Al Qaeda in Libya - Overblown Propaganda

It is to be expected that existing Al Qaeda recruits within Libya would join the struggle against the regime. It is also conceivable that Hezbollah would have sent support to Libya during the long period of deliberation that the UN undertook in reaching its decision to follow through on resolution 1973. Yet, to paint this as an Al Qaeda, extremist led uprising is a load of hogwash. And there is a very good way to test the assertion that Al Qaeda will capture the vacuum of power that might result when Gaddafi departs, resulting in a similar turnabout as was experienced in Afghanistan.

And this is the view that the Russian government, the opposite and equal partner in the cold war is now espousing. And a Russian propaganda has had a long history, and real-politik did not only exist in the Allied cold war camp - the Russians, for their sins, are equal and opposite progenitors of this modern day disease. So it's time to shame the Russians, as they are obviously playing out a sick cold war spin in favour of the Gaddafi regime. It seems the cold war antics have not ended.

So lets see - what are the inherent contradictions in this supposition?

It is clear that the Libyan rebels (pro-democracy fighters) are ill-equipped, ill-trained, and not organized enough to take on ground troops that are loyal to Gaddafi. They have fled most battles where they have encountered trained soldiers that know how to conduct a battle. Much emphasis has placed on the inadequacy of the Libyan rebel movement on the ground, and by all satellite television stations, blog spots, tweets, etc. The very reason why an intervention was made is because the rebels were summarily pushed back to Benghazi with the advance of Gaddafi's remaining troops. This, despite the fact that Libyan rebels are also supplemented by defecting army colonels and troops, who should know how to conduct a battle. Yet, by all accounts the Libyan rebels have not fared well and have appeared pretty disorganised in taking on Gaddafi's forces.

One has only to look to Iraq to debunk the idea that there are masses of Al Qaeda trained fighters in Libya, battling alongside civilians, waiting for their chance to take advantage of the power vacuum. In Iraq, the mobilisation of Al Qaeda forces have presented a constant and severe, well organised threat to American forces. Al Qaeda knows how to train fighters and have a long history of battlefield experience in various conflicts. Al Qaeda would not have survived as long as it has if it's actions were undisciplined and unable to mount well planned operations. If Al Qaeda was in Libya in great numbers, we would not see the disorganised, piecemeal resistance from the rebels that we have seen in Libya. Even now, the battle is to and fro. The rebels seem to be relying more on the defection of the army rather than all out battles to win territory. If Al Qaeda was in Libya in weighty numbers, then we would be seeing organised resistance on the ground, and well-trained fighters pushing forward against Gaddafi loyalists. We have not seen this. Instead, we have seen rebels push forward only to retreat quickly whenever they were faced with organised resistance from Gaddafi forces.

Al Qaeda maintained a long term resistance in Iraq that saw almost daily attacks upon American forces. It is an organised network of resistance that knows how to move arms and skilled fighters into conflict areas. Iraq acted as a magnet for Al Qaeda, and what we have seen in Libya does not in the slightest resemble what transpired in Iraq. The attempts that the Russian government in particular has made to paint a picture of a Libyan Afghanistan have been contrived, and if they're not contrived they're not very well thought through. One thing is for certain, the Russian government knows how to think strategically, and it is unlikely that this position has been generated by the strategists. Rather, it is more likely generated by the fearmongers amongst them, who have managed to capitalise on Russian fears over the threat that has emerged from the Caucasus. Moreover, it is politically expedient for the Russians to adopt the stance they have - it absolves them of the responsibility to participate in any action, and at the same time they make themselves more attractive to those that the West have spurned - much like China has managed to do. When the West spurned Robert Mugabe he looked to China for support. And Russia's calculated response is no doubt inspired by the very control of the very same oil reserves they claim that the coalition forces are greedy for. Russia are backing their old friend Gaddafi, and that is what their propaganda is in aid of.

To summarise - it is ridiculous to simultaneously claim that the rebels are disorganised rag tag groups, while at the same time heavily impregnated by Al Qaeda forces. Al Qaeda forces would know how to train and mobilise forces and would themselves be well trained and organised. We have seen none of this, and the Libyan army defectors are the ones conducting the training. While there may be Al Qaeda fighters amongst the Libyan rebels it is hardly likely, judging from their performance on the battelfield that Al Qaeda is a major force in the uprising in Libya. In this sense, recreated fears of a 1979 or Afghanistan styled power vaccuum being usurped by Islamist radicals are misplaced interpretations of the Libyan uprising, and runs the danger of acting as a diagnosis that eventually perpetuates itself. In this respect, what the Russian government is spinning out is dangerous and misleading, and if it is a genuine assessment, is more likely clouded by their own problems with extremists and only emphasizes how well both sides of the cold war divide mirror each other and their mutual paranoias.

The West-Obsessed Left

fIt is understandable that the global left expend a great deal of effort towards countering the many headed mythical beast referred commonly referred to as "the West", as the disproportionate concentration of wealth and power in the West has widespread consequences across the globe. It is true that the west has disproportionate influence over socio-economic and ecological trends that emerge in locales and regions across the globe that are often physically far removed from the daily lives and activities of people in Western countries - but is at the same time intimately linked to them. This is undeniable, and hence it follows that locating and challenge the locus of global power - for the global left that is - constitutes in attacking the hegemony of the west.

