What will happen when Tripoli falls?

[Tommy4ever]

Tripoli seems to have been the main place in Libya where Gaddaffi's support has held up strongly and not really looked threatened. We have all heard the horror stories of how the rebel armies have behaved to prisoners, black people etc. Now it seems likely that the capital will fall very soon. What do you think is going to happen in Tripoli? Is there likely to be a massacre? And afterwards, do we think the rebels will turn against eachother,? They don't seem to be a particularily ideologically united movement.

[Susurrus]

Hopefully the people will turn against their capitalist masters and begin the world revolution, but I somehow doubt it will go that smoothly. Probably a few years of a corrupt, "democratic" capitalist regime before another rebellion leading Libya in another direction.

[piet11111]

Probably a lot of killing of civilians as the soldiers are taking the city and stamping out Qaddafi soldiers without really bothering to make sure they actually are soldiers.

Then you have the tribes fighting over control and killing their opponents while the imperialists are just going to let it happen unless it threatens their economic interests because a full on occupation like in Iraq would be to expensive.

[Susurrus]

Then you have the tribes fighting over control and killing their opponents while the imperialists are just going to let it happen unless it threatens their economic interests because a full on occupation like in Iraq would be to expensive.

Not to mention a likelihood of mass exportation of oil at a discount rate to NATO.

[Princess Luna]

Not to mention a likelihood of mass exportation of oil at a discount rate to NATO.
In this case, nothing will change

[ВАЛТЕР]

Short answer: occupation. There will be construction of military bases, western oil companies will establish themselves and bring in their private armies for security, and another once peaceful nation falls under the NATO jackboot. The people will suffer while the puppet-masters laugh all the way to the bank.

I have heard that the media reports of rebels in Tripoli are nothing but lies meant to demoralize and misinform the people and the army. I can only hope this is true.

[Forward Union]

Gadaffi will be dead or missing within 10 or so hours. In my view, the collapse of this regime will lead to the formation of a new pro-western puppet state that will abandon the progressive steps toward african unity (to form a formidable trading bloc against the west) and will sell off libyas industry to western companies.

It will, essentially, make the world a worse place.

[Susurrus]

It's so sad how the thing's progressed. When I first heard the Libyans were rebelling against Gaddafi, I was so happy to see another dictator be overthrown, this time without foreign interest puppeteering, and that the Libyan people might well establish a leftist system to replace the old islamic oppression. Then, the rebels got new masters, and everything went down the tubes.

[ВАЛТЕР]

It's so sad how the thing's progressed. When I first heard the Libyans were rebelling against Gaddafi, I was so happy to see another dictator be overthrown, this time without foreign interest puppeteering, and that the Libyan people might well establish a leftist system to replace the old islamic oppression. Then, the rebels got new masters, and everything went down the tubes.

The whole revolution was organized by the west from the onset. After Gaddafi refused privatization of national oil, it was only a matter of rime before the NATO dogs of war came sniffing around looking for trouble. Their media spread lies about use of aircraft against "protestors" and they had their hungry eyes on the oil fields the whole time.

[Sasha]

It realtime depends on who had the most truth during the propaganda war, it could be a massacre, it could be catharsic celebration, it could be a prolonged low intensity civilwar.

considering that more people suffered under the jackboot of the secret police than benefited of the oil trade (and thus I think people here grossly overestimate the amount of support for the regime as soon as the people are not afraid anymore) my money is on something akin to serbia post milosovich, all things considerd low violence, intense jubelation and optimism at first, then deception and apathy yet an overall feeling that getting rid of the dictator was worth it. And @ revleft people would still say that that majority of libyans is actually wrong and the dictatorship should have remained.
but that's an educated guess at best and I could be very wrong in that (all accept that last bit of course, there is no dictatorship some revlefters won't go at lengths to to defend)

[Luís Henrique]

