I rarely post anymore when something horrendous, like the bombing nearly 10 days ago, which claimed the lives of 33 outside of a mosque in Benghazi following evening prayers occurs.
Or when militias attack the MAIN FUNCTIONING (albeit, barely) airport in Libya, Mitiga, because oh yeah, the previous TIP airport is still closed from the 2011 revolution and several rival groups count it as part of their "turf". Not to mention, the airplanes and infrastructure, both of which have been compromised by the ongoing skirmishes.
And the economy of Libya, of which the NOC is a VERY BIG PART, is stagnant at best, and faltering at worst. It's unclear who controls what, and whether or not petroleum exports will ever be to the pre-2011 levels. It's also clear that to survive in this cutthroat world, Libya needs to diversify exports, potentially to include agricultural products such as olive oil. And of course, handicrafts (pottery, clothing, etc.). If it exists within the country, I'm sure there COULD BE a market for it in the Western Hemisphere.
Then there's the fact that the government of Libya is malfunctioning at best and anarchy at worst. I'd like to believe that it's somewhere in the middle, but from what I've seen and heard (that is to say mostly read), it's "organized chaos" with a more emphasis on chaos. There's the Western government based in Tripoli, backed by the UN and most Western governments, but relatively unpopular amongst Libyans in general. Then there's the eastern part of the country led by General Khalifa Haftar, who seems to be doing as good of a job as possible.
From his Wikipedia page, "... Haftar has been described as "Libya's most potent warlord", having fought "with and against nearly every significant faction" in Libya's conflicts, and as having a "reputation for unrivaled military experience." His shifting roles and alliances have also earned him a reputation as a "stubborn" and "self-serving" leader, seeking to advance his own agenda through an opportunist engagement of relevant actors and foreign supporters."
The last bit, italicized for emphasis, sounds like damn near every politician ever (I'd also make a comparison to POTUS, but that'd be a really low blow to Haftar, who supercedes a certain POTUS in basically every way). And while Libya's 1969 revolution was spearheaded by a military coup of the relatively unpopular-at-the-time monarchy (and led by He Who Shall Not Be Named with input from Haftar), it is CRUCIAL that an "effective" leader have some knowledge of, and preferably, some experience in, the armed services. Deferments for BS "medical reasons" don't honor the military, and no words can cover up cowardice. So yes... Haftar has what it takes as far as understanding conflict within the country. That's a positive.
Especially when said country is in the process of civil war, and eradicating foreign terrorists such as Daesh from their borders. You have to know what you're up against, and how to combat it. And I believe he knows all of that.
I would add a ditty about how some of America's best leaders-- including Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Teddy Roosevelt-- had a strong military background, but it's too America First, and I won't go there. Just barfed in my mouth a bit for what it's worth for having tacitly quoted the POTUS.
Unfortunately, Haftar does "suffer" from the "taint" of having at one time been an ally/top commander of Gaddafi's. While he likely COULD effectively advise and command troops at the national level (instead of operating one of many de facto National Guard-type units., e.g., the multiple militias existing in the country), there are many, including former allies of his, who decry his somewhat unorthodox methods.
It is also believed that General Haftar and Saif al Islam Gaddafi are allies, although some reports suggest otherwise. See-- Libya's Haftar denies insulting Saif al Islam Gaddafi.
It is also said that BOTH Gen. Haftar and Saif al Islam Gaddafi will/are running for the presidency in 2018, which could be interesting. Both men are, within sections of the country, popular. Both men are, with their somewhat unique skill sets, more knowledgeable of the struggles for security that Libya faces.
However, the problem remains, being, the complex nature of organizing a TRULY FAIR election process. Where everyone who WANTS to take place CAN, and where everyone feels like they have a voice in the process. That's where allowing Gaddafi or Haftar to run gets murky. They represent the OLD Libya, the PAST Libya, and to those who sacrificed FOR the revolution, it's a "here we go again" situation.
Again, being American, I could say something really smart ass about the elections process and fairness in it. TWICE in my (Presidential) voting history (I've been registered to vote since May 14, 1999-- two days after my 18th birthday; so yes, I've voted in the MAJOR elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016, not to mention, the minor & midterm ones, including the upcoming March election here in 2018 in which a couple of school measures are up for the vote, and for which I intend to vote "no") has the will of the people, e.g., the popular vote, been ignored, in favor of the electoral college. This system, originally designed to allow smaller states/regions an equal say in electing the nation's highest office(s), is no longer working as intended. That tends to happen when you have OVER a certain number of voters. In 2000, a damned "hanging chad" made the results from Florida be "under doubt" for a good two months. And in 2016, well, America, WHAT HAPPENED?
