One Week Later

Thursday, October 20, 2011, a day that ought to have been one of joy and hope for Libya, has become a dark stain on the people's heroic struggle to rid themselves of tyranny and dictatorship. The manner in which Muammar Gaddafi, a frightened, wounded, pitiful and utterly harmless captive was killed by the victorious mob, threw a fog over memories of his 42 years of violent dictatorship and international crime and mischief.

Great Assholes Of The Past

The doomed man, whom history was destined to be lump together with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Macias Nguema Biyogo, Jean Bedel Bokassa and Idi Amin Dada, was given his great wish to die as a martyr. Instead of treating Gaddafi humanely and handing him over to the International Criminal Court, the liberators of Libya did exactly what they accused him of committing  ruthless and wanton murder. Instead of hauling him before the entire world for a televised interrogation and shame, they turned him into a victim-of sorts that earned the pity of those of us who had nothing but contempt for him.

Lining up to view Gaddafi's body

As if the killing of a hapless captive was not enough, the Libyans, including their interim rulers, lined up to gawk at the cold, bullet-riddled corpses of the former dictator and his son. The macabre orgy of click-clicking cameras as Libyans jostled for vantage views of their dead ruler revealed a darkness of heart that was not different from that of the lifeless king of kings who lay half-naked in a meat container in Misrata.

Nobody, not even Gaddafi, deserves to die the way he did. Nobody's corpse, not even Gaddafi's, deserves to be treated the way the supposedly liberated Libyans did to their former leader's remains. I understand the anger of the citizens who have lived in terror for decades. However, a civilized person cannot find joy in the death of another person, not even the death of one whose moral campus was as dangerously faulty as Gaddafi's was. The killers of Gaddafi and the revelers who thronged to the meat container to see his corpse robbed the Libyan people's heroic struggle of the honor that the world had reserved for them.

The obfuscation that has characterized the attempts by Libya's interim Prime Minister to explain the manner of Gaddafi's death suggests that the truth may be in short supply in the new regime. None of this bodes well for the post-Gaddafi period. The understandable celebrations across Libya may soon give way to weeping and gnashing of teeth as Gaddafi's ghost returns to haunt that country. We have examples from other parts of the world where the removal or death of a tyrant has been followed by darker clouds that have left some citizens longing for their old dictator. Post-Obote I and then post- Amin Uganda come to mind. Post-Siad Barre Somalia and post-Samuel Doe Liberia are other examples.

The mistreatment of the captured Gaddafi does not excuse him from just censure and condemnation. Beneath the colorful attire and generosity towards many who now mourn him as a great man, was a cruel dictator whose documented crimes against Libyans and non-Libyans entitle him to a prominent place on the list of humanity's worst rulers. As I watched the initial videos of the captive Gaddafi looking terrified and bewildered, two words came to mind: suicide and coward.

Gaddafi's long suicide began the day he believed his own fantasy of invincibility and entitlement to lifelong rule. His illusion that revolutionaries never give up power left his people no choice but to force him out by any means necessary. He committed suicide when he subjugated the rights of Libyans to his whims and delusions of superiority and indispensability. He committed suicide when he turned his regime into a family affair, handing the lucrative and highly influential positions and opportunities to his offspring and relatives. Libyans were watching. Even those who sang his praises and declared their loyalty harbored anger and envy towards him which could not remain bottled up forever. Like all cowards, Gaddafi used fear to sustain himself in power. His ranting and displays of velour were the camouflage of one who, as we saw on his face in his last moments, was a terrified man afraid of his people.

Stripped of his presidential guard brigade, with his famed killer-women long gone from his side, Gaddafi was as vulnerable a wretch as humanity has produced. The one who wanted to kill the "rats and cockroaches" that had rebelled against him sought his final refuge among real rats and cockroaches in a filthy drain pipe under a road in Sirte. It was a graphic reminder that that was where such men and their ruinous ideas belonged.

His demise should be a lesson to all dictators who have banked their survival on their armed elite guards and nationwide militias and other armed organizations. Nothing beats a genuinely free and democratic society as insurance against a violent end to a leader's tenure at the top. True revolutionaries like America's George Washington and South Africa's Nelson Mandela understood this. They quit long before their countrymen got tired of them.

Is This Gadhafi's Future?

Finally, the Libyan revolution ended the way it was supposed to. “A few sharp victories, some conspicuous acts of personal bravery on the Patriot side and a colorful entry into the capital,” as British novelist Evelyn Waugh might have put it. That was the Western policy for the war — except that the war went on longer than it was meant to, and it might not be over yet, either. On Monday, the rebels reached Green Square

and declared victory. On Tuesday, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the regime’s dauphin, was driving around Tripoli in an armored convoy, declaring that the rebels had been drawn into a clever trap. On Thursday, the rebels claimed to have Gaddafi surrounded. We’ll see what the weekend brings.

