When President Obama didn’t go hawkish on Libya and Muamar Ghaddafi, I was hopeful and realize that he was being smart to stay away from this conflict. Then he opened his mouth and started saying that Ghaddafi should go. Well, right here in the south there are people saying the same thing about him. Should he pack it up and leave? Of course not. Why? There is a world out there that loves, respects and requires him to be president. Like it our not, if the same thing happens in which those opposing President Obama take up arms, we would have Civil War II. The President would have the powers to crush any rebellion in the name of treason.
Regardless of what’s being said, Muamar Ghaddafi is still the ruler of Libya and should be given the same respect that we’ve given others that came to power by coup. It wasn’t too long ago that Ghaddafi’s son, Libya’s foreign minister was in Washington, meeting with Hillary Clinton. What’s up with this about face? Certainly Ghaddafi should’ve asked the people what they wanted but the rebels took up arms almost immediately and started their “protest” violently. Unlike other countries like Egypt, the reaction was swift.
In Egypt, as in almost all over the Arab world, everyone was asking for change. For some it was change from the corruption that was pervasive in the society. For others it was the notion that the rulers felt they were in power for life and regardless of what happened they would remain in power for generations. The interesting thing is however, each country has its own reason to rise up and this wave provides them with the notion that they can have their voices heard. Libya was obviously no different. Its’ been 42 years since Muamar Ghaddafi came to power and it seems like he’ll be there until he dies.
The unfortunate thing is that these regimes have no succession plan. Right now we have something so similar to Iraq its not funny. Saadam had his sons as his successor but they were all killed. Ghaddafi has the same plan and if this becomes a victory for the rebels either they’ll have to escape from Libya or meet the same fate. Certainly, Ghaddafi would be hanged if captured. With this the question comes, who or for the most part, what will succeed him? Since there is not a clear situation where the majority of the population supports the rebels, there is no doubt that to the victors will go the spoils and the spoils would be all that supported Ghaddafi. Expect to see the tables changing hands where those who come to power would be oppressors to those who lose. What would this lead to? More sectarian violence, the establishment of a permanent rebel movement and all the things that would do nothing good for the nation of Libya. One need only look at Iraq and Afghanistan to see how this plays out.
For some reason, it appears that this is what the West wants as it sends its troops. Why did Obama send in bombers to establish air superiority is beyond reason and gives a tinge of pandering to Republicans. It is good that he’s saying that the role of the US is diminishing at this time but who knows. It wouldn’t take much for Libya to strike back as it did with the Lockerbie bombing after the US bombed Libya, resulting in the death of one of Ghaddafi’s daughters. Would something like this mean that America would be drawn into the conflict more than expected?
If there is a clear voice of the people for the ouster of Ghaddafi, this would’ve been a simple thing but it is not. Ghaddafi knows that he cannot properly rule if he doesn’t give the impression among his people that he is for them. There are certainly many benefactors in Libya. Interestingly enough, Libyans enjoy a relatively stable life, one that is the envy of even some Western countries. There are not starving, they are provided with basic necessities quite well thanks to their oil wealth. Now here is where I have a problem and will always question the West’s motives. The question has to be asked “is it about the oil?” Right now the West doesn’t control any of Libya’s oil and must deal with Ghaddafi who hasn’t been bought. Is it the West wishes they would have someone they can control so that access to oil would be easier? Who can deny that providing support to the rebels would in effect be installing a regime that would be more compliant and would provide them with the accesses they want. Remember, its the West that’s talking about how terrible a person Ghaddafi is. Could it be he’s terrible because he’s not their pet? To many, once you’re not a pet, you’re wild, savage, a beast.
So here’s where I have a problem with President Obama who should not have pandered to the Republicans and participated in bombing Libya in establishing a no-fly zone. Let the Libyans fight it out for themselves. We certainly don’t want another Iraq or worse another Afghanistan. He shouldn’t have bowed to the pressure put on him to act. Its good that he’s handing over to the Europeans but this has played out before. Whether the Libyan people are seeing this as their only way to oust Ghaddafi, we shouldn’t be quick to rush in. And don’t bring in that “democracy” stuff. Democracy in pleural societies is great but in others its where the majority become tyrants to the minorities. If the Libyans want to fight it out, let them fight it out.
