[dan-b]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...e-yet-to-come/

Libya has become embroiled in chaos over the past week. First, militiamen seized the capital’s international airport for several hours in protest against the kidnapping of their leader. Islamist militants then targeted the U.S. diplomatic office in Benghazi, following it up with a surprisingly sophisticated attack on a British diplomatic convoy. And in the south, tribal clashes broke out town in the town of al-Kufra, claiming the lives of at least 20 people. Government troops did not intervene, according to reports from the town.

These developments suggest indecisiveness on the part of the interim government, the National Transitional Council, which appears unable and unwilling to try to assert its control over a complicated network of armed militias. Unless national institutions are developed in Libya, an environment of low-level conflict and bloody lawlessness could soon prevail.

The current security environment, dominated by militias, does not constitute a proper security framework: It lacks coordination and creates gaps that allow for conflict between rival groups, as well as criminal activities like smuggling – and terrorism, which appears to be a new factor in the east. It is precisely this form of loosely organized, unaccountable security structure that criminal gangs and terrorists thrive on.

The ultimate test of Libya’s fragile stability could emerge after elections take place in July (delayed by three weeks because of logistical problems), when the stakes are much higher. The question is whether powerful factions, many of them representing tribes and regions, will defer to the new constitutional process or whether they will seek to undermine and circumvent the political process in pursuit of higher stakes and settle what could be longstanding disputes over control of the country and its oil-based wealth. The potential for civil war could, therefore, be amplified after elections when competing groups jostle for positions of power, like control of the military and the country’s finances or lucrative oil industry.

Challenges will begin to arise over who or what group heads security institutions. Many will fear the “personalization” of such institutions by well-armed non-state actors, not least since the very individuals and groups who will have positions in the country’s new government head their own, or have extensive links to, existing militia groups.

The situation is compounded by the fact that, since the former regime was ousted in September, the Libyan army and security forces have remained disorganized, devoid of authority and thin on the ground.

As these deficiencies are remedied (assuming they are), so too may militia groups respond by amalgamating into larger groups. Militia leaders will have a choice: back down to respect the prowess of a more authoritative Libyan army or try to compete with that army. The latter course would obviously create an uncontrollable environment conducive to instability and potentially irreversible violence.

Like Iraq in late 2003, Libya is enduring a somewhat uneasy period of relative stability after international intervention, disrupted only by intermittent attacks and clashes between rival factions. But, like Iraq, that could simply be the calm before the storm. Soon, one group among the many competing for power and authority in the new Libya will seek to assert its authority. For the sake of the Libyan people, one can only hope that it will be the state, with a reformed and capable national army.

[rob666]

Its just like Iraq or any other place where tribal loyalties are more important than a central Government.
These people don't give a fuck about democracy, or Libya, just the area they control and their own tribal leaders.
All we did by overthrowing Ghadaffi was shake things up a bit, in the end nothing will change.

[dan-b]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Its just like Iraq or any other place where tribal loyalties are more important than a central Government.
These people don't give a fuck about democracy, or Libya, just the area they control and their own tribal leaders.
All we did by overthrowing Ghadaffi was shake things up a bit, in the end nothing will change.

Many across the Middle East do want democracy, back that cannot be brought about by Western bombs. The correct way to do it is support democratic movements from within. It will be a slow process, but will be much more sustainable.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by dan-b ↗

Many across the Middle East do want democracy, back that cannot be brought about by Western bombs. The correct way to do it is support democratic movements from within. It will be a slow process, but will be much more sustainable.

I agree, but do you think that Libya or Iraq could possibly stay together under democracy?
It just really seems like there is not the same sense of Nationalism that we have here..... Unless they were under attack from another nation, Tribal loyalties seem to be the priority.

[RangaRang]

I predict all of these Arab Spring countries will be rife with Sunni extremists... the very fact that Ghaddafi's captors raped him with a baton and killed him on camera before even a small trial shows that Libya is in no way ready for democracy.

Assad, too. Sad thing is he was very well liked by Syrians, Sunni and Shi'ite; he was Western-educated, he was an ophthalmologist and a very gentle person, totally unlike his father. But he lived in his father's shadow and that's one of the things his opponents used against him. Destabilize the region and shake the roots of the government, and soon he had to response with force because they would topple him and kill him eventually... the Shah did the same thing but he fled Iran and then told his troops to open fire. And neither of them were necessarily terrible people. It's just when they say it's your time to go, ya gotta go...

Back to Ghaddafi though... even Saddam could get a trial, and what a trial he had! He was allowed to go on rambling narcissistic speeches and make fun of the judge... there's no way Libya's going to be a democracy, not with its oil and its internal struggles. At least Iraq had well-developed Shi'ite parties that took over after the fighting.

[RangaRang]

Originally Posted by dan-b ↗

Many across the Middle East do want democracy, back that cannot be brought about by Western bombs. The correct way to do it is support democratic movements from within. It will be a slow process, but will be much more sustainable.

Many want democracy but cannot understand or appreciate the geopolitical and economic necessities that need to be in place for a democracy to develop. The number one thing in the way of democracy in the Middle East is the world's dependence on oil and the uneven balance of power among nations.

Also, oil brings cheap, flowing money in vast amounts. It's like selling heroin. It's easy money, and you soon lose the ambition to say, go to school and become a doctor, because you're making 100 grand already pushing dope. Because the money is also so easily made, you keep some for yourself, you buy your girlfriend some stilettos, you get uneccesary trinkets for your car, and when you stop dealing the smack you have nothing- no money for college, no down payments ready, no investments, etc. because you had the high life selling drugs and saw no need to improve elsewhere. Same with oil.

With oil, the money is often mismanaged and kept by greedy people in power, and even if it is used to improve some areas, it's not nearly enough as is spent on short-term things like new guns for the armies, latest high-tech missiles, etc. Rarely does a country with oil spend it on building a better education system or improving things that can set the grounds for a future diversified economy. And without a diversified economy, we have all the interests vested in those who control the oil, which is often the people in power. No diversity in economy= no diverse interests, hence, no diverse voices and opinions, hence, no working democracy. Even countries like Iran who do use their oil money for other things fail to use it to improve their post-oil economies... oil's a curse.

As for geopolitical reasons there are always things like bordering countries, prior deals, resource hungry superpowers and regional powers who can tilt the game by paying rebel groups, language, culture, family systems, and long standing rivalries... Middle Eastern cultures' authoritarianism starts with their family systems which are highly authoritarian, their cultures placing emphasis on status, shame and wealth, and their culture/psychological tendencies to perpetuate a "follow the leader" attitude when they are amped and a "let's keep a low key and hope everything blows over" when they are oppressed.

[King Herald]

You have to remember that 90% of the Libyan people are basically desert dwelling savages, who haven't changed in 1000 years.

A bit like most of Africa really.

[b0g]

Some talk mention democracy in Libya.

Has there been democracy ( time as colony does not count) in Libya the last 100 years?

Some interesting reading:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ational-wealth

How Libya Blew Billions and Its Best Chance at Democracy

[ices]

Its time we issued true democracy.

Free them from their earthly bodies with laser guided weapons and be done with it. May Allah shit on their graves.