hey how about d&d's favorite war lol

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > hey how about d&d's favorite war lol

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

citations in original

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/07/hillary-libya-nato-qaddafi-obama/

quote:

Worse Than Benghazi

Benghazi is a sideshow. Hillary Clinton�s real scandal is her role in pushing the war against Libya.
by David Mizner

On March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973, authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya and �all necessary measures� to protect civilians. That same day � as revealed by Pentagon audio tapes obtained by the Washington Times � President Qaddafi�s son Seif tried to call a US general to try to negotiate a ceasefire.

Every now and then � on Israel and Palestine, for example � the US military brass takes the term �national security� literally and needs to be set straight by civilian leaders. Never mind that the UN resolution had urged diplomacy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instructed the Joint Chiefs of Staff not to negotiate with the Libyan government.

The Pentagon, however, enlisted an intelligence asset to maintain a secret channel of communication with Libya. �Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this,� this liaison told Seif Qaddafi after the NATO bombing had begun. �Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all.�

Later the Libyan government made another attempt to negotiate through an intermediary, American businessman and former US Navy officer Charles Kubic. According to Kubic, General Carter Ham, head of AFRICOM, agreed to participate in this effort to halt the war. Qaddafi proposed a seventy-two-hour-truce, then said he would step down to allow for a transition provided that NATO agreed to maintain the Libyan army, lift sanctions against him and his family, and provide them safe passage.

Was the offer genuine and workable? We�ll never know, because Clinton shut down the negotiations.

Thanks to news reports � mostly in right-wing outlets � over the last several months, a clearer picture of the US�s 2011 war on Libya has emerged. While some of the analysis in these pieces is suspect, much of the reporting is well-sourced, and it should be making life uncomfortable for Clinton.

But she carries on unscathed partly because few American elites want to talk about the US destruction of Libya and partly because her GOP adversaries continue to fixate on the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. The wayward probe allows her to depict herself, accurately, as the target of a partisan effort. A manufactured scandal clouds a real one.

The new information is more confirmation than revelation. News from different sources � the Pentagon audio tapes, Sidney Blumenthal�s emails to Clinton, and a grand jury investigation of a private defense contractor � vindicates opponents of the war, especially those who recognized it as an act of aggression.

And it indicts those who bought and hawked the humanitarian case � a group that includes scores of prominent liberals and leftists. Consistent with their collective quiet on Libya since 2011, liberal-left pundits and media outlets have mostly ignored the recent news except to object to the Right�s attacks on Clinton. For loyal Democrats and liberal ironists, including many who supported the US war on Libya, �Benghazi� is a joke about GOP obsession. For Libyans, Benghazi is a ravaged city in a ravaged country.

Libya�s decimation was the inevitable result of the removal of its government, and the removal of its government was the express goal of the US-NATO war. To build support for the military offensive, American officials lied about the humanitarian threat posed by Qaddafi; to execute it, they empowered and armed an opposition coalition they knew was rife with al-Qaeda allies and other reactionary forces.

The war shouldn�t be blamed solely on Clinton, who, after all, wasn�t president. For that matter, it shouldn�t be blamed solely on President Obama. US allies � both in Europe and the Gulf � played important roles, and imperialism is a power greater than an individual or group of individuals. It has its own imperatives, its own class interests to serve.

Yet Clinton was the driving force in the administration, taking up a cause championed at lower levels by Obama adviser Samantha Power and UN ambassador Susan Rice.

It appears that Clinton was ambivalent about the war until her March 14 meeting in Paris with opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril, which was arranged by Bernard Henri-Levi. �I talked extensively about the dreams of a democratic state . . . and how the international community should protect civilians from a possible genocide like the one [that] took place in Rwanda,� Jibril told the Washington Times. �I felt by the end of the meeting I passed the test. Benghazi was saved.�

The prospect of mass atrocities was central to American officials� case for war � as it usually is. Qaddafi was, in Clinton�s words, a �creature� who �will destroy anyone or anything in his way.� Probably because they knew they weren�t telling the truth, American leaders avoided using the word �genocide.� Clinton spoke of �tens of thousands� of deaths, and Obama said he acted to prevent a �bloodbath,� �atrocities,� and �mass graves.� The White House circulated an op-ed by Rwandan President Paul Kagame titled, �Rwandans know why Gadhafi must be stopped.�

Analysts such as Alan Kuperman challenged the official line at the time, pointing out that Qaddafi had not targeted civilians in other cities he�d recaptured. Now the Washington Times has provided evidence of a misinformation campaign, reporting that the Pentagon knew that Qaddafi had ordered his generals not to attack civilians and that the Defense Information Agency found that he �was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting large civilian casualties.�

Not content merely to warn of mass slaughter, American officials also employed a time-honored tactic of selling war: making false allegations of rape. In April 2011, Susan Rice claimed that Qaddafi was giving his troops Viagra to encourage rape, and in June, when Congress was making noises about trying to halt the war, Clinton picked up this rhetorical line of attack.