The reign of terror of the Salafist-Zionist unholy alliance shall begin. Abortions will be made mandatory, prostitution will be made mandatory, illiteracy will be made mandatory. People will be stoned to death if they drink alcohol. Mass rape of all women who don't wear a burkha. Masacres of Black people, Klan style. Inter-tribal civil war. Left-handedness will be forbidden. Support for Manchester City will be mandatory; supporters of Manchester United will be summarily executed. Electricity shall be forbidden. Schools to be closed, replaced by madrassa-synagogues. Pat Robertson will be nominated King of Libya and head of provisional government, and shall impose Sharia law. Fried babies to become the new delicacy of Libyan cuisine. Etc.

... just won't happen.

Luís Henrique

[Azula]

The rebels will turn the guns at themselves.

[Hit The North]

supporters of Manchester United will be summarily executed.
Luís Henrique

I doubt the new regime will be that progressive :lol:

[Thirsty Crow]

Gadaffi will be dead or missing within 10 or so hours. In my view, the collapse of this regime will lead to the formation of a new pro-western puppet state that will abandon the progressive steps toward african unity (to form a formidable trading bloc against the west) and will sell off libyas industry to western companies.

It will, essentially, make the world a worse place.
How would a formidable trading bloc (i.e. African unity) aimed at an opposition to one of the imperialist blocs be a guarantee that the working class - the focal point of both analysis and political action - will enable the relative political and economic independence of the working class, given the fact that capital accumulation would still figure as the absolute necessity, meaning that in no way would it necessarily be clear that the antagonism between capital and labour will be more and more shifted to the benefit of labour?

[Azula]

How would a formidable trading bloc (i.e. African unity) aimed at an opposition to one of the imperialist blocs be a guarantee that the working class - the focal point of both analysis and political action - will enable the relative political and economic independence of the working class, given the fact that capital accumulation would still figure as the absolute necessity, meaning that in no way would it necessarily be clear that the antagonism between capital and labour will be more and more shifted to the benefit of labour?

You must learn to think in many steps.

A multi-polar world will allow us to play off imperialist powers against one another.

[agnixie]

You must learn to think in many steps.

A multi-polar world will allow us to play off imperialist powers against one another.

Yes, that totally worked in the 19th century, did it?

[Azula]

Yes, that totally worked in the 19th century, did it?

Yes. The Russian Revolution is a testament to that.

[agnixie]

Yes. The Russian Revolution is a testament to that.

The Russian revolution being exactly one revolution and its leaders killed it in 4 years, as with the civil war all semblance of "power to the soviets" was gone and would never return.

The fact that the only person thanking you takes Stalin, the gravedigger of the revolution, for his nicknamesake says it all, really. The Soviet Union then proceeded to collaborate left and right, and more often right, with bourgeois governments instead of supporting revolutions that were going on. A GREAT TRIUMPH.

[KurtFF8]

Hopefully the people will turn against their capitalist masters and begin the world revolution, but I somehow doubt it will go that smoothly. Probably a few years of a corrupt, "democratic" capitalist regime before another rebellion leading Libya in another direction.

But do you think that's an actual posibility?

I mean that would be nice indeed, but since an army backed by (and that supported) NATO has just won, that's a strange thing to assume is a possibility.


It seems that the likelihood of internal conflict with rebels is high according to Western media even. On top of that, (as I have been posting elsewhere): oil companies are beginning their plans for control over Libyan oil fields: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14610908

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It is likely for there to be internal warfare between rebel factions and tribes. There are clearly numerous factions of rebels only loosely united under the NTC, and there are several different objectives. The berbers from the mountains want rights for their ethnic group, rebels in the east want equitable social spending, Islamists want shariah law, liberals want democracy, etc.

Remember that Shiites were overwhelmingly opposed to Saddam Hussein and were quite happy when the US kicked him out, but nonetheless have taken a very negative view of American actions since the invasion even to the point of staging several armed rebellions. So it is unlikely that all of the rebels will accept a wholesale selloff of state assets for profit. Whether this will create more internal divisions between the rebels is too hard to say but IMO its all speculative.