Yet this creates a selective blindness to the other, equally potent influences on the lives of people across the globe who suffer  - not just because of policies and actions that originate in the West - but because of regional and local issues that choke and frustrate the plight of the marginalised, poor and underprivileged. In many cases across the globe it is not the evil west that perpetuates grossly inhumane beliefs and practices, but local, national and regional actors that bring about the suffering of everyday people under their leadership and control. If charity should start at home, then surely so should activism and resistance? But perhaps starting at home isn't as sexy as taking on the forces of global dominance - after all, shouldn't a revolutionary be cast in the Che Guevara mold, and heroically pursue an agenda for global change?

Perhaps this is a cynical view, but the global left has more likely failed ordinary people everywhere by becoming so inextricably caught up with discourse on global power that is reinforced and fed by knee-jerk narratives on western hegemony. This is not to pretend that western hegemony doesn't exist, or isn't destructive in some ways, but rather that it is pulled out at every opportunity to recreate the west as bogeyman, to the detriment of the debate about how to solve the critical problems facing the "bottom billion" that reside on planet earth. In short, locating a singular scapegoat is attractive, but it does not help solve the problems that are facing the planet in the 21st Century.

In my view (and similarly, in Cornel West's view), the west itself needs to be understood in terms of its duality; that it is simultaneously hegemonic and the originator of the great project for freedom and democratic expression. Once you adopt this position, the safe, default positions adopted by the global left reflect a laziness to think through and act in recognition of the complexity of this duality. Placing the blame for all the worlds problems at the door of the west is dishonest and ignorant. The west, to start with, is not all powerful. It is not a God to which we must appeal or challenge. It is what it is and we are what we are.

For example, there are many local and contextual factors that have a strong bearing on creating and reinforcing socio-economic and gender inequalities, on keeping dictatorships and dictatorial regimes in power, on upholding culturally derived practices of discrimination, mutilation and continued human slavery. These are not phenomena that were created by the west alone, even though the west may have played a part in ensuring their perpetuation in many recognised cases. Patriarchal practices in particular, have a devastating effect on the ability of society to obtain mobility and freedom, yet in many regions of the world misogynistic practices are defended under the guise of maintaining cultural and traditional integrity of a locale, country or region. In respect of the project for human rights, the west has undeniably been a source of inspiration across the globe.

   

And it is not the west that daily humiliates people as much as the people they interact with everyday. Progressive activists in Eritrea, for example, might still have their cook sit under the kitchen table while they dine at leisure in their living rooms - the poor cook awaiting the end of dinner so her slave-ritual can end. South African lefties are also sometimes found wanting when it comes to everyday interactions with the marginalised underclass they claim to represent. The left tends to conveniently forget that even slavery was not a purely colonial phenomenon - indeed, slavery was upscaled to horrifying global levels by colonialism, but it did not start with colonialism. Neither does exploitation or genocide for that matter. Human oppression, in all its forms, originates with everyday people everywhere. It does not originate with one select group that can be marked and tagged and blamed for all of mankind's problems. And indeed, some people caught up in the rhetoric of the left actually might need something to direct their frustrated impotence at, so that it doesn't turn inwards and consume them. After all, some of us need our punching bags to avoid engaging ourselves more honestly about what role we play in bringing about the societies in which we live and the west is a convenient target in this respect.

And in this sense the left has conveniently fallen into apathetic patterns of analysis, choosing to adopt default positions that ultimately lead to placing blame outside of themselves and those they may be intimately connected or related to. In particular the avalanche of left anti-west voices that have assailed news networks in respect of the NATO led intervention in Libya all fail to address the role of their own governments and regional bodies. A case in point is Africa itself. Individual countries have not had the courage to take a stand on the situation in Libya, playing the situation from a distance, allowing the west to come in and take the heat from the beloved lefties they con into voting them in come elections. Indeed, the deafening silence from both African and Middle Eastern countries has gone unchallenged by the left, and they have said and done nothing to question the politics at play at home, preferring to lump all the blame at the door of the Obama presidency and EU NATO partners. In doing so, the left plays out a stereotypical and predictable role and helps prevent honest solutions from emerging, and local actors don't mind as they escape criticism entirely and can make a pretense of solidarity with the lefties, tut-tutting and shaking their heads at western intervention.

It's all too convenient, and quite frankly a disservice to the real and pressing needs that the understandably partisan left are tasked with representing. When the left claims to be representing the desperate needs of the Libyan people, while at the same time espousing their absolute rejection of any forms of intervention - denouncing the Libyan rebels as sellouts - a reality check is needed; one which jolts them out of mindless repetition about western hegemony and forces them to move beyond mere regurgitation of conspiracy theories towards a deeper understanding of how they can act upon actors around them to bring about change. After all, it is not just the popular narratives that the left are tasked with representing, but the deeply unpopular views and opinions that fall beneath the radar and remain out of sight. The left need to be able to act upon local and regional inadequacies as much as they deal with inadequacies on the global stage, and by focussing their attention exclusively on the western bogeyman they achieve little in the way of thinking up and acting upon practical solutions, preferring the comfy chair of derision to the bed of nails of action. Radical positions are comfortable resting places, radical ideas are not!