Amnesty debunked the claim at the time. We now know its apparent source. Blumenthal emailed the Viagra allegation to Clinton in late March, stressing that it was unconfirmed. He recently testified that his reports on Libya came from Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA officer turned security consultant. Blumenthal�s emails � some of which were hacked and posted in 2013 � also reveal that Drumheller sought business with the new Libyan government.

The humanitarian case for war depended not just on the prospect of mass atrocities by Qaddafi but also on the existence of a superior alternative. Administration officials and others depicted the opposition as gloriously and uniformly progressive. When the United States recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) as Libya�s governing authority in July 2011 � and gave it access to $30 billion � Clinton described it as �steadfast in its commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms.�

The TNC, far from a representative sample of the opposition, was a collection of expats, former Qaddafi loyalists, and other elites who rose to power with the apparent help of France. One of Blumenthal�s memos to Clinton asserts that France funded the nascent council in exchange for the promise of financial favors. French intelligence �expected the new government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya.�

Whatever its nature, the TNC was merely the figurehead atop a loose coalition that included vicious racists and other reactionaries. Indeed, it was immediately evident that the threat of mass atrocities came not from the government but from the opposition.

The mainstream press outlets didn�t ignore the threat of al-Qaeda, reporting that per capita Libya was the source of the most foreign fighters in Iraq and that hundreds of al-Qaeda members in Pakistan were heading home to fight. At the same time, though, the press dismissed Qaddafi�s warnings. �Most experts agree that Qaddafi is grossly exaggerating the al-Qaeda threat to discredit his opposition,� said the Christian Science Monitor.

Clinton went farther, suggesting that al-Qaeda allies had no role in the opposition. Asked about NATO commander�s reference to �flickers in the intelligence of potential� al-Qaeda involvement, Clinton said, �We do not have any specific information about specific individuals from any organization who are part of this.�

The Libyan government didn�t just allege an al-Qaeda presence in the opposition but compiled evidence in a report that, according to the Washington Times, a US intelligence asset sought to deliver to members of Congress. �There is a close link between al Qaeda, Jihadi organizations, and the opposition in Libya,� read the report.

Now that beheadings and car bombs are commonplace in Libya, it can�t be denied that the warning was valid, although no one could foresee the emergence of the Islamic State.

The moral sickness of the opposition cut even deeper and wider than the barbarism of al-Qaeda. Anti-black racism was endemic to it. In August 2011, brigades centered in Misrata forced all forty thousand Tawergha � who are mostly descendants of black slaves � to flee the city that bears their name.

�The forced displacement of roughly 40,000 people, arbitrary detentions, torture, and killings are widespread, systematic, and sufficiently organized to be crimes against humanity,� said Human Rights Watch in 2013, two years after its Washington director, Tom Malinowski, cheered the war and said democracy was �tantalizingly close.�

CIA operatives were working with the opposition from the beginning. It is impossible that American officials didn�t know about the pogroms against blacks, which began as soon as the insurgency did. In his review of Maximilian Forte�s essential Slouching Toward Sirte, Dan Glazenbook summarizes his findings:

50 sub-Saharan African migrants were burnt alive in Al-Bayda on the second day of the insurgency. An Amnesty International report from September 2011 made it clear that this was no isolated incident: �When al-Bayda, Benghazi, Derna, Misrata and other cities first fell under the control of the NTC in February, anti-Gaddafi forces carried out house raids, killing and other violent attacks� against sub-Saharan Africans and black Libyans, and �what we are seeing in western Libya is a very similar pattern to what we have seen in Benghazi and Misrata after those cities fell to the rebels� � arbitrary detention, torture and execution of black people.