[KurtFF8]

Absolutely.

And to use the Iraq example. It would have been absurd (in my judgment) for Leftists to have supported the US invasion of Iraq to hope that one day a socialist resistance to the US and capitalism would later develop. So I don't understand what that position is being promoted here.

[brigadista]

yep same as Iraq

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Absolutely.

And to use the Iraq example. It would have been absurd (in my judgment) for Leftists to have supported the US invasion of Iraq to hope that one day a socialist resistance to the US and capitalism would later develop. So I don't understand what that position is being promoted here.

I would agree with this, however there is a substantive difference between what happened in Iraq and what happened in Libya in that Iraq was seized directly by US forces with no participation by domestic actors, whereas Libya was seized by local rebels which NATO decided it try to use as proxies. The fact that the rebels are Libyans from many tribes and ethnic groups from all parts of the country, and seem to have at least a plurality of the people behind them (though its always hard to say) means that the new Libya will have more freedom to determine their own destiny than American-occupied Iraq did. Whether or not they utilize that freedom is another question, but instead of berating the Libyan people for not questioning the motives of NATO support, I would rather now work to oppose any attempt by the US or EU to exploit the rebel victory.

Of course, this is not to say that the rebels are all good guys and that Libya will be a happy socialist democracy in a couple of years, or even that Imperialist governments won't work this to their advantage. They will certainly try and they could well succeed. But that doesn't change the fact that this was a broadly popular revolt, any US-NATO intervention was largely opportunistic in nature, and that Western powers were courting Gaddafi quite successfully before they thought the regime would fall anyhow. Gaddafi's initial line of argument against intervention wasn't that this was an Imperialist act but that his government was a necessary ally for the west in fighting (1) "al Qaeda" (much like Yemen's Saleh) and (2) that he helped keep Europe free of illegal African migrant workers, so he was already trying desperately to ingratiate himself to the imperial model. The West just threw him under the bus when it was revealed that he lacked broad popular support even if he did have some authentic backers. The real battle is now when various rebel factions start articulating what they want for the future, it wasn't when a half-mad autocrat was battling his own people

[Wanted Man]

Coca Cola will parachute in and Pepsi Cola Road will be renamed.

http://www.friendburst.com/file/pic/photo/2011/02/Joko_Londo-pepsiwhat.jpg

[agnixie]

yep same as Iraq

You mean Iraq was a revolution which NATO opportunistically supported?

[KurtFF8]

I would agree with this, however there is a substantive difference between what happened in Iraq and what happened in Libya in that Iraq was seized directly by US forces with no participation by domestic actors, whereas Libya was seized by local rebels which NATO decided it try to use as proxies. The fact that the rebels are Libyans from many tribes and ethnic groups from all parts of the country, and seem to have at least a plurality of the people behind them (though its always hard to say) means that the new Libya will have more freedom to determine their own destiny than American-occupied Iraq did. Whether or not they utilize that freedom is another question, but instead of berating the Libyan people for not questioning the motives of NATO support, I would rather now work to oppose any attempt by the US or EU to exploit the rebel victory.

Of course, this is not to say that the rebels are all good guys and that Libya will be a happy socialist democracy in a couple of years, or even that Imperialist governments won't work this to their advantage. They will certainly try and they could well succeed. But that doesn't change the fact that this was a broadly popular revolt, any US-NATO intervention was largely opportunistic in nature, and that Western powers were courting Gaddafi quite successfully before they thought the regime would fall anyhow. Gaddafi's initial line of argument against intervention wasn't that this was an Imperialist act but that his government was a necessary ally for the west in fighting (1) "al Qaeda" (much like Yemen's Saleh) and (2) that he helped keep Europe free of illegal African migrant workers, so he was already trying desperately to ingratiate himself to the imperial model. The West just threw him under the bus when it was revealed that he lacked broad popular support even if he did have some authentic backers. The real battle is now when various rebel factions start articulating what they want for the future, it wasn't when a half-mad autocrat was battling his own people

True, perhaps the situation in Afghanistan is more analogous (with NATO supporting the Northern Alliance). Although it's highly unlikely that NATO will send in ground troops at any point in the near future.

