Who exactly are "the rebels" in Libya? (sorry if this has been answer)

[R_P_A_S]

I seriously don't have time to go through countless threads and comments. Forgive me. I been working a lot and trying to move into a new place I'm renting after staying in my car for nearly 3 months.. ok no sob story! just saying...

From what I've follow this uprising in Libya seems to be different than the ones taking place or that took place in neighboring countries. Who exactly are the rebels? why are they armed? who armed them? what do they want instead of Gaddafi?

I have a feeling these Rebels aren't just average people.. working class people or that they even care for the people. I keep hearing reports that average people are fleeing the violence... why not stand up in fight like they all did in Egypt and Tunisia? What of the mistreatment of migrant works or black libyans? Can someone break it down? post links?

Help...

I can't fully stand with any side like I did on Egypt and Tunisia... I like to have full understanding before I start parading with the rest of the world.

thank you

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Problem is, because of the strict police state in Gadafi's Libya, we have no clue how the protests started.

It seems there were nonviolent protests in the East, where locals are poorer due to economic mismanagement by the central government. This is because of issues between him and the people in the East.

When Gadafi told his army to attack the protesters, many soldiers defected. This is why the rebels have weapons. Most of the weapons they have they looted from the army base. This is why they are rolling around with T-55 tanks, AA guns on toyotas and Kalshnikovs, not TOW rockets and stinger missiles.

The rebels seem to be a diverse bunch which range from defected soldiers, locals, religious fundamentalists and others, without any unified ideological message. They seem to include workers, but their movement isn't exclusive to workers.

Why are "average people" fleeing the violence and not standing up and fighting the way they did in Tunis and Egypt? Well, the Egyptian and Tunisian army wasn't used to level their cities. Libya just used its army to hammer Az Zawiya.

As for the attacks on African workers ... this isn't indicative of the protesters. There were anti-Christian attacks in Egypt this week too. It is an unfortunate reality that there were some attacks, caused perhaps by a mix of latent racism in the area, resentment of immigrants, and rumours (quite possibly true) that Gadafi used African mercenaries (although this is still contested).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Egypt has a large and "mature" working class whereas from what I've read about Libya, a lot of workers are imported migrants or imported industrial workers. There is a small population compared to Egypt and in Egypt there had been a semi-legal (though often repressed) movement against the regime from liberals to radicals - working class struggle had been intensifying and there have been years of a democracy movement organizing.

Libya does not have very much organization among the opposition, but in fact, they did try mass street demonstrations but were attacked which then led to larger confrontations and eventually led to defections and refusals by the military. The opposition now has arms because they took them or captured them.

The capitalist crisis is shaking the foundations of every capitalist country and so the most ridged and outmoded ones are the ones easily falling right now (Tunisia and Egypt). In my opinion it is impossible to separate Libya from the general revolt going on in many places right now. The Libyans have many of the same grievances that the Egyptians and Tunisians had - with a "war on terror" on top (like Egypt).


I can't fully stand with any side like I did on Egypt and Tunisia... I like to have full understanding before I start parading with the rest of the world.What does this even mean - what Egyptian rebels do you stand with? The ones wanting a European-style Parliament, the ones trying to form a Labor party, the ones who think the military will protect them, the ones who want more liberalization of the economy, the ones calling for re-nationalization of industries?

The nature of a rebellion like this is that all classes and class interests come into play and so there will be confusion and strange alliances and so on. Once the immediate aim of getting rid of the dictator is through, then there will have to be some kind of battle where conflicting class interests come to the surface.

[The Red Next Door]

racist.

[dernier combat]

racist.
What are you even on about?

[Revolutionair]

I've read somewhere (might be on this site) that the rebels also got weapons supplied by the US.
I was skeptical about the Libyan 'revolution' from the start. One of the main reasons was that the 'revolution' started right next to the oil fields. I'm beginning to feel that the rebels are more Franco style rebels than socialist style rebels.

But that's just my point of view and I didn't nearly do enough research.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The revolution didn't start next to the oil field, it started in Benghazi, which is a city that traditionally has been the most opposed to Gadafi's rule. There are oil fields all over Libya, it was hard for the rebels not to seize land that included oil fields. Also, the USA has not supplied the rebels with weapons, but there are talks among NATO nations of doing that in the future. But considering Tito took arms from the British, this doesn't really say anything other than the fact that the West doesn't want to buy oil from Libya and they are willing to throw him under the bus. Many of the rebels have demanded no to intervention. Most of the weapons were captured by the revolutionaries or were the arms of soldiers who defected.