But then, that’s the problem with wars and revolutions: They have a way of diverging from the policy and confounding the planners. They continue even when they are supposed to be over. They spill into other areas and lead to new conflicts. Even wars that end with solemn surrender ceremonies and elaborate peace treaties sometimes have unexpected afterlives. The First World War begat the Second World War, the Second World War begat the Cold War, the Cold War begat the Korean War, and so on.

How Will the U.S. Get Out of Libya?

Call it the Goldilocks military plan: Not too much, not too little, not too unilateral, not too American. The operation against Muammar Gadahfi's regime in Libya mirrors the moderate temperament of its architect, Barack Obama. But will it work in the rough realities of international politics? That's the question that will be tested in the weeks ahead as high-tech images of cruise missiles and predator drones hitting their targets give way to a mess on the ground in Libya.

President Obama has launched an operation that has two distinct qualities, one highly unusual and the other familiar. At its broadest, Obama's diplomacy has tried to redefine the exercise of American power. It is an effort at a distinctive form of multilateralism, deeper than anything any President has tried before. At the same time, Obama is proposing a limited military intervention for a problem in which U.S. interests are limited. That's something Presidents in the past have promised but mostly been unable to deliver as events on the ground forced them to escalate for fear of being humiliated. However wise his multilateral instincts, it is how Obama handles this latter problem that will determine the mission's success — and duration.

So far, Obama seems to have pleased almost no one. For those who had been urging military action from the start, Obama dithered and remains too cautious. For those wary of another open-ended U.S. commitment in the Muslim world, Obama suddenly turned from restraint and became reckless.

But more than anything else, what appears to have infuriated many American politicians is Obama's unwillingness to put the U.S. in the driver's seat. "We have a Spectator in Chief instead of a Commander in Chief," fumed Newt Gingrich. Senator Lindsey Graham criticized Obama for acting as if "leading the free world is an inconvenience." And Rick Santorum levied the ultimate insult, noting that the French — the French! — had been leading the charge.

They are right, in part: Obama does not want to be seen as the ringmaster. The diplomacy of the past few weeks has broken a tradition born in the Cold War. For decades, U.S. Presidents unilaterally identified crises, articulated responses, determined actions and then persuaded, bribed and threatened countries to join in the "collective action." The U.S. ran the show with little interference from others but paid all the prices and bore all the burdens. Countries that would benefit from a military intervention rarely stood up to request it. They didn't need to. America would act, and they could free-ride.

Take a recent example. In the spring of 2003, George W. Bush refused both to give international inspectors more time to do their work in Iraq and to try to get a fresh U.N. resolution through, each of which he saw as an obstacle to attacking Iraq as quickly as possible. The result was a war that was tainted from the start, without a single Muslim ally and with few major countries invested in success. When things started going badly, criticism mounted; the U.S. was left in virtual isolation and, as Iraqi casualties piled up, was painted as the enemy of Arabs around the world.

America has always done better in the role of the reluctant imperialist. The simple fact is that the world does not like its leading military power to be overly eager to intervene in foreign lands. In fact, until the Cold War, the U.S. had a very different image from European great powers precisely because it had few expansionist impulses. America entered World War I after three years of bloody fighting just in time to tip the balance. It entered World War II only after Japan attacked it and Hitler declared war. The U.S. had the capacity to be an imperial power but chose not to be one. Yet during the Cold War, Washington developed the habit of intervening early and often in far-flung places, worried about communist takeovers. As a result, America was seen in much of the Third World in the same light as the European colonial powers, forfeiting a crucial moral and political advantage.

In the Libyan crisis, the Obama Administration made clear from the start that it was not enthusiastic about military action and would support it only if it were requested by the Libyan opposition and the Arab League — and with Europe doing much of the heavy lifting. This led to a remarkable turn of events in which on March 12 the Arab League officially requested that the U.N. impose a no-fly zone over Libya. This shift has not gotten the attention it deserves. In the 66 years since its founding, the Arab League has served as a shield for dictators and rarely produced anything but windy rhetoric about Arab solidarity and Palestine. The idea that it would act against one of its members — and because of human-rights violations! — was unimaginable one month ago. Five days later, the U.N. Security Council passed resolutions authorizing action against Gaddafi's forces. France and Britain were positively itching for military action.

Deadly fighting as Gadhafi tries to retake rebel-held town

Libya's Muammar Gaddafi used tanks, helicopters and warplanes to fight a growing revolt, witnesses said on Tuesday, as the veteran leader scoffed at reports he was fleeing after four decades in power.