And in the early 90s there was an uprising in Iraq that the US promised support to (although never actually gave), and I'm sure segments of that part of Iraqi society were quite glad that the US got rid of Saddam, although felt betrayed.

But there's certainly an important political lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan (and Yemen at this point) that it seems that certain Leftists are missing which is quite strange to me, especially considering so much time was wasted trying to label anti-imperialists as Gadaffi supporters. This is just as absurd as saying those who were opposed to Gadaffi were "NATO supporters." Although the political consequence of cheering on the rebels is cheering on the advance of NATO and imperialist powers, no doubt.

[brigadista]

You mean Iraq was a revolution which NATO opportunistically supported?

iraq and libya both invasions - iraq overt - libya covert

[thefinalmarch]

You mean Iraq was a revolution which NATO opportunistically supported?
There is no revolution in Libya - not if you understand "revolution" to mean anything.

[brigadista]

libya is very sadly about to descend into barbarism ..

[RebelDog]

The leader of the transitional council has said Libya will look favourably on the nations that sent jet bombers. BP, Haliburton et al will be rubbing their grubby hands at the moment. The jets might as well have had their insignias on their tail fins.

[brigadista]

the massacre of black libyans by the rebels has begun-barbarism in libya now supported by NATO

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There's a rumor, not sure how much truth in it, that Qaddafi and his son Saif escaped and are being protected by Islamists, with the knowledge of NATO.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

An interesting theory about that took place in Bab al-Azizia (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2011/08/interesting-theory-about-that-took.html)


Fabri Malek, spokesperson of the Libyan Democratic Party, went on the Iranian Press TV channel (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/195579.html) and presented an interesting theory about what actually happened in Bab al-Azizia:

Malek: It is all over for Gaddafi, there is no doubt about that. What happened is a result of a deal [that] Gaddafi cut with the fundamentalists, with the Islamists, about three weeks ago and Seif al-Islam was telling us about it that he was conducting negotiations with the Islamists within the revolutionaries while the Islamists denied it.

The deal was that Gaddafi would be given safety in the tribe of Warfalla and his family would be under the protection of the tribe of Warfalla and Gaddafi would hand over power to the Islamists.

So now what we are seeing is that the Islamists in Libya are in control, almost in full control of the country, east and west and I am afraid that Libya is going fundamentalist.

Press TV: If we assume that deal has indeed taken place, then where does that leave the NATO forces in Libya?

Malek: The deal was that Gaddafi will have safety, he will not be killed and he will not be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC) . Of course, we all know that he and other members of his family are wanted by the International Criminal Court, so he reached this deal with the fundamentalist, he wants to escape justice, he wants to remain alive with the Warfalla tribe who have supported him for the last forty two years and stood by him throughout the revolution while the Islamists will have a free hand in Libya.

We say in the Democratic Party that we need the help of the United Nations, we appeal to Mr. Obama, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Sarkozy, Mr. Berlusconi, and Mr. to intervene immediately.

Press TV: So you are saying that the NATO forces were not aware or aren't aware of this deal and are not aware now of the whereabouts of Gaddafi and that this is a deal just between Muammar Gaddafi's side and, as you say, the Islamists' side?

Malek: Of course they[NATO] are aware of where he is, they know about the deal. What is happening now is we need an intervention by the United Nations, we need a political mandate for establishing democracy in Libya; we Libyans cannot do it on our own.

The fundamentalists have no concept of democracy; we have seen them in Somalia, we have seen then in Sudan, we have seen them in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, they just cannot run a country; we need the United Nations' help, we need a mandate from the United Nations, we want to establish democracy in Libya.