The positions that have been adopted on Libya by the left are farcical. The familiar narrative is to conflate conflicts in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan with the conflict in Libya, yet in none of these countries did a rebel group have the slightest chance of mounting resistance or indeed, directly asked for international intervention from the UN (maybe with the exception of Palestine). Moreover, the widespread push towards democracy in the middle east did not exist when these conflicts were unfolding, and neither did the technological platforms for communicating real-time information and news exist when these conflicts were undertaken. Instead, we had embedded journalists, and not real-time news. Those who pretend that somehow journalistic integrity has been compromised by the emergence of real-time news ignore the history of media manipulation and the manufacturing of consent role that the media played under the neoliberals and their predecessors. Media is now finally opening up to bottom up feedback from the grassroots, and with that comes a lot of uncertainty where real-time news is concerned, but on the other hand you hear the stories straight from the sources, warts and all and can decide for yourself.

When a call emerges for a no-fly zone from people who are being bombed, and the usually gutless UN makes a stand on it and decides to act, the left should support it - albeit warily and with vigilance, lest the campaign be hijacked by those with more base, material interests. The global left, of all people, should know that they have no right to speak for the people on the ground - they have the right to listen and represent, but not to impose their own dogma upon a people who are in the midst of a civil war or revolution or whatever you want to call it. You don't impose your own set of values, beliefs and norms upon people who are living under oppression and in the case of Libya, the constant threat of death. There is a humility that is required of the global left that has disappeared from their vocabulary. They speak and act as though they are lackeys of a forgotten dream, a dream that can save us all from ourselves, and in doing so become the very thing they wish to challenge - autocratic dictators who disregard the real needs of the pepole they claim to represent. And so they resort to the ultimate lie - that they can't bear to see people being bombed ... what absolute rubbish - the very same lefties played critical roles in marxist-lenninist uprisings around the globe and supported armed struggles that were conducted in the past. Which leftie can tell me that they didn't support the Cuban revolution, or the others that occurred around the world? Indeed, they heartily clapped their hands when Cuba came into Africa to rescue Angola, and left without taking a penny - a pure humanitarian intervention from an external power that eventually led to the end of the Apartheid regime. So please, before you start flashing peace signs in the air and spouting rhetoric about how much you hate seeing external powers intervene in domestic conflicts, sit back and reflect, because you may not be as much of a peace-lover as you claim.

Thought Factory: Libya and the Anti-War Left!

Thought Factory: Libya and the Anti-War Left!: "It is striking how similar the reactions of the left to the emerging crisis in Libya have been to the wests initial response to th..."

Libya and the Anti-War Left!

It is striking how similar the reactions of the left to the emerging crisis in Libya have been to the wests initial response to the Egyptian uprisings. At first, the west seemed confused about how to interpret the emerging events in Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt. Now, it is the global 'left' that mirrors this uncertainty and hesitation. When it came to Egypt the left firmly held the view that Mubarak was a western stooge, and deserved his come-uppance for his tresspasses against the greater 'solidarity' of the Arab world by making peace with Israel and embarking upon a close alliance with imperial powers. It is almost as if there wasn't an equal and opposite player in the cold war, that didn't create monsters of it's own ... a selective blindness of the left allows it to disappear from their vision and to slip through their fingertips. Gaddafi, on the other side of the cold war divide, still has his sympathisers on the left and in this respect the left ultimately mirrors the right that it so desperately tries to outdo.

Yet the illusory safety of old arguments provides little comfort to the left where the unfolding crisis in Libya is concerned. A vast range of theories prevail. NATO is oil greedy and - as in Iraq - have taken advantage of the opportunity in a quest for oil resources. Alternatively, it is the techno-industrial-military complex at work, stimulating war during a recession to create more weapons sales to sustain the complex itself, or it is an attempt to reassert western power as policeman of the world, a mafia godfather attacking a villain to reclaim a tenuous moral advantage over the rest of the world. NATO, vilified by the left, now proceeds amidst a storm of criticism, initially with the US as leader, in reality, a reluctant leader of the military operation to enforce a no-fly zone. 

Yet when one witnesses a Gaddafi speech, imploring the world to believe that the youth are out on the streets because Al Qaeda has drugged them with ecstacy that their coffee and milk has been laced with, even the most ardent lefty must lose confidence in their arguments? Gaddafi might be smart, but he is also senile at best and mad at worst and there is no way around that. And while lefties celebrated the 'revolution' in Egypt openly, they are reluctant to cheer on the UN and especially US and NATO forces in their attempt to intervene upon Gaddafi. After all, Gaddafi might have been a crazy dictator, but he was 'their' crazy dictator, not as bad as the others who worked for the west.