To cover up and attempt to justify their racist violence, opposition figures claimed that blacks were mercenaries hired by Qaddafi. This, like so many of their claims, was a lie. And like so many of their lies, it was parroted by Hillary Clinton.

The opposition�s racism and bloodlust of course did not deter the US from arming it. The United States worked in various ways to funnel weapons to the opposition, and new information sheds light on this effort.

You may recall that there was a debate in the spring of 2011 over whether foreign powers could arm the rebels despite the UN embargo. On one side was Hillary Clinton, who claimed that Resolution 1973 placed a loophole in the embargo. On the other side was international law: Resolution 1973, in fact, urged enforcement of the embargo.

Nonetheless, the official position of the United States was, and is, that it didn�t arm the Libyan opposition. Not directly perhaps. Egypt sent weapons to the opposition with the knowledge of American officials, who �encouraged� allies Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to do the same. Maybe those US-approved shipments are what John McCain was referring to when he said �we� armed the Libyan �rebels.�

In 2012, the New York Times reported that al-Qaeda allies in Libya had gotten arms from Qatar. The story discussed the curious case of private arms dealer Marc Turi, who says his contacts in the US government encouraged him to ship arms to the opposition in Libya. In April 2011, Turi applied for a license to do just that. Shortly after, Clinton sent an email to aide Jake Sullivan saying, �The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.�

The State Department rejected his proposal, but he quickly reapplied, �this time stating only that he planned to ship arms worth more than $200 million to Qatar,� and received a license in May. �If you want to limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies,� Turi told Fox News.

As it turned out, Turi never shipped weapons to Libya via Qatar. Federal agents raided his home in August 2011, and he now faces charges that he violated the Arms Control Export Act by making false statements. Testifying in May before the grand jury investigating Turi, CIA officer David Manners said, �It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council.�

Clinton�s intrepid GOP foes are trying to use the Turi case to tie her to the attack on US consulate in Benghazi. Her defenders are defending her. Lost is her role � and the role of the United States � in destroying a nation.

Clinton probably won�t be held to account during the presidential campaign. Bernie Sanders is focusing on domestic issues and, in any case, he was merely a soft opponent of the war, saying that he had �reservations� due to the financial cost. The one candidate apt to make the war an issue, Rand Paul, is unlikely to be the GOP�s nominee.

Nor is criticism forthcoming from liberal foreign policy pundits, who by and large not only supported the war but celebrated it as a grand success. Few, if any, have admitted they were wrong, so they�re not about to expose themselves by exposing Clinton.

But her record exists regardless of the attention it receives. And Libyans continue to suffer because of a war that she hoped would help her career.

After Tripoli fell to the opposition in August 2011, Blumenthal urged Clinton to make the most of the victory. �When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras . . . This is a very big moment historically and for you. History will tell your part in it. You are vindicated.�

Clinton forwarded the emailed to Sullivan and wrote: �Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it�s premised on being said after Q goes, which will make it more dramatic. That�s my hesitancy, since I�m not sure how many chances I�ll get.�

# ? Oct 23, 2015 19:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 21:39

Nelson Mandingo: Mar 27, 2005

I'm reading a lot of "Why didn't America just fix Libya?"

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:07

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

America didn't have to fix Libya. It just had to not help the rebels, who would have lost fairly early on without American intervention.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:13

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

if libya have gun this not happen

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:24

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

If it was a legitimate revolution, the country has a way of shutting that whole thing down.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:32

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

I see no one has mentioned how Libya had the best HDI in Africa and was supported by noted Socialist Hugo Chavez.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:33

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

Eh, official Libya thread, sure why not.

Broadly, the Libyan intervention was the right decision. There were definitely fuckups, and the US could have assisted Libya more in the reconstruction. But Libya right now has two governments that are at least attempting to reach a unity government.

Strudel Man posted:

America didn't have to fix Libya. It just had to not help the rebels, who would have lost fairly early on without American intervention.

Alternatively, a second Syria happens.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:35

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

fade5 posted:

Alternatively, a second Syria happens.

Conceptually possible, sure, but in terms of how the conflict was playing out prior to American intervention, it seems very unlikely. The rebels were outright losing.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:37

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

It's also very possible Hillary deliberately went in there to bomb brown people to pad our her resume for her candidacy.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:51

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

Hopefully Libya melts down either before she wins the primary or after she wins the election otherwise the dems might actually get stumped by trump.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 20:58

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Strudel Man posted:

America didn't have to fix Libya. It just had to not help the rebels, who would have lost fairly early on without American intervention.

