Eric,

Why not, exactly? Gaddafi has been there for more than forty years. Time for a change. The French have recognized the Libyan National Council as the transitional government of the country.

Why not?  I have been consistent on all of my points to date, but I do understand that this thread has been going on for 3 weeks now.  I will quote myself from earlier days:

The point that I am not doing a good job of expressing, is that when the common cause has been realized and Gadaffi is gone, the "resistance" is going to fracture and start fighting amongst themselves for control.  That is going to be even more horrible to watch, but we have to let the Libyans decide their own fate.

...Machiavellianism is the law of nature outside our Western bubble.  Of course we despise the idea, and wish to intervene to bring more modern concepts of social harmony that we enjoy in our world.  We don't have the stomach for violence.  We want to fast forward human history and see other nations be peaceful and democratic.  In the process, we become just another faction in the civil war.  We essentially become the kingmakers when we try to install peace.

In a nation still mired in tribalism, this might be a mistake.  Democracy is rather meaningless in the absence of pluralism.  People are going to vote according to ancient affiliations.  Democracy at that point becomes a census on tribal, ethnic, or sectarian populations.  This does not mean the winner is the most capable leader, or will not merely use the power for corruption and nepotism.  In this sense, Democracy can be seen as rather illegitimate, as it is simply the justification for doling out the wealth of a society to an overrepresented social network.  If ever there was a way to undermine the appeal of democracy, it would be to impose it upon a society that just isn't ready for it.

So, back we go to the question.  We are bringing our Western democratic biases into the paradigm of Libyan tribal warfare.  If you are going to intervene, what is your exit strategy?  Do you help one faction until they prove themselves to be just as barbaric as the ones you thought you were protecting them from?  Do you switch sides at that point?  Do you abandon the mission in failure and disgrace?  We helped the Bosnians against the Serbs, and then when they had the power they engaged in ethnic cleansing also.  We handed the keys of democratic leadership to Hamid Karzai and then he stole the next election right under our noses.  We liberated the Shi'ites from Saddam and sanctions, and they became our most vocal critics.  What are we getting ourselves into here?

Gadaffi is a monster, but what are the alternatives?  Who do we support instead?  In this particular affair, my opinion is that we stand back and let the Libyans fight it out.  Let the new king arise in the way that Darwin intended.  When the Libyans decide that they no longer want this type of system of deciding a ruler, perhaps they will give democracy a chance.  However, if we make it our moral crusade to stop the bloodshed, we are just delaying their national political development.

In Libya, who would we be "engaging".  We could topple Gadaffi with a flick of our wrist, but then what?  Are you suggesting that we merely help the resistence get rid of Gadaffi, and then withdraw as the rest of the civil war rages?  This is going to go on for years, I believe.  I also believe that it will resemble Somalia or Afghanistan in the sense that once "the opposition" defeated Said Barre or Mohammad Najibullah, the opposition fractured and began fighting amongst themselves for ultimate control.  In this instance the stakes are much higher, and so will be the level of violence.  The Lebanese slaughtered one another for 15 years over basically nothing.  Can you imagine how they would have fought if the winner would have claimed a mountain of oil wealth?

There are two options for the West.  Fold, or go "all in".  A limited intervention to remove Gadaffi is naive and myopic, and will accomplish basically nothing aside from establishing that the British and the French are still not above meddling in their former colonial playground of North Africa.

"Libya" is a geographical abstraction created by the Italians.  It is another example of the problems created by European colonialism.  There is no Libyan national consciousness in the same way there is a French or British national consciousness.  Libya is not a nation state, nor is it a state like America with an identity based on shared values, experience and struggle.

It is a collection of states bound together by the coincidence of the former extent of Italian control.  There is Tripolitania in the northwest, Fezzan in the southwest, and Cyrenaica in the east.  If Gadaffi had spread the wealth of Libya around evenly, there wouldn't be a problem.  However, he acted like he was doing the Benghazis a favor if he invested a little money in the east, but spared no expense on himself and his playboy sons.  The "Cyrenaicans" have a right to be disgusted by this, and have tremendous incentive to rebel and potentially "seceed from the union".  The majority of the nations natural assets are located beneath their feet.  If they can gain control of the oil leaving Tobruk, begin selling it, and begin buying weapons, I can't see them being interested in asserting control over the rest of the country, or even remaining in "Libya" itself.

The situation is very complex, and it could go anywhere.  The United Nations may well find itself with a few new members when this is all said and done.

I would advise you to harden your heart.  The score is 9-6 for the rebels, but this is a basketball game that just started.  The fall of Gadaffi will only mark the end of the first quarter.

