The Libyan people started this fight. They were brave enough to take on a brutal, Western-backed dictator, risking death in their struggle for freedom. Which has been nothing if not inspiring.
But this heroic struggle now risks being undermined by the intervention of those same Western powers that have armed Gaddafi since 2004, after previously vilifying him for decades as an evil dictator.
The cobbling together of a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya, immediately translated into a ‘no-drive zone’, is the kneejerk reaction of a Western ‘liberal’ elite keen to be seen to be doing ‘something’ ‘now’ to save people from tyranny. In the process, demonstrating their lack of belief in the Libyan people’s ability to fight for their own freedom — even as they are doing just that — while crediting themselves as international freedom fighters, and dismissing all talk of the possible consequences, and the past disasters, of intervention.
Britain, France and the USA (with the support of various tyrants of the Arab League – as if that somehow makes the attack upon another Arab nation ok) have, by intervening, changed the entire dynamic of the rebellion. They have taken the Libyan people’s destiny out of their hands, making themselves the decisive players in the determination of Libya’s future.
In the first few weeks of this conflict, before demands for a ‘no-fly zone’ had begun to win out, banners were regularly seen in the media asserting such as ‘No foreign intervention! Libyans can manage it alone!’ Since then, those banners have disappeared from the news and the media reports only on those people asking for Western help. In the West, we have no idea what is happening on the ground, or how representative such voices are. And while it is understandable that people look for any help when in a desperate situation, those demands don’t make intervention any more legitimate than does the support of the Qatari monarchy.
Western bombardment of Libya not only represents an act of war on a sovereign state, it can also make the fight for freedom more difficult. For example, the West may destroy some Gaddafi tanks, or even Gaddafi himself, and tip the balance in the rebels favour; but in doing so make it more difficult for the rebels to judge their own strength. In such circumstances, a Western aided victory could easily turn to defeat at greater cost to those rebel forces. Worse still, it may dissuade some from joining or continuing the rebellion at all: because they are waiting to see what happens, because they genuinely believe the West can help, or because they fear becoming targets themselves.
And what happens if the rebels gain the upper hand against Gaddafi, surrounding and bombarding his strongholds? How would ‘liberal’ opinion respond to the inevitable prospect of civilian casualties at the hands of the rebels – which Western bombing is meant to be helping to prevent? Would there be calls for action to restrain the anti-Gaddafi forces?
Does anyone believe that the West, now in position over the skies of Libya, would withdraw after helping to defeat Gaddafi, saying “Job done” and handing the initiative back to the Libyan people to determine their own future?
The Libyan people deserve praise and admiration for taking on Gaddafi. But only they can fight for their freedom, no one else can do this — certainly not the powers that armed him. The risks, as always, are high. The rebels may fail. And Gaddafi may win. In which case they will have to re-group, re-arm and fight again another day.
Alternatively, the rebels may win — at least in part of the country — with Western help. If that happens, they would do well to hold on to their weapons, as they will inevitably need them to continue the fight for freedom against any future Western-backed regime.
The West shouldn’t have been propping that government up in the first place. From then on it gets a little complicated. I wouldn’t arm the rebels because that’ll probably backfire eventually too. I don’t think the rest of your argument is so strong. “they [rebels] will have to re-group, re-arm and fight again another day.” – the rebels are individual people and many will die. I feel oppressed by my government yet if I did anything about it I’d probably be considered a terrorist.
Not quite sure what you are arguing there, James Jeffries – “the rebels are individual people and many will die”? Taken in that isolated sense we’re all individuals who could die, whether from armed struggle or merely crossing the road. The group we now refer to as ‘the rebels’ probably were just ordinary individuals until last month but their collective involvement in that fight can give them the courage and know-how to eventually topple Gadaffi, even if they lose the current battle(s).
The modern view of individuals as being isolated and vulnerable has obscured the fact that all history’s hardened revolutionaries and freedom fighters were ordinary people once – it was the necessity of facing up to the challenge of bringing down tyrants and the experience they gained from doing just that that made them who they were. And it’s precisely that experience of forging their own future that the anti-Gadaffi forces will lose if the west are allowed to control the agenda in Libya.
It may be complicated on the ground in Libya, but not for us. I agree the Western powers shouldn’t arm the rebels; the rebels simply need to get their hands on the arms they’ve already supplied. But I wouldn’t take the cynical or pessimistic view that the West shouldn’t arm them because it will ‘backfire’ – and I’m not clear what you mean by that.
Rebellions and revolutions are messy even at the best of times, but in today’s more depoliticised and ideology-lite times probably more so. The rebels – who we don’t really know who they are, how many factions, what they all want or represent – may not win out at the end against Gaddafi. They may split the country; there may be an uneasy compromise; they may be crushed outright; they may, as I say, win in all or part of Libya with Western help and the West backing a faction of the rebels they think they can best do business with – which you can bet won’t be the best faction in terms of the interests of the Libyan people.
We can’t be blind or naive to the immense difficulties and possible disastrous consequences of starting this fight with Gaddafi, or the aims many of Libya’s former colonial powers in intervening in the country. It sounds very easy to sit back in one of the countries currently bombing Libya and say the rebels need to organise better, be clearer about their aims, and if they fail go back to the drawing board and try again. And they’ve show in their actions so far they have the guts to do that. But it is up to them and only them – within the borders of Libya. In the West we should have solidarity with them, and that means opposing the actions of our own governments against, or within, Libya.
You’re not oppressed by the government unless they are denying you rights that most of the rest of the population enjoy. So if you did do something about it that probably would be an act of useless and nihilistic terrorism. If you disagree with them, take them up politically like the many of the Arab people have been doing.