Libya is awash in so-called "rebels" -- the conventional moniker granted by the international media covering the conflict to anyone battling to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi's regime. The press is full of headlines like "the rebels are fighting,"... "the rebels are running Benghazi,"... "the rebels are asking for foreign military intervention...".
The noun has a certain, pejorative connotation, patently unfair given what these freedom fighters are hoping to accomplish from their liberated sanctuary in Benghazi's courthouse -- their equivalent of Tahrir Square.
So just who are the Libyans placing their lives on the line to take Tripoli and establish a post-Gaddafi regime in Libya?
If the U.S. and its allies are going to pour economic aid and military support into their hands, in the best of all worlds it would be wise to know just who is on the receiving end.
Right now, there is no simple answer. And given the chaos inside Libya and the see-saw nature of the struggle taking place between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces, the revolution has not had much time to ponder the question.
Who can blame Libyans for having a hard time knowing how to organize a revolution? They have been captives of Gaddafi's "1984" style utopia for more than 40 years.
Libya -- a country sewn together from its tribal history of which there are no less than 140. It is really two countries -- one centered on the capital city Tripoli, the other centered on the eastern city of Benghazi. The two are 480 battle-scarred miles apart from each other as the crow flies.
Each city has a number of tribes that control their environs. Gaddafi has his tribe (the Qadhadhfa), and Benghazi is protected by the largest adversarial tribe to Gaddafi known as the Senoussi.
Another tribe, Libya's largest, known as the Warfala, could very well decide Gaddafi's fate since its leadership has turned against Gaddafi and thrown its vast influence and resources into the fight against the regime.
Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, is now the capital of the freshly-minted National Council, now led by former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who quit the regime and fled to Benghazi. Being a "justice minister" in what passed as the Gaddafi government may be an oxymoron. But Abdel-Jalil has a well-deserved reputation for honesty as an international jurist. Whether he is able to become the de facto leader of the revolution is still very much an open question.
The National Council was not elected by anyone, and its membership is being shielded from the press to protect itself. On any given day, members of the National Council are separately speaking to the media without adequate coordination.
It is composed of representatives of the defecting military, tribal elders, former government officials, and designated officials from cities and towns that are under the control of anti-government forces. Surely its members have different priorities and strategies. It also has a number of young cyber-revolutionaries who are using social networking weapons to outfox forces loyal to Gaddafi.
Benghazi is also home to the younger revolutionaries known at the February 17 group, whose membership is largely drawn from the young Benghazi intelligentsia that imported Tahrir Square's ideas and tactics from which to launch the popular revolt.
There is no shortage of military officers who bolted from Gaddafi and are now leading revolutionary forces. Any of them could emerge as the strongman opponent to Gaddafi. One of the preeminent military leaders is Abdul Fatah Younis, a former Libyan general and interior minister. Younis resigned right after the revolution broke out and called on the army to join the upheaval. Whether he enjoys universal support among the members of the National Council as Libya's equivalent to "George Washington" is unclear, and no one knows what his own democratic leanings may be.
Circulating in Benghazi are also remnants of the Libyan Fighting Group, a franchise cell of al Qaeda and theoretically linked to the larger al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) as well as Islamic militants who escaped prison during the initial days of the revolution. They should not be underestimated. AQIM is a growing, potent al Qaeda franchise throughout the Sahara.
There is a credible fear that if the fighting reverts into a "Spanish Civil War" stalemate Libya may disintegrate into factions and tribal regions divorced from a central government. That would spell disaster for the country and enable radical Islamists lurking around North Africa to set up shop in oil-rich Libya.
This is sufficient reason alone for the Obama administration not to get hamstrung in a losing internal debate whether or not to impose a "no-fly" zone. The United States may not have the international imprimatur to impose a "no fly zone" but there are many other ways to help Libya's freedom fighters now, even if it's hard to figure out who will ultimately take charge after Gaddafi meets his well-deserved fate six feet under the Libyan desert. That list of possible assistance includes financial aid, military equipment, special forces support, intelligence and satellite imagery, and humanitarian support, etc.). We can cross the bridge of who will run Libya after Gaddafi is gone once and for all.
The tide of battle hangs in the balance tonight. The revolutionary National Council needs to find its one, true voice that can rally its countrymen and the international community to turn the tide and end the bloodshed. Unity, for the National Council, is job number one.
For the White House, this is an historical opportunity to embrace some of Lafayette's ingenious courage when it comes to aiding Libya's revolutionaries -- "fly zone" or "no fly" zone.
Mr. Obama need to intervene, and very quickly. The freedom fighters need the help of a no fly zone, jamming the communication lines and Radars, and they will be able to advance to Tripoli rapidly and the regime, based of fear and tbrutality will fall easily.
That does not mean that genuine, radical elements do not exist in Libya. They do. As they do everywhere else. That existence in and of itself is no excuse for inaction, or the wrong action.
There's a fairly evident solution I've not yet seen suggested seriously which might be feasible should this turn into a long, bloody stalemate - divide the country.
Like half the world, its existence and borders are a relic of Imperialism to begin with. Who on earth says those borders, wherever they are, made any sense at all? How much fighting has gone on for how long in how many areas because the British, French and later, the US created countries out of thin air?
Tripoli is a walled city. The defenses were designed and built by French Templars of the First Crusade. After the Crusaders were evicted the city was occupied by Moslems who saw the value of the defenses and the walls were maintained periodically.
In the middle ages Tripoli was an African city-state, residence of a number of kings... But often these kings did not control any territory outside of the city walls. Inside the walls there are good wells and large storage facilities for provisions.
The ancient Templar defenses are so well constructed that I doubt even modern weapons will have much luck in breaching them, they can absorb even modern artillery shells. A siege is going to be a long and costly endeavor, and I doubt a frontal assault would succeed.
Helleman has just calculated the cost of Defense at 1.2 trillion dollars per year and that omits large costs of the Empire.
Our coroorations operating overseas keep their earnings overseas in order to avoid paying the taxes to the USA which otherwise could be spent on their protection (US interests)
An entire article from Ginsberg and the word "Israel" is not mentioned once (although that is all the article is about, because that is all Ginsberg cares about anyway.)
Concern for the Libyan people?
Empathy for the poor people being murdered by their own government there?
Concern about what will happen in the future to the Libyan people?
Nah.
How does it affect Israel. That is all he is about.
What a one trick pony.
Will he ever get up the gumption to throw away his "ambassador" crutch?
He's a *former* ambassador, which is to say "washed up".
Is Israel trying to create a friendly regime in fear of developments in Egypt?
Here in the South, we usually address people by one office higher than their highest held office. We address Army captains as majors, Navy commanders as captains, US consuls as Ambassadors, etc.
I do not know why that is.
Like the old saying, banks will always be willing to lend money to someone who can prove that the money is not needed.
Like, we won't help the rebels because they are not an established government, and if they were an established government they wouldn't need any help.
I vote for a blockade. No oil goes out. No food or weapons or ammunition comes in. Only those non Lybians who want to leave are helped to leave.
European Union.
Unlike the cases of Tunisia and Egypt, the relationship that exists between Qaddafi and both the U.S. and E.U. is a modus vivindi.
Qaddafi is an independent Arab dictator and not a ‘managed dictator’ like Ben Ali and Mubarak.
In Tunisia and Egypt the status quo prevails, the military machine remains intact.
This works for the interests of the United States and the European Union.
In Libya, however, upsetting the established order is a U.S. and E.U. objective.
In addition to oil reserves, Libya has Reserves of foreign exchange and gold of $107.3 billion.
Libya ranks 13th in country comparison to the world.