It is more comparable to Yugoslavia and the Serb actions against Bosniaks and Croats, but even there there was an ethnic component which is lacking here. I think a lot of people are sick of getting ruled by the same man for forty years.

[Sir Comradical]

The rebels have now been co-opted by the United States to seize control of Libya by proxy.

Robert Fisk has a good article on it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes, just like America seized Afghanistan by proxy in 1993 :rolleyes:

Not that there isn't a danger of NATO co opting the rebels, but it's a little early to be saying that they've already done it. Getting a few RPGs from NATO doesn't mean that the new government will be pro-Western when it wins.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Personally I think the US is now waiting for the rebels to be crushed and then they can step in and won't have to worry about either a strong regime or a determined and independent opposition. If the imperialists wanted the rebels to rule by proxy, then the fighting would be over and there'd be thousands of US or Nato troops there right now. They'd be promoting some ElBaradei or Karzi among the rebels as the face of the opposition.

I think the US is just as uncertain about the actual character the opposition would take as we are at this point. It's a fluid and dynamic situation and the US doesn't like that sort of thing, it'd rather deal with even someone they dislike like Chavez than a popular rebellion with no certain sets of outcomes.

[gorillafuck]

They're a bourgeois movement that seeks to replace the bourgeois Qaddafi government with a different bourgeois government. Workers are equally disempowered by the victory of either side.


If the imperialists wanted the rebels to rule by proxy, then the fighting would be over and there'd be thousands of US or Nato troops there right now.That isn't true. The US military could not afford to go to Libya right now, and beyond that the situation would explode and it would not be good for the United States. (if the US became involved militarily, then Qaddafi's ally Russia would likely get involved).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Zeekoid-what are you basing the accusation of bourgeois ideology on? As far as we can tell, they don't have an ideology and the rebellion crosses class lines. It's reductionist to accuse them of being bourgeois.

[gorillafuck]

Zeekoid-what are you basing the accusation of bourgeois ideology on? As far as we can tell, they don't have an ideology and the rebellion crosses class lines.It is not pro-worker, it is not anti-capitalist, the rebellion is one of notorious racism, and you even admit that it yourself is a class collaborationist movement.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

(1) There's still no evidence that the Revolution is a racist revolution, just that there are racists among the revolutionaries.

(2) It's not "class collaboration" as much as it is multiple classes wanting the same thing (the removal of Gadafi) and so working in concert. Stalin, Churchill and FDR worked together to overthrow Hitler, and Zapata and Villa worked with the petit-bourgeois madero against porifirio diaz, I wouldn't accuse them of being "class collaborators"

(3) The rebellion is little more than a semi-organized mob right now, i still think its far too early to declare them to be a "bourgeois revolution".

[Jimmie Higgins]

That isn't true. The US military could not afford to go to Libya right now, and beyond that the situation would explode and it would not be good for the United States. (if the US became involved militarily, then Qaddafi's ally Russia would likely get involved).True, I was using short-hand - the US wouldn't just send a unilateral force, but it wouldn't take much to cut a deal with Turkey and Russia and other parties involved to send in some "peacekeeping" force or maintain a no-fly zone. But I think you are correct in pointing out that more than just "waiting for the sides to weaken eachother before stepping in," the international situation is that there are divisions in the ruling classes both within the big powers and among them on how to proceed and deal with Libya. I don't think that means, however, that the rebels are some kind of proxy-force though I'm sure the imperialist powers are all scrambling to figure out who the players are and if there is an angle that they can use to their own advantage. It's a genuine rebellion not unlike the ones in the neighboring countries - but one with much different material circumstances (small and divided working class, little preparation or opposition pre-organization, etc).

[R_P_A_S]

It is not pro-worker, it is not anti-capitalist, the rebellion is one of notorious racism, and you even admit that it yourself is a class collaborationist movement.


can you elaborate more? how is it notorious for racism?

[Os Cangaceiros]

That isn't true. The US military could not afford to go to Libya right now, and beyond that the situation would explode and it would not be good for the United States. (if the US became involved militarily, then Qaddafi's ally Russia would likely get involved).

