I'll repeat some things I mentioned several days ago (which got no response):
1) The 'democrats' revolting in Libya are not waving the Libyan flag (as the Egyptians waved the Egyptian flag), but instead the Libyan Monarchist flag - from King Idris that was overthrown in 1969! The craven corrupt King of the monarchy, the puppet of British and American oil and military. This is the symbol they are using for their 'revolution'. It gives one pause, to say the least. Remember America's $100 million Wheelus Air Base outside of Tripoli?
It wasn't all that long ago American military and oil was firmly planted there. I remember listening to a former Texaco-Libya executive wax melancholic about how 'we let Libya get away'. The US and British military were kicked out of Libya by Gaddafi, not by King Idris. The British and American oil was nationalized by Qaddafi, not by King Idris. (And of course, Qaddafi who started to let them back in again...)
2) The 'democrats' have taken power in Cyrenaica, former home of King Idris and the rival tribes to Qaddafi's Gaddadfa tribe. This is the region that revolted, that has been cut out of oil wealth, and the region that has always fought Qaddafi and the Eastern tribes. There is no love lost between the two. And the rebels have captured very little in Tripolitania. They have made no gains whatsoever in the areas controlled by the Gaddadfa tribe.
The city of Sirte, home to the Gaddadfa, is wholly uninterested in this people's revolution, and have repeatedly fought off the rebels. Let's remember that it was Sirte which was the last holdout in fighting off Mussolini's forces, after the entire rest of Libya fell to the fascists - they have a history of fighting invading forces.
3) Libya is only ostensibly a nation-state, rather than a Ottoman-Italian patching together of three separate regions. Qaddafi hardly united the country, rather fanned the flames of rivalry.
4) The leader of the rebels, Col. Tarek Saad Hussein, was quoted by NPR saying they would "finish" the people of Sirte if they didn't support the rebels. Again, it gives pause to hear that.
5) Qaddafi's forces are brutal and ruthless. And undemocratic. But they also fight to the end. The so-called Libyan "army", which defected to the rebels hasn't had equipment or manpower for over a decade, since the real military power in Libya was transferred to Qaddafi's private militias.
This could be a very nasty long-lasting battle. I'm certain the US/EU wants to tip the scales against what Reagan (and NPR) called "the mad dog of the Middle East".
-PF http://theclearview.wordpress.com
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:09 PM, ken hanly <northsunm at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What a difference a few months makes. Gadaffi was fine and Libya a great
> place to invest but then he lost control of the country. The appended video
> from
> Bloomberg shows the sudden sea change not effectively putting down protests
> can
> make.
>
>
> http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8330246-for-the-uk-and-us-investment-in-libya-was-fine-until-gadaffi-lost-control
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
--