Synopsis: there is no coherent opposition in Libya, no strong national institutions (like a national army or opposition parties) that can assert some authority over the country after the government falls, and the various factions will continue to fight until there is a clear winner and the society is exhausted.  The LPNTC that France recognized is a group of Benghazian intellectuals and former military leaders that does not have any authority--either real or perceived--outside that city itself.  I doubt the Warfallah tribe will obey them simply because they have been recognized by France.

Perhaps this is the legacy of the Bosnian conflict, where Europe agreed to intervene too late, that Europe has now intervened too early.  You won't like the idea, but you have to let them fight so that a leader can emerge.  Quite simply, Libya is not ready for democracy just yet.  This has nothing to do with the nature of the Libyan people, but everything to do with the way that Gadaffi operated the country.

Brendan,

I am not sure if you have read this entire thread, but I would recommend it.  We have managed to stay surprisingly focused and civil throughout, and it is one of our best efforts.  We actually sound like quality analysts here.

What do we do about other countries that might be encouraged to forego peaceful protests and take up arms with the expectations that the West will bail them out if things get too tough?  (Jay)

Two small coments on that point [Jay]: First, I think the success of Egypt helps, and has provided hope for many that (almost) peaceful change is possible (notwithstanding the outcome there). Libya is a rare occasion of action to support basic principals of respect for your citizens, their right to protest and demands for change. Second, when things do get really, really bad and the "west" can bail them out, as in this case, before such nascent movements can defend themselves, why would we not?

If you read the thread, you will get some insight into my feelings on interventions in the Arab world.  I have to say that I am in agreement with the official German position here: I understand the need to protect Libyan civilians, but overall I think intervention in Libya is a horrible idea.  Some of my own quotes given to Eric in the previous post might give you a synopsis why if you don't have the energy to read the thread.

I am not sure what you mean by "the success of Egypt", or how that would apply to other rebelling states.  Egypt is a special case as it is has the benefit of an American trained military keeping the peace during a (hopeful) democratic to transition.  At the risk of being politically incorrect--and being called a "racist" by Momo--I would like to point out that the Arabs are notoriously difficult to lead.  Arab culture is paternalistic, uncompromising, and extremely hierarchichal in nature.  That does not translate well into the democratic process.  If you don't get everything you want, you walk out of the talks.  You boycott the elections if they move on without you, and then declare the results illegitimate because you didn't participate.  If you are interested in politics and follow international events, you have seen this happen ad nauseum.

Things are not "done" in Egypt and Tunisia.  These societies need a lot of help from the West, in terms of coaching, cajoling, flat-out bribery, and open threats if they are going to make things work in the two countries with the best shot at democracy.  (That was the initial purpose of this thread, if you read the lead post.)  I want Hillary Clinton to buy a house in Egypt, and keep her ass permanently engaged in the transistion to democracy.

Given all that I have said above, forgive me for the acerbic observation that it is no surprise that Arabs often wind up with a dictator for a leader, because plurality and majority consensus prove too difficult to achieve.  Hence my point: the Arabs need more time to develop politically.  If you are going to intervene you are just inhibiting their trajectory.  If they have noticed that dictators do indeed suck, they are going to have to fight for democracy.  Yes, Momo, in certain cases "bombs for peace" does make political sense.

Libya is farther down the political evolutionary ladder than Egypt, and we should approach it as such.  We should also carefully analyze each state striving to throw off the chains of dictatorship, and decide whether our best intentions will actually lead to the best results.  We should take a lesson from the Chinese here: the less you interfere the better.

“Well, fighting internal opposition is legitimate of course, but what is not legit is artillery and tank fire into civilian targets which (from my watching of it) has been confirmed. He was collectively punishing entire towns and cities for the uprising. Do you care to defend that behavior?”

Brendan, I am not defending Gaddafi’s behaviour, I am saying that it isn’t against international law, at least not clearly so. Nevertheless we are seeing an international intervention now. Gaza is a bad comparison, because that is an international conflict, not an internal one. Yemen and Bahrain are better for a comparison. A senior Yemeni officer has just joined the opposition … Will the same allies intervene there, and on which side will they be found?

Even if I shared your opinion (or illusion :-) ) that the countries intervening in Libya had the aim of preventing a humanitarian catastrophe, I would find it very worrying indeed that the UNSC is acting outside international law. Institutions without a legal frame are the worst danger imaginable.

“The "allies" have: a) agreed not to occupy, b) are reacting to the actions of Gaddafi, c) have the legal basis to act to protect Libyan civilians (resolution 1973). All is well in the world! Be happy.”