Well,

1) There's only around six million people in the entire nation of Libya. If the US really wanted it, the US could take, easily.

2) I hardly think that Russia would engage the US over Libya.

I don't think that the US is terribly interested in Libya either way. As the situation stands now they're not even a top 10 exporter to the US.

[Hiero]

When Gadafi told his army to attack the protesters, many soldiers defected. This is why the rebels have weapons. Most of the weapons they have they looted from the army base. This is why they are rolling around with T-55 tanks, AA guns on toyotas and Kalshnikovs, not TOW rockets and stinger missiles.


I read in a few of the multiple news sources about the Libyan rebelian is that the rebels had access to these weopons, but no idea how to use them effectively and strategically.

The other interesting thing, the rebels used the Monarchist flag, you would think they would use the Libya Arab Republic flag.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

In 1991, Russia replaced the Soviet flag with their old monarchist flag too, but Putin's just an asshole not a Czar. The likelihood of the rebels trying to recreate the monarchy is low, despite the flag.

[Revy]

How do we know these rumors about the opposition being violently racist are not just rumors created by the regime. Look at Gaddafi's track record, he is the racist.

see this

http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/14/facts-about-racism-in-libya



In the 1990s, to fulfill a demand for cheap labor and curry favor with other African countries, the Libyan government eased immigration restrictions. As a result, nearly 1 million migrants fled poverty and violence in neighboring nations to take up work in Libya. Many of these immigrants were afforded no protection under the law as a result of their migrant status.

With sanctions and mass unemployment taking a toll on the Libyan economy, the government ordered police officers to crack down on African immigrants. Libyan officials consciously stoked tensions between native and foreign workers, accusing migrants of engaging in black-market dealings, running financial scams, operating brothels, dealing drugs and producing alcohol illegally.

When a horrific attack took place in 2000, ultimately leading to the deaths of at least 135 migrant workers (http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/16/news/mn-761), the regime's police reported either took part in the killings or turned a blind eye to them. The government then used this violence as an excuse to deport thousands.

In addition to the harsh treatment of migrant workers within Libya, Qaddafi's government has also voluntarily served as a gatekeeper for African immigrants to Europe. During a trip to Rome last year, Qaddafi declared (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/01/eu-muammar-gaddafi-immigration):
We don't know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans...We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent, or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.
With this statement, Qaddafi was not only giving cover to the racist ravings of Europe's rising far right and fascist parties, but he was also justifying the atrocious treatment of African migrants in Libya. In particular, Qaddafi has collaborated with the right-wing government of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to "warehouse" African migrants looking to escape political persecution or economic squalor. According to researchers Gregor Noll and Mariagiulia Giuffré (http://www.opendemocracy.net/gregor-noll-mariagiulia-giuffr%C3%A9/eu-migration-control-made-by-gaddafi):
In the last two years, hundreds of migrants and asylum-seekers intercepted at sea have been driven back to Libya without any chance of setting foot on European soil to claim asylum. But in Libya, migrants and refugee are victims of discriminatory treatment of all kinds. They live in constant fear of being arrested, in which case they will be indefinitely confined in overcrowded detention centers, where they are exploited, beaten, raped and abused. Refugees who have no possibility of applying for asylum or accessing any other effective remedy, thereby run the risk of being forcibly returned to countries of origin, where they may face persecution or torture.
The inadequacy of Libya's response to the flow of migrants and refugees is so infamous and well-documented that it simply cannot be the case that the EU member states are only now starting to gain an insight into Libya's doubtful track record in human rights, rule of law and democracy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN ADDITION to Qaddafi's racist treatment of African migrants, his regime has also given consistent support to various murderous regimes. The Libyan dictator is widely known for providing military training and support to Liberia's Charles Taylor and Sierra Leone's Foday Sankoh.

