other women standing nearby nodded in agreement.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/07/v-print/2395359/african-women-say-rebels-raped.html#ixzz1XNzE9AZq

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Who are you trying to kid? The Tripoli military council is led by a founder member and Emir of the LIFG and a former ally of Ayman al Zawahiri . Abdul Hakim Belhaj is arguably the single most powerful military figure in Libya right now and you think he doesn't count?

Just him. Ok . . . he supports the process laid out by the TNC, so he's fully with their agenda. So what if he fought in the mujahedin? Doesn't mean anything to me either, he has military experience, and it was a long time ago.

 

[dylans]

Just him. Ok . . . he supports the process laid out by the TNC, so he's fully with their agenda. So what if he fought in the mujahe.din? Doesn't mean anything to me either, he has military experience, and it was a long time ago.

Yes of course he does.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

unless you're black.

You know, there were black people on both sides of the war. Don't generalize [from specific instances like this to the whole picture, as if that's happened everywhere].

By the way, the NTC doesn't condone any of the excesses and has always tried to restore order. They're also working to keep Nigerian workers - specifically - protected.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Yes of course he does.

Ok, where has he indicated otherwise?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

One can only imagine the words al-Zawarihi would have for AHB now lol. AQ's line was literally to turn arms at NATO. Thank god no-one was apparently listening.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Also the LIFG themselves (who aren't Islamist) took on board the TNC program wholesale from day dot. Oops!

 

[dylans]

Ok, where has he indicated otherwise?

Well let's see. Perhaps you are right and former Al Qaeda veterans, now armed to the teeth and effectively in control of the Capital, can be trusted to hand over their weapons, give up their hold on power and bow to the command of the TNC or, heaven forbid, hard line Islamists commanding thousands of fighters are telling fibs and have no intention of relinquishing power.

Which scenario seems likely and which seems hopeless naive?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Neither scenario will happen because the premise is imaginary.

 

[dylans]

Ibn Khaldoun,Neither scenario will happen because the premise is imaginary.

The premise is far from imaginary i'm afraid. Power comes from the barrel of a gun and the guns are in the hands of Islamists. Senior Al Qaeda figures are now in effective military control of at least the Capital and probably large areas of the country too. It is not often that I quote Israeli sources but it is widely accepted that their intelligence is first rate and thus worth listening to

The LIFG chief now styles himself "Commander of the Tripoli Military Council." Asked by our sources whether they plan to hand control of the Libyan capital to the National Transitional Council, which has been recognized in the West, the jihadi fighters made a gesture of dismissal without answering.

A week after that dramatic episode, Tripoli's institutions of government have wound up in the hands of fighting Islamist brigades belonging to al Qaeda, who are now armed to the teeth with the hardware seized from Qaddafi's arsenals. No Western or Libyan military force can conceive of dislodging the Islamists from the Libyan capital in the foreseeable future.

An attempt to vindicate the way this NATO operation has turned out is underway. Western media are being fed portrayals of the rebel leadership as a coherent and responsible political and military force holding sway from Benghazi in the east up to the Tunisian border in the west.

This depiction is false. Our military sources report that the bulk of rebel military strength in central and western Libya is not under NTC command, nor does it obey orders from rebel headquarters in Benghazi.

http://debka.com/article/21249/[/quote]

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

There's your problem. DEBKA is reputedly unreliable (and it even gets known basic info wrong). 'Brigades belonging to Al-Qeada'. That's fantasy-land. That's not the only hysterical claim on that website either.

 

[dylans]

There's your problem. DEBKA is reputedly unreliable (and it even gets known basic info wrong). 'Brigades belonging to Al-Qeada'. That's fantasy-land. That's not the only hysterical claim on that website either.

It's certainly right wing but its political bias is irrelevent to the question of its strategic analysis. It predicted the attack on the twin towers for example. It has also been awarded Forbes best of the web award. I'm afraid simply dismissing their analysis because you don't like their conclusions is a bit desperarate

And why is it fantasy land to point out that the military council of Tripoli is led by an Al Qaeda veteran? It is.

 

[elbows]

I still think you are missing out on the interesting hope and potential of certain kinds of further struggle, by focussing only on the violent sort. Its depressing to see that you are as prepared to use Islamist bogeymen to bolster an argument as the imperialists have been in recent decades. Such groups are a factor, quite how much is the question and thats far from clear at this point.