Right, that would been a great outcome.

I don't know, I'm not saying the situation in Libya is anything other than terrible, but I also don't think any Libyans are wishing Gaddafi was still around.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 22:32

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

I think Libya is kinda messed up but I don't think we're going to see ISIS taking over or Gaddafi 2.0, at least not before the end of the election. It's not going to get much better but it's not going to get that bad.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 22:35

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Xandu posted:

Right, that would been a great outcome.

I don't know, I'm not saying the situation in Libya is anything other than terrible, but I also don't think any Libyans are wishing Gaddafi was still around.

Really? I would honestly expect that to be a fairly common sentiment at this point, all things considered.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:28

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

DrProsek posted:

I think Libya is kinda messed up but I don't think we're going to see ISIS taking over or Gaddafi 2.0, at least not before the end of the election. It's not going to get much better but it's not going to get that bad.

To be clear, ISIS has taken a considerable number of the oil ports and is fighting for strategic control over a couple cities. They aren't exactly a non-factor, and also Libya is going to run out of money within 2 years.

I guess having ISIS control about half of your economic output is "kinda messed up."

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:34

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Strudel Man posted:

Really? I would honestly expect that to be a fairly common sentiment at this point, all things considered.

I've done some research (unpublished so I hate to even bring it up) amongst Libyans, they're certainly not happy with status quo, but there's not a widespread desire to go back to how things were. I couldn't tell you exactly why, but it seems like people now still have some hope that one day things will get better, even if they're poo poo now. And that optimism didn't exist at all under Gaddafi.

Xandu fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Oct 23, 2015

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:35

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Considering what precipitated intervention was Ghaddafi marching an army on Benghazi promising a house-by-house extermination of the "cockroaches," I get the feeling that in an alternate universe bizarro Tezzor is using US non-intervention in the face of a massacre as evidence of hypocrisy.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:38

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

It does seem like the us has tried ever intervention strategy in MENA over the past 15 years, from full scale occupation to non-intervention to aerial support/nfz to covert arms supplying and they've all been a pretty clear failure.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:40

Creamed Cormp: Jan 8, 2011; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Aw poo poo, Benghazi, Tezzor and jacobinmag.com in one thread?

Can we toss some Israel/Palestine or gun control on top? I'm almost there

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:45

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Xandu posted:

I've done some research (unpublished so I hate to even bring it up) amongst Libyans, they're certainly not happy with status quo, but there's not a widespread desire to go back to how things were. I couldn't tell you exactly why, but it seems like people now still have some hope that one day things will get better, even if they're poo poo now. And that optimism didn't exist at all under Gaddafi.

Hm. Well, I certainly hope that that optimism bears fruit, at least.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:13

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-22/unity-but-not-for-long-as-libya-s-feuding-factions-sink-accord

quote:

Unity, But Not for Long, as Libya's Feuding Factions Sink Accord
Caroline Alexander
October 23, 2015 � 12:00 AM MSK

