Post: #1

http://www.dw.de/libya-is-on-the-verge-o...a-18061835

It's strange to think that so many Middle Eastern nations are in civil war - Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Palestine.

Quote:Bombings in Tripoli, explosions in Tobruk, deadly fighting between rival militias in Benghazi - barely a day goes by in Libya without terrible news. On Thursday (13.11.2014), two car bombs exploded in the capital. On Wednesday, at least five soldiers died in several attacks in the east of the country. The latest incidents show that those in power are less and less able to get the security situation under control.

Two governments, two parliaments

No wonder: there are currently two rival parliaments and two rival governments in the country. One is dominated by Islamists, the other by their opponents. Both are fighting for influence, money, and resources and need the support of several different militias. The armed groups had fought side by side against dictator Moammar Gadhafi, but since his fall they only serve their own interests - with terrible consequences.

Explosion einer Autobombe nebst der ägyptischen Botschaft in Tripolis
The Libyan capital has been wracked by car bombings

"There is a kind of civil war raging in Libya - marked by attacks, bombings, and kidnappings - which makes normal life there impossible," said Günter Meyer, director of the Arab world research center at Mainz University, Germany.

The desperate security situation is also down to the fact that the political institutions in Libya have been severely weakened, or else are non-existent. Gadhafi made sure of that. The self-proclaimed revolutionary leader did all he could to nip any political opposition in the bud. He neglected the army and the regular security forces to strengthen his loyal palace guard. After his violent death, the plan was to integrate the militias into new security services. But that didn't happen. Instead, the militias take the state's money and fight for the interests of their own clans or cities.

Tobruk against Tripoli


Some observers are already expecting the country to collapse completely, even though it hasn't been unified for very long in the first place.
It was only in 1963 that the autonomous regions of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan were put together into a central state. That unity is now under serious threat, because the Islamists did not accept their election defeat, and, with the help of militias, launched an attack from Misrata and took over the capital Tripoli. On top of that, they were able to get the supreme court to declare the parliament elected in June illegal and set up their own parliament in its place.

Libyen Stadtansicht von Tripolis
Libya is on the verge of collapse, say experts

"The whole thing is a proxy war within the Arab world," says Meyer. "The Islamist camp is supported by Qatar and Turkey, while the officially recognized government gets its support from Egypt and the United Arab Emirates." For that reason, the originally elected parliament no longer convenes in Tripoli, but in Tobruk, near the Egyptian border. But there are tensions between Islamists and their opponents around Benghazi in the east of the country too, where General Khalifa Haftar, who broke with Gadhafi at the end of the 1980s, is fighting the Islamist militias.

Yearning for stability

Libya has long been considered a safe haven for the world's jihadists. In the eastern city of Derna, an Islamist stronghold even in Gadhafi's time, the Islamic Youth Shura Council, an extremist group, has sworn allegiance to the "Islamic State" militia in Syria and Iraq. In Derna, too, the state institutions have barely any influence.

In light of these circumstances, it is "completely undisputed," says Meyer, that the state of Libya has failed. There are no authorities that control the country, and the situation has got spectacularly worse in the past three years. "Many Libyans," says Meyer, "yearn for the stability that Gadhafi provided - even though he was an authoritarian ruler."

Post: #2

Yay Islam.

Post: #3

Monkeys

Post: #4

I'm not surprised. None of the states existing on the ground are that tied to nations. Draw some lines on a map around a bunch of people of different ethnicities, languages, cultures, religions etc and call it a 'country', and it stands to reason that you'll need a thug dictator in charge to keep it together. Hence people like Gaddafi and Hussein.

The 'collapse' of such a state is the same thing as 'devolution', with power breaking down into smaller states based around actual national ties on the ground. So be it.

Post: #5

At what point do you think it's best just to break up countries (not necessarily referring to Libya but in general)?

For example, Kurdistan is way overdue, and I hope they get their own formal territory.

Sometimes I wonder if it's worse trying to force groups to work together when history shows otherwise, and a lot of these boundary lines were ignorant of that history when they were first drawn anyway.