If that is true, that is a copycat repetition of what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo. Yet again, CIA/MI6/Mossad & Co. are working hand-in-hand with al-Qaeda types. The Wahabis truly are the stormtroopers of the USraelian Empire...


http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/

[Rocky Rococo]

So, now that the fall of Tripoli is a "fait accompli", we have our the answer to the original question:

Lots of storefronts burning and cell-phone organized flash mobs mugging for the TV cameras. Lots of looting of high-end consumer goods. Heavily armed representatives of the newly-installed ruling coalition killing unarmed black civilians with impunity.

In other words, Tottenham.

Well, with the sole major exception that instead of holding photo ops posturing as confronting rioting Muslim mobs, the yobbos of the English Defense League, in their usual offshore designation of "Special Air Services", were arming and directing the mobs in Tripoli...

[Hiero]

iraq and libya both invasions - iraq overt - libya covert

I think this is the wrong analysis. In every country there are natural conflicts between groups of people. They can be class, nation, ethinc, tribal, religious. There can be groups in an alliance, so there can be different classes allied against other forces. In Libya there is a real group of individuals and groups of groups who opposed Gadaffi's rule. What happen in Libya was a changing of power, rather then a real changing of society. Gadaffi's regime was built during the cold war, it's rhetoric is now empty and its structures are outdated. It could not exist in the current world, that is why Gadaffi went soft (revisionist) during the last 20 years he was trying to extend his rule in post-cold war period.

The rhetoric of anti-imperialists often attribute fasely too much power to NATO, as if all the conflicts in the third world are pulled by strings of NATO or anti-imperialists rulers. NATO/The imperialists will take risks for momentary gains. They have taken a risk to remove Gadaffi, and surely they will have their agents on the ground influencing the current political elites emerging out of this conflict. It could go either way, it could fall on it's face and Libya ends up with a nominal government while the country comes haven for terrorists. In Iraq they actively engaged to try and control the situation

[#FF0000]

The rhetoric of anti-imperialists often attribute fasely too much power to NATO, as if all the conflicts in the third world are pulled by strings of NATO or anti-imperialists rulers. NATO/The imperialists will take risks for momentary gains. They have taken a risk to remove Gadaffi, and surely they will have their agents on the ground influencing the current political elites emerging out of this conflict. It could go either way, it could fall on it's face and Libya ends up with a nominal government while the country comes haven for terrorists. In Iraq they actively engaged to try and control the situation

For what it's worth, the rebels had literally nothing in the way of logistics or a chain of command. They were a mess and couldn't be trusted to defend their own block from the Libyan army (which is beyond laughable), let alone take Tripoli without NATO basically running the operation.

[KurtFF8]

The rhetoric of anti-imperialists often attribute fasely too much power to NATO, as if all the conflicts in the third world are pulled by strings of NATO or anti-imperialists rulers. NATO/The imperialists will take risks for momentary gains. They have taken a risk to remove Gadaffi, and surely they will have their agents on the ground influencing the current political elites emerging out of this conflict. It could go either way, it could fall on it's face and Libya ends up with a nominal government while the country comes haven for terrorists. In Iraq they actively engaged to try and control the situation

I agree that there is a danger of this kind of "NATO is the ultimate mover" rhetoric indeed, and I have seen some of that.

But a concrete analysis demonstrates where it is that NATO fits into the picture, and it certainly has played a prominent role. It should be the goal of the anti-capitalist movement to analyze why the most powerful Capitalist countries are using their military might to favor a particular side in a civil war. It's also our duty to analyze what it is about that side of the conflict that made NATO spend millions of dollars to support and guarantee a victory.

Recent history does indeed demonstrate that NATO isn't some all powerful force without the ability to make mistakes. But there are also plenty of cases where it has devastated nations (Yugoslavia) for it's own power grabs.