The support of 50 militias for a UN-proposed unity government wasn�t enough to save the most serious attempt yet to halt Libya�s violent fracturing.
The plan stitched together over a year by United Nations envoy Bernardino Leon unraveled before an Oct. 20 deadline as two opposing administrations, each with its own legislature, and their armed allies tussle over oil and power. While the blueprint was endorsed by fighters from Libya�s third-biggest city, few others came to its defense.
Four years after Muammar Qaddafi was forced from power and killed, Libyans �have switched from having one dictator to having many dictators,� said Mattia Toaldo, a Libya analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations in London. �The message from the international community will be �let�s continue talking.� But unless the dynamics change, I don�t see how the parties can reach a lasting deal.�
The setback delays a revival in oil output, which has tumbled as tribal disputes halt onshore production and oil companies are punished for dealing with rival authorities. Throw in a deepening Islamic State insurgency that has carved out a foothold in two cities along the Mediterranean, and human trafficking that feeds Europe�s migration crisis, and it�s clear why Libya�s conflict has become a disaster for its people as well as a festering threat to regional security.
Its descent has often been sidelined by more deadly Middle East conflicts, grabbing global headlines only when it roiled powerful nations: the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi in 2012; the boats leaving its shores crammed with refugees.
Ink Stamps
Forcing the two feuding parliaments -- each claiming to be Libya�s legitimate authority -- and scores of militias with ever-shifting allegiances to work together is a challenge that seems beyond the 51-year-old Leon, a former Spanish diplomat.
The document released by the 50 militias based around Misrata, stamped in red, blue and green ink, helps to explain why.
Some of the marks contain images of crossed rifles, others crescent moons. A key one though is missing: the biggest military force in the western commercial city, The Central Shield Force, dismissed Leon�s plan as having been dictated by foreign powers.
Key parties raised other objections.
Oil Guards
The internationally recognized House of Representatives, which fled to the eastern city of Tobruk last year after Islamist militias took over Tripoli, discussed returning to an earlier draft and didn�t hold a vote. Its mandate expired on Tuesday and moves to extend it have been widely dismissed as illegal.
The rival chamber, the General National Congress that�s based in Tripoli and supported by moderate Islamist militias, said it backs the unity plan as long as changes are made, something Leon has ruled out.
Ibrahim Jadran, leader of the Petroleum Defense Guards who defend oil facilities, did support the proposal. Fighters from the northwestern Zintan region rejected it.
Protests against unity government proposal
Protests against unity government proposal Photographer: Abdullah Doma/AFP via Getty Images
After months of talks, at least four deadlines and seven draft documents, hardliners on all sides opposed to compromise are emerging stronger. They include Khalifa Haftar, a Qaddafi-era general who defected in the 1980s and is based in the east, and Grand Mufti Sheikh Sadik Al-Ghariani in Tripoli.
The UN power-sharing plan calls for an executive council, with the House of Representatives as the main legislature. A consultative second chamber would consist mostly of members of the General National Congress. The government would be by headed by a premier and include three deputies, each representing a different region.
It�s hard to identify a way out of the logjam, said Riccardo Fabiani, senior North Africa analyst at the London-based Eurasia Group.
�The international community has no Plan B,� he said. �They are desperate for a national unity government so they are forcing everyone to say �yes,� and forcing everyone to ignore issues that are unresolved,� including the fate of controversial figures like Haftar.
The parties are likely at some point to reach agreement, he said, but it will be a dysfunctional arrangement and stability will be as remote as ever.
Western and Arab states on Monday urged all sides to reach an accord. The UN has threatened to impose sanctions on those who stand in the way, while EU foreign-policy chief Federica Mogherini says a unity government may unlock 100 million euros in aid.
Oil Plunge
Libyans are desperate for progress. Homes, roads and bridges have been destroyed, while salaries aren�t being paid regularly as prices of food and fuel soar. Medical services are almost non-existent. Islamic State has raised its black banners in Sirte, where it carries out beheadings and crucifixions, has closed schools and banned smoking and music.
Oil output in the holder of Africa�s biggest reserves stood at 355,000 barrels a day in August, about a fifth of pre-2011 levels, making Libya the smallest producer in OPEC.
The near-collapse of the UN plan came almost exactly four years after Qaddafi was captured in his hometown of Sirte after a months-long uprising. Video footage emerged of the autocrat, who ruled for 42 years, being kicked and beaten. Then he was shot in the head and died. Hopes were high that change was imminent.
Yet today, �Libyans have parliaments but armed people tell them how to vote,� said Toaldo, the London-based analyst.

It doesn't look like the peace deal is going to work out.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:39

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Why didn't America just do the thing that would have worked, though? America is either stupid or evil. Pick one.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:05

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Arglebargle III posted:

Why didn't America just do the thing that would have worked, though? America is either stupid or evil. Pick one.

Hey, America can do both don't underestimate us.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:33

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

The USSR was totally justified in its treatment of the Polish Armia Krajowa, so as to prevent Poland from disintegrating into civil war. Discuss.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:45

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

Effectronica posted:

The USSR was totally justified in its treatment of the Polish Armia Krajowa, so as to prevent Poland from disintegrating into civil war. Discuss.

agreed but unironically

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:51

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Effectronica posted:

The USSR was totally justified in its treatment of the Polish Armia Krajowa, so as to prevent Poland from disintegrating into civil war. Discuss.