The brazen and violent words and actions spouted by Gaddafi, and his son Saif El Islam, seem to have fallen on the deaf ears within the left, and the grassroots and leadership level calls for action to be taken against the ever-looming purge that Gaddafi was embarking upon also seem not to move the left. They are too busy watching what America and the US are up to, fixated on their old enemy rather than the menace that has emerged within Libya, brought on by its illegitimate regime after 42 years of dictatorship. The conspiracy addicted left, ironically seem unable to hear the calls that have emerged from the Libyan people and their now defected leadership, and many within the left now suggest that a negotiated settlement with Gaddafi would have been more appropriate. Yet again, the left comes to the afterparty with 20-20 hindsight, an easy enough position to assume - a safe moral highground that has nothing to do with what is transpiring on the ground in Libya. Who indeed, can guarantee that Gaddafi - having broken every promise he's made (including self-declared ceasefires), would simply roll over and play dead because he was honoured with negotiations and asked to go nicely (pretty please with a cherry on top)? Who can guarantee that? 

And there is more that the left ignore in their never-ending quest for conspiracy. The US military has consistently bucked Obama on every suggestion he has made since he came to presidency, presumably because one of his campaign promises was to close down Guantanomo Bay, and to pull out of Iraq, into which America should never have gone. The US military did not want to have any part of Libya. They are already overstretched and seem to be trying to concentrate efforts for success in Afghanistan in particular, and are reluctant to disperse their efforts over the globe. Robert Gates, essentially the leader of the US military, has contradicted Obama too regularly for comfort, so the techno-industrial-military complex, if it is represented by the actions of the US military, seem not to be too interested in Libya, and neither are the oil industry, who are also closely linked to the US military.

And this is not all. While Libya was being put under the sword (or more accurately; sniper rifles acquired from South Africa in December, and automatic and anti-aircraft gunfire) by Muammar Gaddafi, another drama was unfolding in Bahrain that has far more significance to regional security that Libya ever could have, no matter how much oil there is in Libya. The movement of Saudi forces into Bahrain to quell uprisings against the Bahraini monarchy raised the eyebrows of Iran, whose government met to discuss unfolding events in Bahrain. Shiites under attack in the middle east, and a vacuum of international action, may have opened the way (justifiably) for Iran to take action. Indeed, Iran could well have cited Kosovo, where it took 7 years before any kind of intervention occurred to put an end to widespread genocide - as an example of the historical failure of the UN to do anything other than make resolutions when people were dying. Rwanda is also a case in point.

It is concievable that the 'rushed' (some say it took too long) UN resolution for a no-fly zone and to protect civilians was put into place to anticipate any claim that Iran might have made to the right to take action. By acting earlier, the UN might be anticipating the strategic movements in the region and be trying to pre-empt any moral 'right' that Iran might invoke to intervene on behalf of civilians in Bahrain. Morality as a reason for intervention or action of any kind is always dangerous, as the question of 'whose morality' should dictate the norms comes into play. Action should be based on principle, and while morality is important in one sense, it is far more important for that morality to be bound by principle, which in the case of UN should be humanitarian principles that are agreed upon at an international level. If the UN cannot do anything to instigate actions that are designed to bring about the security of peoples in crisis, then it has no purpose except as a symbolic, post fact first-world guilt alleviation body.

Several left oriented commentators and researchers have suggested that a negotiated settlement with Gaddafi would have been wiser than declaring him under investigation by the International Criminal Court. Yet this smacks of cold war logic, and neoliberal pragmatism - the very things that the left rail against. Moreover, there is no evidence that this works. Zimbabwe is a good illustration of why negotiated settlements with an entrenched regime can fail the opposition considerably. And accordingly, the consistent message that has emerged throughout the uprisings in the Middle East is the call for dictatorial leaders and their entire regimes to be removed. In this sense, the protesters are seeking system revolution, democractic elections and constitutional change that leads to the entire restructuring of insitututions and government, for the benefit of society. They are not interested in negotiations because they have never had any negotiating power within their dictatorship-led regimes, with no lengthy histories of free civil society mobilisation, and want to have the right to determine their own governance and leadership.

There was a clear call for a no-fly zone from Libyans under attack from Gaddafi forces, and the UN has followed suit, at great risk to its own reputation. I never thought the UN would pass a resolution to intervene, but now that they have, some successive phases can be put in place. If the ground battle continues to be a back and forth affair, then prolonged high frequency conflict may result, while if a wall was put up between the east and west of Libya then a low frequency conflict such as that conducted between Palestine and Israel may result.

The ground battle, as  in the Balkans, might prove intense and horrific, but that will only occur if tribes turn against one another and re-create the village-by-village style of ethnic cleansing that occurred in Bosnia and Kosovo - which at this stage seems unlikely. More likely, rebel soldiers and anti-Gaddafi protesters -turned-revolutionaries will experience fierce ground battles, and the eventual result will be subject to the twists and turns that these singular micro-turf wars take during the course of the Libyan conflict. The no-fly zone only takes out one (though very significant) component in the conflict, but does not level the playing fields. At worst, the rebels will lose entirely to Gaddafi's ground forces and a no-fly zone will be meaningless on the ground. 

