Erinnerung

[matrixmann]

Originally posted by matrixmann at Erinnerung

February 2011: 17th, marks of the official day when the uprising against the Colonel from Libya that always opened his wallet when Africa needed financial aid started.
His enemies, who spent a long time of friendship with him, still suffer from the results of their deed: Free influx of refugees and soldiers of fortune from Africa as well as the Middle East, other powers taking control of the area, and the oil, a steady flow settled by contract, now is next to be lost.
The outcome of this is still uncertain.

Comments

[onb2017.livejournal.com]

I agree that it was a stupid thing they’ve done for this region. But to be fair the problem of Gaddafi was that he is a petty-bourgeois leader like Castro for example. Whereas what he has done was important as national liberation they needed to move forward, unfortunately this is the fate of all petty-bourgeois regimes. Nonetheless, the whole thing is pretty sad. You described it well.

[matrixmann]

I'm still in doubt about it whose ideas was it at all to dispose of him. Simply put, I can't imagine the West to be so stupid to ignore who has done them good services for quite a bunch of decades and who was even reliable in that.
This already, I think, is the case with the upheaval that happened in Egypt.
Judging by what people actually did the work on the ground during the war in Libya, I more tend to think it was the idea to get rid of him of some or one of the Gulf states, especially their monarch states. 'Cause that amount of money these families hold in their property, it also gives large possibilities of taking influence to them. Possibilities to take influence in a world that more and more drowns and even needs to cancel its military power projects due to overwhelming debts.
I don't wanna think of the Gulf states only being like a bank for when America wants to start a new war, I think those times are rather past than present. - And for those, this kind of strategy, to throw all of North Africa into chaos, rather brings up some advantages. Needless to say, Arabians always had different styles of leading war than Europe. This was due to their natural surroundings (heat, drought, other ways of generating food) that shaped their culture in the long term. Also the fact with the common religion in that areas, how they conquered territory as a also political oganization, makes a difference in how they do war. Europeans might only not recognize it as that 'cause they only think of their own styles of tactics, they literally don't even have it within their own calculation.
That's what brings me to this fact too. Who says it wasn't war in that way that the Gulf monarchies always solved their problems and lead wars?

With Gaddafi the problem in the end was that all of the state's administration literally was in the hands of his own family - and that's what can't be if you want to let this state continue existing after you've died. Everything literally is dependent on you - and that's just no healthy structure. In fact, in the long term, it is nothing like a monarchy. And I'd think this spoke very much against the principles of doing some real socialist system. (Basically Gaddafi did such politics, even though he then had some untypical views for society, like the general role of women. But I think he also stated himself that he's doing socialism in the colors of his own area, his own national version of it. - One can interpret this strategy in many ways, also such as "he did a version of socialism which he could see he can realize in North Africa" or "there was no-one capable of continuing this system effectively (including protecting it)".)

[onb2017.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree.