Libya's future

The NY Times has an article ("Libyan Militias Turn to Politics, a Volatile Mix") about Libya's doubtful future. Some hope elections will bring more stability but it seems likely that some militia's will put pressure on "their" citizens to vote a certain way.

Some quotes:

In a poll of Libyans conducted in December and January by a research arm of Oxford University, only 15 percent of the more than 2,000 respondents said they wanted some form of democracy within the next 12 months, while 42 percent said they hoped Libya would be governed by a new strongman. Perhaps most worrisome: a significant minority, about 16 percent, said they were ready to use violence for political ends.
[...]
When a peaceful demonstration in Benghazi urged federalism, the interior minister — a militia leader from Misurata — publicly threatened to lead an armed force from his hometown to fight what he called a threat to national unity.
[...]
Former Qaddafi officials, who are also talking about forming a political party, say they hear an echo of the past. “They are speaking the same language we did,” said one former Qaddafi adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity for his safety. “We used force. They are using force. Nothing has changed but the flag and the national anthem.”

The solution would be for the West and all the other countries that supported the revolution to advocate the interests of all the disadvantaged groups of the moment like the Bedouin, the Gaddafi supporters and the black. Unfortunately this seems very unlikely given how hate-driven Western politics is nowadays.

Dealing with insurrections

For a short time - when Gadaffi was about to take Banghazi - I was in favor of some sort of intervention. I hoped that foreign pressure to stop Gadaffi from taking Benghazi would open the road to negotiations that would lead to an interim government. Most likely Gadaffi would resign and someone else from Sirte would take his place while the regime would become more inclusive towards the other parts of the country. And the possibility of revenge and punishment for those who had taken part in the insurrection would be avoided. Gadaffi had shown enough preparedness to negotiate during the previous months that I assumed that he would agree to such a thing - provided we gave him some peaceful retirement and didn't send him to the ICC.

I may well have been right about Gadaffi, but I was definitely wrong about the Western countries. Instead of applying just enough pressure to get Gadaffi to negotiate they went for an all-out war against him. As a child could foretell this proved to be very dead and destructive. A war-by-proxy - as the West waged in Libya - is much more deadly than the tradition strategy of overwhelming force as Bush applied in Iraq. And both result in a lot of destruction and a near-anarchic state afterwards.

Now the West is repeating its mistakes in Syria. The senselessness of these policies - we don't have any interests in Syria and our policies are only dictated by Wahabi and Israeli interest groups - makes me believe that we may rather soon see the West loose its dominance in world affairs.