However, the UN can pull on more of its resources in order to put peacekeepers on the ground to enforce the keeping of the peace and not just keeping a peace in general. The rules of engagement need to be framed around protecting civilians and territory and not just firing back when fired upon, or defending UN bases and compounds. The UN peacekeeping forces can also clear the way for much needed humanitarian assistance to be brought in, and for elections to be held at local council levels in order to obtain some level of representative governance in the new territories.

If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taught us anything it is that UN resolutions that have no teeth are effectively useless pieces of paper that have no real authority in the world. The UN is a heavily funded organisation, and must earn its role through decisive, clear and principled action. Note that I emphasize that principle, and not morality, should govern their actions to a larger degree. Morality is dangerous as the question of 'whose' morality should prevail cannot be given a straight answer - principle, as articulated by Hannah Arendt, should be the backbone of action. The UN is the only organisation mandated with establishing the principles around which global humanitarian values are based - it is not there to argue for or advance a particular morality, but to achieve consensus on principle and then to act upon those principles for the greater good of the globe.

When it comes to Libya the left have chosen a position of convenience and not one of principle, choosing to re-invoke the quest for conspiracy instead of observing what is transpiring diplomatically, politically and on the ground in Libya. What the Libyan people have called for is consistent with calls throughout the middle east, that is; complete regime change and the end of dictatorship. They don't just want elections, they want to start from a clean slate because existing systems are so corrupt and inept that they just aren't good enough. That is revolution - and it doesn't have to follow any kind of marxist-lennist model in order to have legitimacy as revolution.

Negotiated settlements can also sometimes also work out, but there has to be a pre-willingness for a negotiated settlement, as was the case in South Africa. This has not been the case in Libya or in other Middle Eastern countries for that matter, and the spectre of negotiated settlement has only come up when these regimes have been taken by surprise by widespread revolt, indeed, much as Zanu-PF was surprised when it lost the elections in Zimbabwe. Under these conditions negotiations are not made in good faith, they are made purely to retain control through the structural power of the existing regime. Negotiated settlements, however palatable to the peace-loving left, will not lead to any real change and will open the way for widespread purges after the medias interest moves elsewhere, as we have seen in Zimbabwe. That the left is deaf to what Libyans at all levels are requesting is an reflection on how their own prejudices and long held gripes can blind them to the voices of grassroots uprisings, which ironically; they are quick to claim they represent. One might ask the question, are the lefties actually liberals not far beneath their 'down with the people' exteriors?

     

War, Peace and Bullies

Now that Gaddafi's forces are being met with rockets and bombs from coalition forces to disable his air capabilities and drive back those in violation of the call for a ceasefire you would be forgiven for thinking that the war in Iraq is repeating itself. Indeed, as there is pro-war rhetoric that is driven by its own self-interested objectives there is also anti-war rhetoric that is driven exclusively by its own motives. Both do not frame their positions on the basis of contextual events. Rather, they are preformed positions - often due to deeply held beliefs and values. These inform what apriori positions people take on the subject of war, and must be respected in that light. But what practical use are these positions when looking down the barrel of a gun, or in confronting disproportionate use of force? When dealing with bullies, who do not have a position on anything but rather choose the convenience of whatever works to keep them in power over others, what options are available to the downtrodden?

Well for one - the downtrodden and oppressed can allow themselves to become cannon fodder, or they can resist the inevitable. When faced with real violence survival is the instinctive response. From a young age I have made careful observation of how this instinct drives people towards different responses - it is truly a binary; a fight or flight instinct that overcomes people under these circumstances. Most prefer flight, and choose to get out of violent conflict through whatever means are available for self-preservation. Bullies also respond in the same way, but they tend to employ whatever tactics they can - from guilt and pity to temper tantrums - to maintain a foothold over those under their spell. Bullies use whatever means they can to stay in power, and are often deeply convinced of their own right to leadership. In my experience, bullies need to be cornered and all options for escape need to be shut down on all sides. It is very rare that bullies actually fight to the death - dying nobly and martyring themselves is never high on a bullies agenda. For them, it is about survival first and foremost, despite the dramatic and theatrical performances they may put on for the public. Most dictators, for example, choose a comfortable life in exile rather than to die at home fighting on principle. Self-sacrifice is not their ultimate aim; their ultimate aim is maintaining power-relationships in their favour.

In personal confrontations with bullies I found that they break when they realise that the game is up - that is, when they are confronted by those who are willing to sacrifice themselves to see the end of a bullies reign. Bullies don't trust 'crazy guys' who don't care what happens to them and are bent on destroying them at all costs - in fact, they can scarcely relate to that level of commitment as they don't have a core that they can turn to; they are changelings, shapeshifters that adapt to emerging context. That is often why they are so difficult to break. They are wily, and will attempt to coerce those around them using any and all means that are available. Another thing about bullies is that they evade themselves and have limited ability to conduct any kind of self-analysis, except to emphasize their own merits or misfortunes - often retelling stories that reinforce the self-image they seek so desperately to create for the benefit of others. Indeed, they often have personal mythologies that they employ to justify whatever action they may choose to pursue, to the exclusion of other points of view. Bullies are not consensus leaders, they choose threat, coercion and manipulation as their instruments of power.