I liked the part where the heroes of the revolution crushed that Hungarian student revolt with tanks. It's too bad the capitalists beat the Soviets eventually, truly a loss for this world.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 02:19

Dilkington: Aug 6, 2010; "Al mio amore Dilkington, Gennaro"

I will give myself 15 minutes to free associate about Lybia (but I can use my notes):

It's ludicrous that Ghaddafi lasted as long as he did. It's no surprise Berlusconi and Ghaddafi became such good friends- they are the same sort of man.

Ghaddafi never solved his problem with Islam. From the beginning he had unenviable challenge of proving his islamic credentials while undermining Sanusi's.

Ghaddafi had to deal with:
Rural Sanusi supporters, particularly in Cyrenaica
educated urbanites in tripoli and benghazi,
professionals who were part of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood)

He did this by:
Regulating zawiyas (the sufi lodges, not the schools)
Nationalized waqf (property controlled by ulema) and prohibited public rulings on political matters by religious bodies (1975)
Touting the centrality of Islam to the republic, and developing his alternative Islam, as articulated in the Green Book and later in speeches and texts during his 1978 �Islamic revolution.�

Basically, he tried to copy what his hero Nasser had successfully done- but of course Nassar only had to keep it going for a decade.

By the late 70's the ulema was attacking the Green Book as incompatible with Islam.

In 1978 he launched his �Islamic Revolution� with a state-sactioned notion of Islam that was completely his own, rejecting the sunnah, the hadith, iijma- you only need the Quran and your innate ability to reason. Islam was like Jazz to him.

The highest religious authority in Libya, sheikh Tahir Al-Zawi resigned in protest and subsequently put under house arrest. Tripoli preacher and modernizer Sheik Mohamed Abdelsalam Al-Bishti got �disappeared.� 1978 was the same year Musa Al-Sadr, �disappeared� in Libya. I've always assumed Ghaddafi got into an argument with him and killed him like that bar scene in Goodfellas. The Libyan embassy in Beiruit gets bombed over this.

1984 2 students hung on the campus of Al-Fateh university.I don't know what else was going on 1980-85

Islamic groups were always more threatening to Ghaddafi than liberals, because the existence of informed Islam undermined the legitimacy of his bidaa Islam.

It's why when oil prices collapsed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_gluthe had a round of political and economic liberalization, but he couldn't relinquish any control over religious institutions.

1989 student riots at al fateh

Once UN sanctions take effect, things become desperate in the 90's.

The Islamist revolutionary groups just in the nineties were:
Al-Jama'a Al-Islamiyya Al-Muqatila
Al-Jama'a Al-Islamiyya Al-Libiyaa
Harakat Al-Shuhada Al-Islamiyya
Ansar Allah
Harakat Al-Wataniyyin Al-Libiyyin
I may be forgetting some

1994 Ghaddafi banned alcohol and changed the Latin to the Islamic calender- because Ghaddafi is such a devout Muslim everyone, really. In contravention of UN sanctions, in 1997 he had a libyan aircraft fly directly to Saudi Arabia with hand-picked pilgrims to perform the hajj, even though he himself had been saying the Hajj is optional since the late 70's.

The Ghaddafi's relative economic success saved him over and over- but you can't just improvise your countrie's religion and not expect that to catch up with you.

Ghaddafi was more compliant with the West's demands- more economically enmeshed than ever, but the west decided he would go. He was weak, and nobody likes to back a loser.

Libya never recognized Israel (even though Ghaddafi kind of did personally). Ghaddafi was always explicitly anti-western, even though his social and economic programs were infact very western looking, and he was continuously searching for ways to safely appease Europe, if only so he could misbehave more in the future (remember when Joseph Nye Jr, Francis Fukuyama, and Robert Putnam were hired to meet personally with Ghaddafi? They would rather you didn't).

In summary: Ghaddafi's aged very poorly: a 7 out of 10.

Dilkington fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Oct 24, 2015

# ? Oct 24, 2015 05:29

Dilkington: Aug 6, 2010; "Al mio amore Dilkington, Gennaro"

DeusExMachinima posted:

I liked the part where the heroes of the revolution crushed that Hungarian student revolt with tanks. It's too bad the capitalists beat the Soviets eventually, truly a loss for this world.

What's even more tragic to me is the fate of all those Red Army heroes of the Russian civil war.

Consider this:

Being a member of the generation which fought in the revolution had great political advantages- many officers that had so bravely fought against the Whites now had positions in the party- many in 1934 would have attended the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Victor's Congress). There were 1,996 party members present. By 1938, 1,108 of them had been arrested by the NKVD, and of those 848 were executed.