The U.N. refugee agency urged to Libya's neighbors not to turn back those fleeing the violence, as hundreds of refugees streamed into Egypt on tractors and trucks, describing a wave of killing and banditry unleashed by the revolt.

In the eastern town of Al Bayda, resident Marai Al Mahry told Reuters by telephone that 26 people including his brother Ahmed had been shot dead overnight by Gaddafi loyalists.

"They shoot you just for walking on the street," he said, sobbing uncontrollably as he appealed for help.

Protesters were attacked with tanks and warplanes, he said.

"The only thing we can do now is not give up, no surrender, no going back. We will die anyways, whether we like it or not. It is clear that they don't care whether we live or not. This is genocide," said Mahry, 42.

In Tripoli, residents told Reuters there was no visible security force presence on the streets. The only police present were directing traffic, they said, the day after reports that warplanes had bombed portions of the capital and mercenaries had shot civilians.

Refugees fleeing into Egypt told of a wave of violence and crime.

"Five people died on the street where I live," Mohamed Jalaly, 40, told Reuters at Salum on his way to Cairo from Benghazi. "You leave Benghazi and then you have ... nothing but gangs and youths with weapons," he added. "The way from Benghazi is extremely dangerous," he said.

Libyan guards have withdrawn from their side of the border and Egypt's new military rulers -- who took power following the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak on February11 -- said the main crossing would be kept open round-the-clock to allow the sick and wounded to enter.

Libyan security forces have cracked down fiercely on demonstrators across the country, with fighting spreading to Tripoli after erupting in Libya's oil-producing east last week, in a reaction to decades of repression and following uprisings that have toppled leaders in Tunisia and Egypt.

Human Rights Watch says at least 233 people have been killed and opposition groups put the figure much higher but independent verification is impossible.

The revolt in OPEC member Libya has driven oil prices to a 2 1/2 year high above $108 a barrel.

As the fighting has intensified some supporters have abandoned Gaddafi. Tripoli's envoy to India, Ali al-Essawi, resigned and told Reuters that African mercenaries had been recruited to help put down protests.

"The fall of Gaddafi is the imperative of the people in streets," he said. The justice minister also quit and a group of army officers urged soldiers to "join the people." Two pilots flew their warplanes to nearby Malta.

DEFIANCE AND CONDEMNATION

Gaddafi's son Saif on Sunday vowed his father would keep fighting "until the last man standing" and the Libyan leader appeared on television after days of seclusion to dismiss reports he had fled to the Venezuela of his ally Hugo Chavez.

"I want to show that I'm in Tripoli and not in Venezuela. Do not believe the channels belonging to stray dogs," said Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya with a mixture of populism and tight control since taking power in a military coup in 1969.

World powers have condemned the use of force against protesters, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accusing Libya of firing on civilians from warplanes and helicopters. The Security Council was to discuss Libya at 9 a.m. EST.

Washington and Europe have demanded an end to the violence and Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said: "A ruling family, threatening its people with civil war, has reached the end of the line."

Demonstrations spread to Tripoli from the second city Benghazi, cradle of the revolt that has engulfed a number of towns and which residents say is now in the hands of protestors.

Residents said anxious shoppers were queuing outside stores to try to stock up on food and drink. Some shops were closed.

In Tripoli, one resident said locals were patrolling their neighborhood at night to protect it from roaming mercenaries, reporting sniper fire and the use of military transport helicopters to ferry security forces about.

"Gaddafi obviously does not have any limits. We knew he was crazy, but it's still a terrible shock to see him turning mercenaries on his own people and just mowing down unarmed demonstrators," he told Lisa Goldman, a Canadian-Israeli journalist based in Tel Aviv.

ENERGY DISRUPTION


Spain's Repsol suspended all operations in Libya and trade sources reported operations at Libyan oil ports had been disrupted due to the unrest. Others said gas supplies from Libya to Italy had slowed since Late Monday but Italy said they had not yet been interrupted.

Shell said it was pulling out its expatriate staff from Libya temporarily and a number of states were seeking to evacuate their nationals.

The upheavals which deposed the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt have shaken the Arab world and inspired protests across the Middle East and North Africa, threatening the grip of long-entrenched autocratic leaders.

A flamboyant figure with his flowing robes and bevy of female bodyguards, Gaddafi was famously branded a "mad dog" by one U.S. president and has long been accused by the West of links to terrorism and revolutionary movements.

But this changed when Libya renounced its weapons of mass destruction to secure an end to its international isolation and a rapprochement with western governments, keen to tap its oil and gas wealth and lucrative trade and investment deals.