The  key argument put forward by anti-war lobbies is that Gaddafi should have been given the option to step down, like other leaders in the region, and that threatening Gaddafi with action from the International Criminal Court was a mistake as it has forced him into a no-way-out situation. Yet all indications of that are to the contrary - he thwarted every chance he was given. At no point did he show any respect for human rights, and used direct force against innocent civilians. In my view, Gaddafi will use any lifeline he can to delay action, build support and consensus around his own position, and entrench himself further. He may give the appearance of backing down, but all this is, is the strategic employment of delay tactics. After the UN announced the positive result of the vote for a no-fly zone, he quickly announced his own ceasefire, only to intensify his attacks against Misurata and Benghazi. Bullies are expert liars, and Gaddafi is a paramount exponent of misinformation and lies. Bullies are also experts at brinkmanship. They can go to the edge again and again, and perhaps derive a narcotic thrill from the experience.

Whenever you negotiate with a bully, you immediately assume a lower position in the power hierarchy. Bullies love negotiations, as that is where you become their audience. You are never an equal in a negotiation with a bully - you are a spectator to their drama and will always remain exactly that. They don't expect to negotiate - they expect a tactical engagement where tactics are employed to gain positional advantage. In this respect, brinkmanship is their main tactical ally. Bullies know how to wait you out and have supreme belief that in the end they will get their way. Chaimberlains biggest mistake was trusting Hitler, shying away from direct confrontation with Hitler. The result was the horrors of the second world war. Aggression, whether directed against another nation or against ones own people, when administered by a bully - must be met with direct and concerted force. If you don't set the boundaries for bullies then they establish them for themselves.

So where do the warmongers and the peaceniks feature in all of this? Being in favour of peace is not the same as being anti-war, and conversely, being in favour of war does not mean you are pro-war. Each situation must be judged on its particular context if an appropriate and adequate solution is to be found. Achieving peace sometimes requires violence - that is an unfortunate fact of life which nobody can avoid despite our deepest held beliefs. In this respect, rhetoric - whether pro-war or anti-war - is hardly useful, as it seeks to generalise war and conflict as an abstraction, independent of the context in which it operates. When dealing with dictators who have turned to violence, pleading with them to stop and providing multiple exit points from which they can escape responsibility hardly ever works as it plays into their own sense of vindication; that they have legitimacy. Where the peaceniks are correct, is that violence - once started - can often spiral out of control, or can result in cycles of violence that have no end.

Yet to pretend that the violence only started when coalition planes flew into attack on Libya is disingenous in the extreme. Massacres were already underway and Gaddafi was proceeding unhindered and unchallenged down the path of a bloody and absolute purge of the opposition. Indeed, he still refuses to even acknowledge that the opposition is anything more than a conspiracy contrived from outside Libya (i.e. Al Qaeda, America, Egyptians, Tunisians, ecstacy consuming youth, etc.) and is serious about conducting a door-to-door purge. My simple question is - is that peace? Is that the 'peace' that the anti-war rhetoriticians seek to preserve. Maybe if you've never had a gun to your face, or never had a knife to your neck then you can afford to dither about in disneyland, but if you have, then you know how quickly you can be reduced to absolutely nothing by a gun or knife toting moron, and how dangerous that can be.

A case in point is that Greenpeace itself uses force - althought not deadly force - to thwart Japanese whaling ships. They, in effect, do everything they can to declare a 'no-hunt' zone around the whales and put themselves in harms way to achieve this, yet their actions are seen as courageous and necessary by the very same people who seem happy to watch Libyans get bombed, dragged out of their homes, and mowed down in the streets by sniper rifles that South Africa sold to Libya in December. I am as flabbergasted by the knee-jerk reactions of peaceniks as I am by warmongers. They appropriate situations to champion their own deeply held beliefs, despite the realities of what the people facing the bullets are confronted with.

When people ask for your help, and when they can only survive a situation with your help, it is a humanitarian act to stand up for them, risk yourself for them, and to take action to help save them. It is not simply an act of war. Indeed, it can be an act of deep love itself. I am not philosophizing about this - I am drawing on my own subjective experience of violent confrontation, and I have never regretted using violence with good reason. I have regretted using violence inappopriately though, and I know the difference. It is far too simplistic in my view, to cast all violent efforts as fundamentally bad and all peaceful efforts as fundamentally good. It is a duality, and not a dualism or binarity of metaphysical opposites that peace and violence ascribes.

The same people who purportedly hate physical violence often have absolutely no problems with employing psychological and emotional violence. Perhaps because they are so afraid of recognizing the violence within them that it creeps out through other avenues. The soapboxing of rhetoric serves no purpose other than to elevate the one on the soapbox above others, and is often driven by that precise need. It is a violence of its own - the violence of utopia - which yields messianic visions and messiahs alike and tramples reality (and those caught within it) underfoot. Make no mistake, principle is a powerful tool for achieving humanitarian ends, but it can also suffocate and destroy the very humanity it seeks to protect. Principle, like violence, is a double edged sword and the idea that idealized, utopian positions taken on general principle are somehow noble is severely  misplaced and often destructive in itself.