This is more like it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/08/libya-mahmoud-jibril-growing-unrest

Mahmoud Jibril's debut press conference coincided with a meeting of revolutionary activists from across Libya who called on the National Transitional Council to show leadership or face potential revolt.
Saoud Elhafi, co-founder of the February 17 Coalition – a reference to the date of the first uprising – told the Guardian that there had been frustration over Jibril's long diplomatic missions abroad.
"There is definitely a vacuum," he said. "He needs to fill this vacuum as soon as possible. He was assigned to form a new government but we are yet to see it. Part of stability is to provide services to the people – otherwise, they will revolt."
Elhafi added: "In the next few weeks you will see change with Mr Jibril. There's a lot of pressure on him now. The honeymoon period for him now is gone. People are coming together to say enough is enough."
He said of Jibril, head of the NTC's executive office: "We notice he is not available. He is mostly outside Libya; you can count on your hands the days he is here. It is not acceptable. He needs to be in touch with the people."
Elhafi, a businessman who spent four months working with fighters and refugees in neighbouring Tunisia, added: "We are not happy about the performance of the executive committee, especially the appointment of ministers without consulting us or other organisations.
"From what I see, they are a bunch of business people. Some of the decisions, we disagree with. The main issue is that we need to consult each other. We need to find the right people."

Earlier, about 200 delegates from across the country – a third of them women – attended the February 17 Coalition meeting at a conference centre next to Tripoli's Rixos hotel. The dissenters pointed to cracks in a rebel movement that has been striking in its unity around a common flag and the common goal of toppling Gaddafi.
Abdulrazag Elaraoi, an NTC member from Tripoli, said: "Now comes the real test. Leaders need to lead. If they are not there when the crisis is breaking, they cannot deal with it wirelessly. People want a change. Can Mahmoud Jibril do it? People have to decide."
Abdul Rahman Sweehly, a representative from Misrata, said: "This is a warning shot to Mr Jibril and Mr [Mustafa Abdul] Jalil [NTC chairman]. They are deliberately delaying the formation of a transitional government with excuses and excuses. We have to be steadfast in protecting our revolution and stopping people trying to hijack it or turn it around."

Another speaker from Misrata called for "a new Libya with new faces, not old ones". He went on: "We shouldn't forgive hands stained with blood or people who stole money from Libya."
He insisted: "We are prepared for another revolution if we have to."
A member of the Tripoli brigade also said: "In the absence of security, the revolution can be hijacked. We go to a meeting and they say, 'We're going to do, we're going to do, we're going to do.' The next day, nothing happens."
A speaker from Benghazi expressed frustration at how the justice ministry and others had not yet been formed. "There are still no courts."

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It's certainly right wing but its political bias is irrelevent to the question of its strategic analysis. It predicted the attack on the twin towers for example. It has also been awarded Forbes best of the web award. I'm afraid simply dismissing their analysis because you don't like their conclusions is a bit desperarate

Did I say anything about their politics*? (No.) DEBKA are widely considered to be an unreliable source of information (journalists, intelligence experts, politicians etc.).

DEBKA predicted the world trade center attacks. But they also predicted a ['dirty bomb'] attack in new york years later that no-one had been planning. Likewise, they 'knew' about Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles AND their transfer to Syria, the 'immanent' attack in 2006 of Iran's nuclear sites, and bunch of other shite. And recently they tried to say the protest movement in Egypt was being orchestrated by the CIA (in order to discredit it). More importantly, they provide no evidence or sources in that article. So much tabloid verbiage AFAIC.

And why is it fantasy land to point out that the military council of Tripoli is led by an Al Qaeda veteran? It is.

They said "Islamist brigades belonging to Al-Quaeda". Not only sensationalist but also bearing no relation to reality. It alone is enough for me not to take anything they say seriously.

*The Ziohawks have an agenda too. They were the ones who didn't want to support the TNC. They would much rather NATO went to war with Syria

 

[elbows]

Fighting seems to have broken out on a couple of front lines and NATO have been in action again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14858509

 

[ayatollah]

It's been very interesting to read all the negativity in the Western Press ,and this thread too,about the Libyan revolution - a mere few weeks after an extraordinarily widely based popular uprising against a viciously corrupt and violent 42 year dictatorship has overthrown the regime...... a fully representative democracy, without racism and sexism, and with a fully functioning system of law, hasn't been set up already in Libya !

Johnny Foreigner , eh ... After all the help Europe has given em over the last 80 years or so.

Anyone who has read about the WWII liberation of the Occupied countries of Europe will know that very regretable atrocities were committed against collaborators, and supposed collaborators after Liberation. In Germany units of the SS kept fighting in Germany's hills and forests for months. Come on guys , give the Libyans a chance - at least a month or two before the Libyan peoples incredible efforts to free themselves of a tyrant can be written off.