(Moshe Lewin's The Soviet Century)

Now consider the men who weren't officers: by Operation Barbarossa, most of the rank and file would have been too old to have been part of the standing army (atleast at first). But the NCOs, battle tested veterans of the civil war, they would have been stationed on the Eastern Front. That means most them were likely among the millions of soldiers captured in the early German encirclements. The best, most noble soldiers Russia ever created probably did not die in combat against the fascists, but more likely starved to death in enormous barbwire pens.

Stalin ignored the countless warnings he received about Operation Barbarossa- deliveries of raw materials (negotiated during the Ribbontrop-Molotov pact) were still departing for Germany only hours before Operation Barbarossa commenced. It also did not help that most of the officer corps was purged just before the war.

Dilkington fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Oct 24, 2015

# ? Oct 24, 2015 05:59

paranoid randroid: Mar 4, 2007

my favorite war is actually the war of jenkins ear, tezzor

# ? Oct 24, 2015 06:07

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

There was something like a 5-10 year period, before Stalin took over, where the Soviet Union could have turned out well.

It didn't. :smith:

# ? Oct 24, 2015 06:10

Flavahbeast: Jul 21, 2001

jacobin is counter-revolutionary liberal trash why you postin that crap here

# ? Oct 24, 2015 06:44

America Inc.: Nov 22, 2013; I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even 500 would be pretty nice.

MonsieurChoc posted:

There was something like a 5-10 year period, before Stalin took over, where the Soviet Union could have turned out well.

It didn't.

I think this trope that the failure of the USSR supposedly seemed to hinge so desperately on singular individuals like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin indicates some fundamental instability and problem that existed with the USSR itself.
No one says that the US wouldn't have failed if John Adams hadn't become a dictator and dissolved the republic, because it didn't happen, because our system of government never allowed things to get that point despite the non-democratic tendencies of the Adams administration.
I feel like this common argument that country X would have been better if person Y had been in power instead seems lazy and relies too much on Great Man theories.
History appears to show that revolutions almost naturally lead to dictatorships most of the time, even when those revolutions were borne out of democratic principles (English Civil War, French Revolution, Chinese Civil War, Russian Revolution, etc.)

# ? Oct 24, 2015 06:52

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

A revolution is major social upheaval so the country will almost certainly revert to the lowest level of governance at first. Dictatorship is the floor, and when you break a system it will take time to build a new one to take it's place.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 07:09

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

I think this trope that the failure of the USSR supposedly seemed to hinge so desperately on singular individuals like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin indicates some fundamental instability and problem that existed with the USSR itself.
No one says that the US wouldn't have failed if John Adams hadn't become a dictator and dissolved the republic, because it didn't happen, because our system of government never allowed things to get that point despite the non-democratic tendencies of the Adams administration.
I feel like this common argument that country X would have been better if person Y had been in power instead seems lazy and relies too much on Great Man theories.
History appears to show that revolutions almost naturally lead to dictatorships most of the time, even when those revolutions were borne out of democratic principles (English Civil War, French Revolution, Chinese Civil War, Russian Revolution, etc.)

The problem is in Russia, the only literal options were some time of dictatorship, yes even including the provisional republic. It wasn't a question if there was going to be a dictatorship but simply what type.

There was never any inkling of democracy in Russia, not then, not the 1990s and not today.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 07:13

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

I think this trope that the failure of the USSR supposedly seemed to hinge so desperately on singular individuals like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin indicates some fundamental instability and problem that existed with the USSR itself.
No one says that the US wouldn't have failed if John Adams hadn't become a dictator and dissolved the republic, because it didn't happen, because our system of government never allowed things to get that point despite the non-democratic tendencies of the Adams administration.
I feel like this common argument that country X would have been better if person Y had been in power instead seems lazy and relies too much on Great Man theories.
History appears to show that revolutions almost naturally lead to dictatorships most of the time, even when those revolutions were borne out of democratic principles (English Civil War, French Revolution, Chinese Civil War, Russian Revolution, etc.)