  

The Cost of Inaction

So Muammar Gaddafi is now dictating the momentum of events in the Middle East. Instead of the UN taking action to ensure the safety and security of civilians in Libya and the rest of the Arab world, Gaddafi’s actions have spoken louder than any words coming out of the so called ‘free world’.  Gaddafi’s actions have given the other dictators in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia the blueprint for survival – quite simply; the use of disproportionate and deadly force and intimidation and arrest. By declaring all out war on protesters, while calling for talks at the same time, the locus of power remains within the hands of the dictators.

In Libya the protesters are vilified, relegated to the categorisation of vermin and journalists have been killed. This kind of talk and action is dangerous, as it usually precedes genocide. This is something the UN should be well aware of, but sadly their track record in preventing the killing of civilians in emerging conflicts consists of a long list of failures. In Bahrain, Saudi troops have been called in to bolster the Bahraini state forces, who attacked the protesters to clear Pearl roundabout and then proceeded to take over the main hospital (Salmaniyah),  reportedly intimidating, arresting and beating unarmed patients and doctors in the hospital. In addition, Bahraini opposition figures have been arrested.

In both Libya and Bahrain, serious crimes have been committed by the very same states who are tasked with maintaining law and order.  In both cases, military and civil laws have been violated by the state – situations that should be unacceptable to the international community. And while there have been words  of disapproval, and calls for peace, the fact is that state imposed terror has continued un-abounded in both cases. The dictators are learning how to survive crisis, and the self-proclaimed great leader of Libya – Muammar Gaddafi – who has survived many prior crises, is showing them the way. Saif El Islam, the Libyan leaders son, has boasted that Benghazi will be taken in 48 hours, yet they are still fighting for control of Ajdabiyah. Another dictator in the making, he tries desperately to appear magnanimous and forgiving on the one hand, and threatening and rigid on the other hand. He has stated that the rebels are welcome to leave Libya in peace – subtly threatening to increase Egypt’s problems on the border by creating an even larger refugee crisis than already exists.

Yet the consequences of military crackdowns in both Libya and Bahrain will be long-lasting and severe. Clearing Pearl roundabout in the case of Bahrain, and re-taking Benghazi in the case of Libya will only push resistance underground, and after the disproportionate use of violence against opposition, it will create the conditions for more militant protest in response. In other words, those whose voices are being crushed with weapons will take up arms of their own in order to make their voices heard. This is a clear trend that persists throughout history. Even in South Africa, the killing of schoolchildren on June 16 1976 drove many towards more militant, armed action and many joined the ranks of the military wing of the ANC purely as a response to this event. When the state behaves in a manner where it regards the lives of its civilians as expendable in relation to its own survival it loses legitimacy. The first role of the state is to protect its civilians – this is also true of the army and state security apparatus’. In both cases, clear violations have been committed, and the prevarication of the UN and correspondingly the international community, have emboldened these states, which are now operating under an aura of ‘untouchability’ that must terrify its own citizens who must shudder at the thought of what is to come next, given that violations that have already occurred seem to have gone unpunished.

So the facade of using violence to create ‘stability’ has been employed as a strategy. Yet it won’t last. Just as the war in Iraq didn’t end by merely taking the capital city and declaring victory, the same will be true in both Bahrain and Libya. Urban conflicts will emerge.

In Libya, army members that have defected and civilians that have taken up arms will no doubt be in negotiation with tribal and other leaders in order to make arrangements to fight a more protracted, low frequency civil war. It is hard to envisage that after all that has occurred in Libya, the opposition will merely fade out of the picture and disappear across the borders never to be seen again. They have already become militant, and radicalisation will deepen. In the absence of support from the UN – for which they are literally begging – they will have to turn elsewhere for support, and it is clear that this is where the most dangerous positions can unfold. Abandoned in their quest for human rights by the UN and the international community, they will formulate deeper and more radical stances – and indeed, who can blame them if the organisations that purport to exist for the protection of human rights are unable to act. One only has to look at how long it has taken Israel to move beyond the distrust, paranoia and radicalisation that was brought on by the holocaust to realise what is being brewed.

The Bahraini situation is far more troublesome in terms of regional security than Libya, even though all out warfare has not yet ensued – this primarily because Bahraini protesters have remained peaceful while the government has oscillated schizophrenically; initially attacking the protesters, then backing off and guaranteeing their safety, then later inviting in Saudi forces and returning to violent means of dealing with the protesters. Yet Iran is watching closely at how the majority Shiite populations of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are being denied their basic human rights, and is already holding inquiries into the events that may lead to war. No doubt, this war has the potential to be cast in an epic light i.e. between the Sunni and Shiite populations in the region. This is potentially an explosively catastrophic development for the middle east, as it will mean a return to an age-old conflict over who has the right to the Islamic caliphate.  Yet, so far, all assurances from Bahraini protesters have been given that this is not a Shiite led movement for dominance but rather a movement for establishing human rights. As the Bahraini state increases its grip on the throats of the protesters this may change, and radicalization may follow suit.