I'm not at all optimistic myself about a society with NO democratic traditions at all, and with no Civil Society, and deep tribal divisions, making it into any sort of democratic state with a commitment to share out Libya's incredible oil wealth equitably - but too many of the posters on here seem to be either, a) covert or actual Islamophobes, or b) sad old Lefties who bought into all the old bull about Gaddafi being some sort of socialist anti Imperialist. Similar problem for some Lefties about the ghastly Syrian Regime and its hollow anti imperialist rhetoric in the past, now that very large portions of its population has risen up against the horrible fascistic regime. Gaddafi was never a man of the Left guys, he was always a TWAT.

 

[elbows]

There are only a small handful of people that match that criteria here, actually surprising there aren't more considering how much the Tories have hung their hat on this conflict.

And as for the policies of the likes of Gaddafi, people can be utter twats and still implement some left-wing policies from time to time too. But since many regimes gave in to economic liberalism to one extent or another in recent times, this aspect of discussion is a quagmire we can largely avoid right now.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I'm not at all optimistic myself about a society with NO democratic traditions at all, and with no Civil Society, and deep tribal divisions, making it into any sort of democratic state with a commitment to share out Libya's incredible oil wealth equitably - but too many of the posters on here seem to be either, a) covert or actual Islamophobes, or b) sad old Lefties who bought into all the old bull about Gaddafi being some sort of socialist anti Imperialist. Similar problem for some Lefties about the ghastly Syrian Regime and its hollow anti imperialist rhetoric in the past, now that very large portions of its population has risen up against the horrible fascistic regime. Gaddafi was never a man of the Left guys, he was always a TWAT.

There's a large dose of orientalism from some European and American leftists when they want to dismiss Arab movements, or defend authoritarian regimes. In that respect, they differ from the outspoken imperialists by a matter of degree.

The same communists who supported 'brother Gaddafi', hailing the 'anti-imperialist', would have been imprisoned and killed by him. Always an anti-communist. Also, he didn't even write the Green Book, its ideas came from other people and over the years members of his original inner circle have been steadily eliminated. There are two left.

By the way, tribes in Libya are a social institution not a political institution. IMO too much is made of it. Out of my extended family, some had been in regime, some were imprisoned by it etc.. It doesn't matter. You know what side you're on. The myth of profound tribal divisions, used to justify military dictatorship, was promulgated by Gaddafi - tribalism is the last refuge of scoundrel, one could say, when it comes to Arab dictators.

The most important promise by the NTC, apart from standing down for elections, is redistribution. Every family is meant to get paid. It's only appropriate seeing how many are former ministers and so on. Watch out if that doesn't happen. There'll be trouble then.

 

[TomUS]

I've actually been amazed by the relative lack of atrocities committed by the NTC forces so far.

 

[Riklet]

'relative' sums it up though, doesn't it tom?

maybe you need to look a bit harder than CNN. I do kind of get what you mean though. but there's still stories out there, even on this page of the thread, of racism, beatings, rape, murder etc.

 

[ayatollah]

And as for the policies of the likes of Gaddafi, people can be utter twats and still implement some left-wing policies from time to time too. But since many regimes gave in to economic liberalism to one extent or another in recent times, this aspect of discussion is a quagmire we can largely avoid right now.

I can well understand lots of people on the Left wanting to "park" the issue of past support for murderous, oppressive regimes, which got a lot of , sometimes tacit, sometimes amazingly open, support over the years (remember the WRP and Gaddafi - and Serbia ?) just because they mouthed the odd anti imperialist slogan, and supplied a few guns to liberation struggles.

The point is that, long before any "economic liberalisation" shifted previously state assets off to family members, regimes in Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, etc, were always brutal tyrannies, with nothing in common with the struggle for human liberation, even if for a while they appeared to have economic property forms with a "socialistic" character.

Not that I grudge liberation movements getting arms from poseurs like Gaddafi, but then I don't grudge the Libyan rebels taking advantage of NATO airstrikes either - hopefully with complete cynicism, and a future determination to make sure that the NATO states DON'T get special cheap oil deals further down the line. Hopefully all the documents surfacing on CIA/MI6 collaboration with Gaddafi will undermine any warm and cosy feeling the Libyans might have been feeling for NATO.

On "atrocities" - I think we have to be a bit harder hearted about the stark reality that revolutions, however well intentioned have innocent and accidental casualties. Unfortunately there appears to be a lot of anti black African racism in Libya, which is leading to some nasty vengeance killings of innocent migrant workers, but then again in the WWII example, this and massive rape crimes by allied soldiers was also a feature of the immediate post Liberation scene - but it didn't invalidate the Liberation struggle itself. Indeed the Libyan Revolutionary movement may well eventually regret the number of Gaddafi Loyalists it didn't shoot outright when they were caught with guns in their hands - if they subsequently form a long term terror network hoping to re-acquire their priviledged Gaddafi era lifestyle.