Post: #6

Here's former US Secretary of State engaging in lucid, measured and reasoned reflection on her role in Libya:

Post: #7

(11-23-2014 01:57 AM)Saga Wrote:  Here's former US Secretary of State engaging in lucid, measured and reasoned reflection on her role in Libya:

Look at that fupa!!!!

Post: #8

I was in Libya earlier this year. While Tripoli is a boring city, it was not too insecure then. I got to see the Roman ruins outside the city, too.

I was surprised at the amount of construction that was abandoned. Whatever his faults, Ghaddafi was building a lot of housing when he was brought down. Now those places are just bare concrete and rusting rebar. That and the recent chaos made me question the utility of overthrowing him.

Post: #9

Whether you like it or not, Gadhafi was keeping the country together, I don't think he was a bad leader. It was a very stupid idea to topple him. These idiots deserve it for not standing behind their leader.. The only reason he was overthrown and NATO was involved was because he was on bad terms with the USA.

Post: #10

(11-23-2014 03:52 AM)CimbomluBkk Wrote:  Whether you like it or not, Gadhafi was keeping the country together, I don't think he was a bad leader. It was a very stupid idea to topple him. These idiots deserve it for not standing behind their leader.. The only reason he was overthrown and NATO was involved was because he was on bad terms with the USA.

There was massive corruption with western companies seeking oil and infrastructure contracts with Ghaddafi. The only reason he was taken down was the idea that the west thought they would get a better deal afterwards. It did not work out that way, because nobody can operate there now.

Post: #11

(11-23-2014 04:19 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 03:52 AM)CimbomluBkk Wrote:  Whether you like it or not, Gadhafi was keeping the country together, I don't think he was a bad leader. It was a very stupid idea to topple him. These idiots deserve it for not standing behind their leader.. The only reason he was overthrown and NATO was involved was because he was on bad terms with the USA.

There was massive corruption with western companies seeking oil and infrastructure contracts with Ghaddafi. The only reason he was taken down was the idea that the west thought they would get a better deal afterwards. It did not work out that way, because nobody can operate there now.

This arab spring BS has turned every single country involved into a living hell.
Is egypt better than before? Libya? Tunisia? Heck Iraq was much better off during the saddam era.

Post: #12

(11-23-2014 04:36 AM)CimbomluBkk Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 04:19 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 03:52 AM)CimbomluBkk Wrote:  Whether you like it or not, Gadhafi was keeping the country together, I don't think he was a bad leader. It was a very stupid idea to topple him. These idiots deserve it for not standing behind their leader.. The only reason he was overthrown and NATO was involved was because he was on bad terms with the USA.

There was massive corruption with western companies seeking oil and infrastructure contracts with Ghaddafi. The only reason he was taken down was the idea that the west thought they would get a better deal afterwards. It did not work out that way, because nobody can operate there now.

This arab spring BS has turned every single country involved into a living hell.
Is egypt better than before? Libya? Tunisia? Heck Iraq was much better off during the saddam era.

Tunisia is maybe better off, and the Kurdish region of Iraq. The rest of the places are worse off. Of course, the Arabs are responsible for a lot of their own problems.

I urge you Turks to invade and bring back the Ottoman Empire. You know Mustafa Kemal fought tribal rebellions in Libya?

Post: #13

These are the pains of progress. The Arab world right now is where the Indian Sub continent was 30-40 years ago. Rife with inter-ethnic riots and people exerting their will over others through force. Ultimately one side will win or everyone will come to the table and provide a secure enough environment for capital to flow in.

Once capital flows in and people decide they'd rather buy a nice house with a lawn rather than an AK 47 in the name of some invisible man in the sky, things change at lightening pace. It happened in China and they are within striking distance of the worlds largest economy.

It happened in India, Sri Lanka and one of them is predicted to become an economic superpower. It will happen in the Arab world too, the only question is how long will they take. A secure Egypt needs to lead the way. Look out for Turkey's re-emergance on the global arena.

Post: #14

My first thought was that someone had revived a very old thread, because Libya was on the verge of collapse years ago.