Critically, in both the cases of Libya and Bahrain it is clear that the role of the UN is now under a microscope, and rightly so. How can the heavily funded international agencies of the UN be justified if they cannot act in a timely and effective manner to guarantee human rights when they are being grossly violated for all to see? Surely when states take armed action against their own civilians there has to be recourse to regional and international action. The calls for a no-fly zone in Libya and for help in Bahrain have been clear, and a clear response is needed. Otherwise, the much vaunted quests for regional security and stability in the Middle East may be a thing of the past. If a blind eye is turned to the events that are unfolding in Libya and Bahrain in the hope that dissent will fade away, the danger is that other, more radical helpers will step in to help the Libyans and Bahraini’s – and they will have no choice but to accept help from whence it comes.

Gaddafi's Forces Push East!

Muammar Gaddafi's supporters are making a concerted push eastwards towards Benghazi in anticipation of the possible declaration of a no-fly zone over Libya. Already, several towns along the route have fallen, with rebels retreating, presumably to make a stand in Benghazi where  they can consolidate their forces and mount a concerted defence. Yet it is a civilian rebel army without adequate military training that is battling against well-armed and well-trained soldiers that are loyal to Gaddafi - most of whom come from Gaddafi's own 'tribe' or clan. Rebel forces have the support of less well armed and trained army personnel and fast track military training is being provided to the rag-tag rebel units, in the hope of giving them some level of preparation against the advancing forces. The message from Benghazi is clear - they want a no-fly zone.

And while a no-fly zone would go some way towards ensuring that anti-Gaddafi forces stand a chance of keeping their territorial advantages in the East, it does not ensure that widespread massacre and civilian terror will be prevented. In Bosnia it took a long time for NATO's no-fly zone to force Serbian forces into capitulation, and it did not stop the genocide on the ground. In fact, it may make on-the-ground fighting more fierce and brutal, as without air support soldiers have to systematically take territory through bombardment and street to street urban warfare. This itself can render the urban population trapped in a vicious war zone where there is no escape. Moreover, the surreality of war leads people to take greater risks and it is not inconcievable that attitudes will harden and become fatalistic, and even if 'rebel' anti-Gaddafi forces are beaten in terms of conventional war, they will then turn to guerilla warfare and maintain a low frequency war against pro-Gaddafi forces, as is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Rebel troops with inferior weapons and training will be forced into this mode of resistance, as there are simply no other alternatives. They will no doubt appeal for help to the international community again, requesting training, arms and ammunition in support of their fight against what has clearly become an illegitimate regime.

There are some dilemmas in respect of these requests. Declaring a no-fly zone is probably the best first choice. However, if a no-fly zone is declared, international helpers of the anti-Gaddafi forces will be reluctant to provide them with anti-air weapons, as the chances of untrained anti-Gaddafi forces shooting down the aircraft that are intended to help them is very high. International forces sent in to help Libyans under siege from Gaddafi’s forces may find themselves dodging friendly fire – a situation that may be unacceptable to them. If a no-fly zone isn’t going to be implemented then it might be that portable anti-air weapons may find their way into Libya (as they did in Afghanistan, when the now forgotten mujaheddin fought off Russian air support – especially helicopters). Libyans will then have to down aircraft themselves, and the prospect of fratricide still exists as if an aircraft is brought down over populated areas there will inevitably be casualties. Untrained or semi-trained operators may not have the wherewithal to make on-the-spot decisions that saves lives.

Lastly, Gaddafi’s resistance seems to be emboldening the governments in Yemen and Bahrain, where protesters have come under brutal attack and shows of force by the regimes in power are becoming more common and intense. Perhaps Gaddafi has unwittingly laid down a blueprint for survival for fading dictators in the middle east – when cornered, kill and intimidate as many as you can, even if the government around you has fallen to pieces and no legitimate support for your rule exists any longer. Prevaricating over a no-fly zone in Libya could have consequences in the rest of the region  in that it may help prolong and sustain the regimes in the middle east in the face of widespread public revolts, leading to even further breakdown in the region. Already, legitimacy of these governments have been brought into question, and it is clear that at the very least free and fair elections would be required in order to move forward.

If the UN and the international community does not come to the assistance of the civilians in the street, it is likely that other forces in the region will. It should not be forgotten that there are already groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas whose relevance can be boosted by becoming involved in these conflicts. Should these situations in the middle east devolve into civil wars, where civilians take up arms against the ruling elites and their backers, it is not inconceivable that anti-regime forces will turn to existing armed groups in the region for support. It makes sense to in any event, as Hezbollah and Hamas are well trained and prepared for urban warfare of the kind that is emerging in Libya. They know how to mount resistance against disproportionate force and anti-government forces would benefit greatly from their knowledge and training.

The situation in Libya, left to its own devices, is already setting a default precedent, and a dangerous one at that, that could lead to long terms instability in the region to the detriment of the people in those countries and to the world.  Finding an appropriate measure of intervention, that can be implemented timely is critical to maintaining stable transitions towards democratic governance in the middle east. Ignoring the human rights abuses that are unfolding are hardly likely to work - some action is necessary, and if the formal international bodies cannot rise to the challenge others will.