Wonderful. I am reassured. Using superior fire-power to install a Lybian government that immediately invites a few tens of thousands military advisers wouldn’t be an occupation, of course.

How do you know of Gaddafi’s actions, by the way? Have you been there, or do you rely on the media that are embedded by either side of the conflict?

The idea of protection of civilians being the aim of the military invaders is what I find scariest. Militaries are not humanitarian institutions, they are institutions meant to apply violence. At best they can be forced to respect humanitarian law (in varying degrees).

We will have to disagree on the finer points here as I feel personally that preventing artillery, tanks and air power being employed by Gaddafi is a fine objective if they leave it at that.

Completely agree, but there is that “if”. No chance that they leave it at that.

Blowing up his military infrastructure is fine with me, too, if they are seeking to create air dominance and destabilize the military and economic capacity of one crazy SOB

It’s the capacities of the crazy sob now, but it will be the economic capacity of the new, post-Gaddafi Libya. Or rather, it won’t, because the Libyan capacities will be found reduced to rubble. That means some economic advisers too… After all, they are Arabs, too stupid for democracy and even to know where to go shopping. Without proper guiding they might be able to buy equipment from China. Arabs may be difficult to lead, but actually it is a matter of fire-power.

I am alluding to Jay’s post, of course, racist and anti-democratic as one has to expect from him.

Jay, the Egyptian opposition groups are rising against the coalition of US trained military, NDP, and Muslim Brotherhood. And they are doing that admirably which shows that they are very capable to initiate the democratic process.

Your anti-democratic intentions become very clear indeed when you suggest that Hillary Clinton, the world’s most famous advocate of dictatorship, should deliver the west’s “help” (coaching, cajoling, flat-out bribery, and open threats) in order to ensure Egypt’s and Tunisia’s submission. You quoted an inane article a few days ago how warmly Clinton was received in Cairo, but forgot to mention that she invited the opposition to talks. They simply and publicly declined the invitation, saying they had not forgotten that Clinton persistently supported Mubarak’s dictatorship. With allies like that it is really “no surprise that Arabs often wind up with a dictator for a leader, because plurality and majority consensus prove too difficult to achieve”. They are shaking off these “allies” now. “Bombs for peace” can slow down the process, but they can’t stop it.

Brendan,

I would simply point out that there is momentum for change in the Arab world now. We should not discount the possibility of an evolutionary step forward with only moderate or limited help/intervention from external powers.

I hear ya, bro.  It is very exciting, isn't it.  But....

I am very anxious about 100 million people in North Africa living in a state of political uncertainty.  I am always happy to see a people rid themselves of a tyrant, but when the Russians threw off the czar and the Iranians ditched the Shah, things didn't turn out so well.  Both of those events were revolutions that eventually radicalized into something that the original liberal, democratic forces never expected but were eventually overwhelmed by.

Egypt and Tunisia had their February revolutions.  I am basically waiting to see if there is going to be an October Revolution which will take those nations off their intended course.

I want the West to consistently engage the Arab nations emerging from dictatorship and foster democracy in those countries.  I sort of wish this wasn't happening all at once, as it dilutes our abilities and resources.  All it takes is one group of Bolsheviks or Islamic Theocracists to hijack a nation while we are on our coffee break, and we have an anti-democratic problem that lasts for 70 years.

I hate to be so negative at such promising time, but the Arabs do have a tendency to spontaneously self destruct.

Some memories are very short. In Libya, as in other Arab countries, the opposition to the regime began with street protests. It was the massacres carried out against protesters which invoked the 'responsibility to protect' doctrine of the United Nations. Taking up arms against the regime was a continuation of this protest in the face of the continuing attack by the Libyan armed forces and the threat to kill opponents on a still larger scale. Calling this a 'civil war' is a distortion of the facts which brought about Resolution 1973. 

Eric,

You seem to support the UN rather dogmatically.  This situation is a rapidly unfolding disaster, and UN support only makes it a "legal" disaster.  That does not mean that the UN has acted wisely.  From the first page of this thread:

You and I are members of relatively quiet democracies where people generally adhere to the rule of law.  We have little experience in the "real world", meaning the political paradigms under which the majority of the world's populations is forced to reside.

First, lets pop this bubble of "the international community".  You are talking about "us".  If the international community is represented by the United Nations, we control it.  England, France, Russia, China and the United States--as permanent Security Council members with veto power--essentially decide on the "will" of the international community.

Only a few days ago I was commenting that I admired my country's leadership for having a smart policy, which was engaging Egypt while staying out of the fray in Libya.  What a difference a few days makes.