My second thought is that this is what would happen if true anarchy became the case in western countries, as wet-dream anarchists have been calling for. You won't have this utopia where everyone will be his own master, interacting peacefully with others, you'll have warlords and gangs splitting the nation into several splinter states like IS. True anarchy is unnatural to our current evolved state as slightly more sophisticated animals.

Post: #15

(11-23-2014 01:13 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  I'm not surprised. None of the states existing on the ground are that tied to nations. Draw some lines on a map around a bunch of people of different ethnicities, languages, cultures, religions etc and call it a 'country...

Nah, we call it the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

Post: #16

In this part of the world, the best government is a dictatorship, because only one man with total power can provide the stability needed to keep these bastards from killing each other and creating total chaos. This is another crack in the legacy of the Arab Spring, which history will show accomplished just about as much as the turmoil year of 1848 in Europe.

Libya will tear itself to pieces until someone strong enough to seize power will grab it and wipe out the opposition in the name of stability. The West won't do shit about it, because they will feel too bad about all the mass casualties inflicted in the country since the toppling of Gaddafi, that they'll be happy with slightly less killing, and a stable government.

The million dollar question is how many people have to die before this will happen?

Post: #17

For all his faults, Gaddafi was a stabilizing force. He wasn't murdering his own people on the regular as long as they steered clear of politics (unlike Saddam).

I never understood the French propensity to meddle with Libya. Now the country is chaotic. Not only is Libya unstable but so is the whole Sahel region. And Europe lost a buffer country that stopped illegal migration (to an extent).

Post: #18

EDIT: Delete wrong thread.

Post: #19

(11-23-2014 02:00 AM)HeyPete Wrote:  Look at that fupa!!!!

It's gotten bigger over the years

Post: #20

It is strange why so many of these states are in a civil war...

It seemed like they were stable before the USA toppled their governments and began funding and arming rebel groups.

Funny how that happens.

Libya had the highest Human Development Index in all of Africa under Qadafi. So naturally, he was the leader that needed to be killed. Much like Castro.

Post: #21

(11-23-2014 04:37 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  It is strange why so many of these states are in a civil war...

It seemed like they were stable before the USA toppled their governments and began funding and arming rebel groups.

Funny how that happens.

Libya had the highest Human Development Index in all of Africa under Qadafi. So naturally, he was the leader that needed to be killed. Much like Castro.

It isn't about claiming the resources, just denying them to any competitors. The US wants to make sure nobody can challenge them and they are willing to watch the world burn, if that's what it takes.

Post: #22

^ The US is currently selling their own citizens down the drain too, it's not just limited to any one part of the world.

Post: #23

(11-23-2014 08:28 AM)ChrisPitts Wrote:  In this part of the world, the best government is a dictatorship, because only one man with total power can provide the stability needed to keep these bastards from killing each other and creating total chaos. This is another crack in the legacy of the Arab Spring, which history will show accomplished just about as much as the turmoil year of 1848 in Europe.

Libya will tear itself to pieces until someone strong enough to seize power will grab it and wipe out the opposition in the name of stability. The West won't do shit about it, because they will feel too bad about all the mass casualties inflicted in the country since the toppling of Gaddafi, that they'll be happy with slightly less killing, and a stable government.

The million dollar question is how many people have to die before this will happen?

How long? Who knows, maybe it will go for hundreds of years like china and japan where they had warring provinces, united under dynasties and then broken up again.

Post: #24

(11-23-2014 04:37 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  It is strange why so many of these states are in a civil war...

It seemed like they were stable before the USA toppled their governments and began funding and arming rebel groups.

Funny how that happens.

Libya had the highest Human Development Index in all of Africa under Qadafi. So naturally, he was the leader that needed to be killed. Much like Castro.

It's uncanny how similar this map is the to the French African colonies map:

Post: #25

Quote:"Many Libyans," says Meyer, "yearn for the stability that Gadhafi provided - even though he was an authoritarian ruler."

Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (Syria is next). The West keeps making this mistake over and over again. These countries are not stable per se. We are talking about mostly tribal structures. They are not modern and secular nation-states. They only thing gluing and holding together those places was an authoritative figure. Once you take that away, you are only left with chaos and violence.