In the 1980s, Islamist rebels from Sudan received military training in Libya (http://www.sudantribune.com/Ideology-in-arms-The-emergence-of,11358) before returning to Sudan "infused with a supremacist agenda." The idea of Arab racial supremacy that later emerged in Darfur's Janjaweed militia was thus nurtured by time spent in Qaddafi's military training camps.and this

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n15/alex-de-waal/counter-insurgency-on-the-cheap


Another geographical misfortune is that Darfur borders Chad and Libya. In the 1980s, Colonel Gaddafi dreamed of an ‘Arab belt’ across Sahelian Africa. The keystone was to gain control of Chad, starting with the Aouzou strip in the north of the country. He mounted a succession of military adventures in Chad, and from 1987 to 1989, Chadian factions backed by Libya used Darfur as a rear base, provisioning themselves freely from the crops and cattle of local villagers. On at least one occasion they provoked a joint Chadian-French armed incursion into pursuing them. Many of the guns in Darfur came from those factions. Gaddafi’s formula for war was expansive: he collected discontented Sahelian Arabs and Tuaregs, armed them, and formed them into an Islamic Legion that served as the spearhead of his offensives. Among the legionnaires were Arabs from western Sudan, many of them followers of the Mahdist Ansar sect, who had been forced into exile in 1970 by President Nimeiri. The Libyans were defeated by a nimble Chadian force at Ouadi Doum in 1988, and Gaddafi abandoned his irredentist dreams. He began dismantling the Islamic Legion, but its members, armed, trained and – most significant of all – possessed of a virulent Arab supremacism, did not vanish. The legacy of the Islamic Legion lives on in Darfur: Janjawiid leaders are among those said to have been trained in Libya.The racism in Libya was promoted by the regime, the authorities, Gaddafi himself. Countless migrant workers have been horribly oppressed under his rule. To paint Gaddafi as the friend of black Africans, is revisionist.

No doubt some of the opposition belong to reactionary ideologies, but how do we know that is an accurate representation of the opposition movement as a whole? The people on this forum certainly do not support those factions aligned with reactionary ideologies. We certainly don't support invasion. Obviously the fall of the regime is progressive, but it could be replaced by something just as bad. We all hope that the left, the revolutionary left, prevails in Libya.

[t.shonku]

Actually it is a hard question to answer!!!!!!! who exactly are the rebels????


At first I thought they are a cocktail of kids on adrenaline , pro-western idiots, anarchist ,and anti-Gaddafi political activist , but now I think that the whole rebellion has been hijacked by west and now it has become a CIA and oil mafia controlled coup .


I think you should all read a fantastic article posted by Vegan Marxist , this article shows involvement of CIA

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Oh yeah, Vegan Marxist has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Libyan uprising was planned by the CIA during the Clinton Administration as part of the "Project for a New American Century". The fact that people were rebelling against a corrupt kleptocrat does sound veeeery suspicious!

VM also has some solid info that the both the American Revolution and the English Civil War of the 1640s were instigated by George Soros, or was it actually the British monarchy? Anyway I'm sure Soros had his hand in the Paris Commune. This is obvious by the fact that the Communards refused to seize the Bank of France, a sure sign of their craven dependence on finance capital!

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Since the Vegan Marxist enjoys posting articles from bourgeois media outlets like the Washington Times, I thought I'd chime in with a socialist perspective on Libya. this article is a bit long but definitely worth it.


CWI
Defend the revolution! No to imperialist intervention!

www.socialistworld.net, 30/03/2011
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI
Build an independent force of workers and the poor
Robert Bechert, CWI
http://www.socialistworld.net/img/20110331Grafik952830314646862553.jpg
The Libyan revolution is at a crossroads. But the turning point is not simply the rapidly shifting battle lines around the Gulf of Sirte. No, we are witnessing a determined effort by the Western powers to seize control over the revolution and exploit it for their own ends.
This is something which could possibly strengthen the Gaddafi regime, if it has not yet exhausted its political capital in the country, particularly in the heavily populated areas controlled by him and his supporters.
It is absolutely clear that the NATO-led military intervention is not simply to ‘save’ the civilian population. The US, France and Britain have made clear they want, or would like, the removal of Gaddafi. They are effectively acting as the air force of the rebels and, for example, did nothing to stop the rebel forces’ shelling of the civilians in Sirte. However, at present, despite the air attacks Gaddafi’s forces are holding their ground and advancing again.
Wary of being involved in another Iraq or Afghanistan, Obama has ruled out sending in ground troops, unlike Cameron who has already sent small SAS units into the country. But this is a dangerous strategy, not just in Libya but also at home as polls in Britain and the US show rising doubts and opposition to any ground intervention. However, with Gaddafi’s forces back on the offensive there is open discussion of supplying weapons to the rebels, at least the pro-western ones NATO trusts; but this would not automatically guarantee them victory.
The March 29 London conference on Libya drew back from following in Sarkozy’s footsteps and immediately recognising the self-appointed Interim National Council (INC) as the nucleus for a new government. This was not possible as, at the time of conference, it could only claim to control part of the country with a minority of the population and its forces were in retreat. The conference itself was filled with hypocrisy. Its closing statement proclaims that "the Libyan people must be free to determine their own future", but the powers at the conference have, at very most, only mildly criticised the oppression and lack of democratic rights in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria or Yemen.
In truth, the western powers are moving to steal the fruits of the popular uprising that began in February. This process has some similarities to the way, over 20 years ago, in which the mass movements for democratic rights and an end to privilege in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe were diverted into the channel of capitalist restoration in these countries, with catastrophic results for the mass of the population.
Today in Libya, the absence of an independent movement of working people that could start to build a real, democratic alternative to Gaddafi’s rule is allowing the combination of recent defectors from the regime and pro-western elements to attempt to build their power, with the support of NATO.