I will elaborate more in the following post to Brendan.

Brendan,

It is unprecedented, but without the UN you would see a Kosovo style intervention instead which would be less legitimate in my opinion. In an imperfect situation, this is the correct response, at least in the short term.

That post might be out of context, as it was a rebuttal to Momo commenting on the unprecedented granting of authority to basically intervene on behalf of the rebels in the civil war, but I want to talk about this short term thinking.

In international relations, there should be no such thing as the short term.  Our actions have consequences that are often remembered for generations, both in immediate results and simmering resentments.

As this situation devolves from an Arab League sanctioned no-fly zone into something more resembling a school of sharks engaged in a feeding frenzy, there is going to be a tremendous backlash.  Not the least of which can be represented by Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" maxim at the outset of the 2nd Gulf War, "If you break it, you buy it."

I was talking about a delayed European response in Bosnia a couple of days ago, and as you now mention Kosovo, all of it segues nicely into this article that I found earlier today:

The Libyan war, for that is plainly what it is, was launched with neither a clear end game nor a clear strategy. It began as an emergency action to prevent the fall of Benghazi. But now that Western military power has been brought to bear (let's not kid ourselves that Arab participation is anything much beyond symbolic), Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron could find themselves owning a broken and very dangerous situation on the ground in Libya. Many of the arguments for intervention derived from the Western experience in the Balkans during the 1990s, beginning with the breakup of Yugoslavia and culminating with the Kosovo conflict in 1999. It's worth remembering, then, that NATO troops were involved in Bosnia for 12 years, and there are still 8,700 NATO troops in Kosovo, which remains a ward of the West.

Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/03/21/dont-bet-on-a-brief-or-limited-war-in-libya/#ixzz1HGEcR6Et

We screwed up again, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.  America needs to back the hell away from this conflict before our allies start dropping out one by one, leaving us to manage the situation nearly alone--again!!!

Here are some thoughts I had when Egypt was in the early stages of revolt.  Substituting "Gadaffi" for "Mubarak" and "Libya" for "Egypt", they are in my opinion relevant to what is happening in Libya.  We got too involved in this thing and now we are going to pay a price.  Whatever happens next will incur a culpability that will naturally be assigned to the West:

If the Mubarak regime were to be forced out today, the entire government falls.  There is no structure in place to elect a successor.  Mubarak has never allowed an organized opposition, so there are currently no parties and no candidates with national appeal.  What we are facing is a power vaccuum, and that is always a dangerous thing.

If the government falls, there is no one to pay the police or the soldiers.  Chaos will break out on the streets of a nation of 80 million, and there will be no one to stop it.  A cursory glance at history, ranging from the collapse of the Ancien Regime, the Qing Dynasty, the implosion of Yugoslavia, to the fall of Saddam will give you a general idea of what happens when the center collapses.  Eastern Europe's transition to democracy in 1989 [...] was an historical anomaly.

[....]

Imagine Libya, Somalia, Israel, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, America and the EU all giving guns to people who delight in using them.  Imagine all those armed factions fighting for control of Egypt and the Suez.  Imagine a massive civil war in a country of 80 million.  Eventually, people will opt for the first movement that can bring order back to the nation.  This is how the Taliban so easily consolidated power in the mid 90s.  It could be a gangster, a thug, a warlord, or a fanatic, but he will not be democratic.  No matter what events develop, America will not be able to enter Egypt to assist.  The international political climate is such that we can not have American or NATO troops in another Arab capitol.  This will be Europe's problem [...]

Jay,

I think you’re right in that I don’t see how the coalition won’t be pulled into an ever-escalating conflict, though I’m sure the coalition realized this fact from the start. In fact, the strategy must be to neutralize Kadaffi’s air and ground threat, foster and encourage desertion of Kadaffi’s standing army, and then supply weapons and intelligence to the rebels who must have agreed beforehand to go on the attack, and hopefully put a quick end to Kadaffi and this conflict.

Chris,

I hope that I am just a paranoid blowhard that should shut up and smell the roses.  I hope that I am looking at events through an antiquated prism, and that the world has changed dramatically in the 20 years since I completed my university studies.

I hope that I am completely wrong and that you guys mock me for my stupidity until I retreat from openDemocracy with my Texas tail between my legs.

However, every neuron in my body is firing with the message; "Mucho oil + mucho tribalism = muchos muertos".  Gadaffi is a symptom, not the disease.  Libya has Tuberculosis and you are giving it Luden's cough drops.  You will be blamed when the patient dies.