That wasn't what I said though: there was a period of time in the early 20s were things were starting to look up for the Soviet Union. How and why it went bad is a very complex question, and I'm nowhere near an expert. And even if Stalin's reign ends up ultimately to blam, Stalin isn't the sole responsible person for his regime: a ton fo factors and people helped in various ways to make it happen. I don't believe in Great Man History.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 08:22

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Tezzor posted:

citations in original

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/07/hillary-libya-nato-qaddafi-obama/

You've got a point, and so did this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1WV-k2Mzgk

# ? Oct 24, 2015 08:42

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

i support our neoliberal overlords in their endeavors and look forwards to more third worlders being bombed to make way for capitalism

# ? Oct 24, 2015 10:41

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

MonsieurChoc posted:

There was something like a 5-10 year period, before Stalin took over, where the Soviet Union could have turned out well.

It didn't.

Nah. Stalin's viler policies were adopted from Trotsky, Bukharin's idea of continuing the NEP would have left the USSR hideously vulnerable- even if we allow for Hitler's incredible leap to power to fail, as it probably would, statistically, the Japanese planned to invade anyways.

Furthermore, without some kind of capital concentration and accumulation scheme that was both workable and acceptable to the Bolsheviks of 1924 or so, the USSR would remain an agrarian country and get squeezed into abandoning any efforts towards socialism if it opened up.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 11:14

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Effectronica posted:

Nah. Stalin's viler policies were adopted from Trotsky, Bukharin's idea of continuing the NEP would have left the USSR hideously vulnerable- even if we allow for Hitler's incredible leap to power to fail, as it probably would, statistically, the Japanese planned to invade anyways.

Furthermore, without some kind of capital concentration and accumulation scheme that was both workable and acceptable to the Bolsheviks of 1924 or so, the USSR would remain an agrarian country and get squeezed into abandoning any efforts towards socialism if it opened up.

Yeah, I don't know if I would blame Trotsky for crash collectivization (and the resulting famine), the Great Purge, the Finnish War, or being asleep at the switch in June 41. Under Trotsky it would still be an authoritarian state if not totalitarian but Stalin had his own special magic.

Also, there was increasing acknowledgement even before Stalin took power of the limits of the NEP, and the price scissor was out in the open. It was clear crash industrialization needed to happen. That said, the question is about how you were going to go about it, and Stalin really tested of the limits of getting it done.

Oh, and the Soviets started designing their own tanks in 1924. They could held the Japanese, probably not the Nazis though.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 12:33

Randler: Jan 3, 2013; ACER ET VEHEMENS BONAVIS

Nelson Mandingo posted:

I'm reading a lot of "Why didn't America just fix Libya?"

IT'S HAPPENING :frogsiren:

Libya was one of the main collaborateurs in keeping African migrants away from European shores. By destabilizing Libya, America has removed an impedent to migration into the European Union, putting economic and political strain on the EU member states. This is advantageous to American interests, because it further keeps the European Union from trying to become an established power in its own right, that might eventually threaten the economic and political hegemony of the United States of America.

( :ohdear:

)

# ? Oct 24, 2015 12:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 21:39

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Ardennes posted:

Yeah, I don't know if I would blame Trotsky for crash collectivization (and the resulting famine), the Great Purge, the Finnish War, or being asleep at the switch in June 41. Under Trotsky it would still be an authoritarian state if not totalitarian but Stalin had his own special magic.

Also, there was increasing acknowledgement even before Stalin took power of the limits of the NEP, and the price scissor was out in the open. It was clear crash industrialization needed to happen. That said, the question is about how you were going to go about it, and Stalin really tested of the limits of getting it done.

Oh, and the Soviets started designing their own tanks in 1924. They could held the Japanese, probably not the Nazis though.

Collectivization was Trotsky's idea. He actually wanted to implement it immediately, where Stalin waited. Dekulakization was also Trotsky's idea. The invisible famine Stalin induced in the cities to bring women into the workforce? Also exactly in line with Trotsky's planned policies.

The Finnish Winter War was fought to secure the security of Leningrad and the northern USSR. Stalin attempting to put in a puppet government is something a lot of Bolsheviks would probably have done, especially internationalists like Trotsky.

The purges, I think, are less on Stalin's personal paranoia and more on the basic issue that a substantial part of the Red Army's officer corps were politically suspicious at a time when it was apparent the USSR would be facing invasions shortly. Particular targets like Tukhachevsky or Rokossovsky can be attributed to Stalin's personal desires, probably, but don't forget that none of the Politburo ever objected. Almost all the denunciations later came from people on the lower rungs of power.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 12:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > hey how about d&d's favorite war lol

«‹›6 »