http://www.socialistworld.net/img/article/2011-03-30Grafik6604636701011742359.jpg

The latest rebel field commander leader, Khalifa Hifter, is a former Gaddafi ally who, until a few weeks ago, had been allowed by the US government to live comfortably near Washington for almost 20 years. He spent that time trying to build a military force to combat the regime. Presumably, the Clinton and Bush administrations saw Hifter as an ally.
But neither the US nor the other western governments have any genuine concern for the real interests of the majority of the Libyan people; on the contrary they are looking at regaining more control over Libya’s oil and gas while also demonstrating their power in the Middle East. This is one reason why, right from the start, there has been open rivalry between the different powers. The western powers have no fundamental interest in democracy. Look at how they support the rotten Saudi regime - only last September, the US made a $123 billion arms deal with the Saudi Arabian and the Gulf States’ dictatorial regimes. These are the states that have no, or only very limited, democratic rights, yet they are armed to the teeth by the US, Britain and other countries.
The INC’s programme, “A vision of a democratic Libya”, was released to the media by the British foreign ministry while the London conference was taking place. It is filled with generalities about “freedom”, “democracy” and other fine objectives. But with little regard for democracy the self-appointed INC gave itself, in this programme, the power to draft a new constitution, albeit to be later “endorsed in a referendum”. Significantly, in a gesture to imperialism, the INC declared that “The interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected”.
The INC’s programme is not certain to win support from the two-thirds of the Libyan population who live in the west of the country. It is simply relying on a combination of NATO air power and the masses’ desire for change to secure victory. But this is making it easier for the Gaddafi regime to hang on to power. Gaddafi can correctly portray the ITNC as being in the lap of the western powers who would like to exploit Libya more. At the same time even western journalists are reporting that many in western Libya fear what would happen if Gaddafi was overthrown; would Libya tend to break up like Somalia, would fundamentalism arise, what would happen to the large social advances in health, education, etc made over the last 40 years? The NATO supreme commander, Admiral James Stavridis’s testimony to the US Senate, that rebel forces in Libya show “flickers” of a possible al-Qaeda presence could help make Gaddafi seem, to at least some Libyans, as a “lesser evil” to an alliance of the western powers and fundamentalists.
Key to saving the revolution in hands of working masses

This is why the key to saving the Libyan revolution lies in the hands of the working masses. Tunisia and Egypt have already shown that determined struggle can overthrow dictatorships. However the events this year in these three countries have shown that, on its own, willingness to struggle is not enough. The working masses need to be independently and democratically organised in trade unions and a mass party of workers and the poor with a clear programme, to be able to struggle to prevent the gains of their revolutions being snatched away by elements of the old elite or a new elite in formation, in collaboration with imperialism.
Grave dangers are facing the mass of Libyans as fighting continues and foreign intervention increases. Concretely in Libya the genuinely revolutionary forces of the working masses need to reject any reliance on the UN or NATO and demand an immediate end to this intervention. To defeat Gaddafi’s regime, workers and youth need to build their own force that can carry the revolution to victory, a victory that not only wins democratic rights but which ensures that Libya’s wealth is genuinely owned and democratically controlled and managed in the masses’ interests.
This would lay the basis for liberation and a genuine socialism, not Gaddafi’s fake version, that could appeal to the working masses in the Middle East, Africa and beyond.










[/URL]
[URL="http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4949"] (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4973)