Considering the STATE of Washington (NO, NOT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, we're talking the rainy, coffee drinking, rather liberal, pot legalizing state), which has roughly a million more people than Libya, or the county of Los Angeles (no comment), with roughly 3.5 million more people, can make elections WORK, then Libya SHOULD be able to. Yet as far as elections go, Libya has basically NEVER known a "fair and balanced" election. Even those under King Idris were heavily corrupt and "purposely" stacked to favor pro-government politicians and positions. TECHNICALLY, women were allowed to vote (and run for office) in Libya from 1920 onward, but few women actually did until Gaddafi.
Yes, there were SOME positives to the 42 years of tyranny. There are also aspects of the Gaddafi regime which somehow, in spite of their flaws, somehow "worked" for the country and its citizens. While a complete purging of the past is desired, a saying from George Santayana comes to mind-- "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And of course, the rest of the quote in which this passage comes from-- "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is NOT retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual." So yes, as distasteful as it is, those who have previously led, or have knowledge of the previous regime, should not only be ALLOWED to run again, but be encouraged to do so. Yes, this may necessitate some "blanket amnesty", or a limited form of it (like what was granted to Saif al Islam Gaddafi by the Tobruk government led by Gen. Khalifa). Libya will remain in a perpetual state of chaos, a perpetual state of infancy in regards to freedom/liberty and justice for all, if they don't recognize the importance of the Gaddafi era in the collective Libyan story.
Excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit more. I would hope someone has the cajones to add some intelligent insight from the inside on this. Because as I've stated a thousand and one times, I am forever an outsider looking in. What I know and believe is secondhand at best, and usually, subject to the bias which MSM will convey.
There were also MANY negative aspects, which could be every day and every blog post until the end of time and STILL NOT adequately cover everything that "went wrong, bad, evil, morally bankrupt, etc." But Libya can and SHOULD use these as a building block to the future. Recognizing what went wrong is a basic beginning.
This is one of those posts I expect will be edited, and done so heavily and often. I just don't have many answers at the moment. Opinions, heck yeah, got them all day and night!
And then there's those who believe that I SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AN OPINION. Yes, I've gotten that from "Libyans" (mostly on Facebook) who are probably really Serbs based on their obvious disdain and dislike of America and Americans (I've been called things worse than a certain person with a supposedly peaceful name ever dreamed of!).
I have several things to say about them and their ilk, none of which are polite. Telling someone they CAN'T have a word is what was done for 42+ years.
Ignoring the West-- and the contributions it could bring to Libya and Libyans-- was yet another "fault" of the previous dictatorship. Disallowing someone's opinion and position because you don't personally LIKE it, or it "threatens" your beliefs, is the first step along the road to tyranny. It isn't helpful.
Or when militias attack the MAIN FUNCTIONING (albeit, barely) airport in Libya, Mitiga, because oh yeah, the previous TIP airport is still closed from the 2011 revolution and several rival groups count it as part of their "turf". Not to mention, the airplanes and infrastructure, both of which have been compromised by the ongoing skirmishes.
And the economy of Libya, of which the NOC is a VERY BIG PART, is stagnant at best, and faltering at worst. It's unclear who controls what, and whether or not petroleum exports will ever be to the pre-2011 levels. It's also clear that to survive in this cutthroat world, Libya needs to diversify exports, potentially to include agricultural products such as olive oil. And of course, handicrafts (pottery, clothing, etc.). If it exists within the country, I'm sure there COULD BE a market for it in the Western Hemisphere.
Then there's the fact that the government of Libya is malfunctioning at best and anarchy at worst. I'd like to believe that it's somewhere in the middle, but from what I've seen and heard (that is to say mostly read), it's "organized chaos" with a more emphasis on chaos. There's the Western government based in Tripoli, backed by the UN and most Western governments, but relatively unpopular amongst Libyans in general. Then there's the eastern part of the country led by General Khalifa Haftar, who seems to be doing as good of a job as possible.
From his Wikipedia page, "... Haftar has been described as "Libya's most potent warlord", having fought "with and against nearly every significant faction" in Libya's conflicts, and as having a "reputation for unrivaled military experience." His shifting roles and alliances have also earned him a reputation as a "stubborn" and "self-serving" leader, seeking to advance his own agenda through an opportunist engagement of relevant actors and foreign supporters."
The last bit, italicized for emphasis, sounds like damn near every politician ever (I'd also make a comparison to POTUS, but that'd be a really low blow to Haftar, who supercedes a certain POTUS in basically every way). And while Libya's 1969 revolution was spearheaded by a military coup of the relatively unpopular-at-the-time monarchy (and led by He Who Shall Not Be Named with input from Haftar), it is CRUCIAL that an "effective" leader have some knowledge of, and preferably, some experience in, the armed services. Deferments for BS "medical reasons" don't honor the military, and no words can cover up cowardice. So yes... Haftar has what it takes as far as understanding conflict within the country. That's a positive.
Especially when said country is in the process of civil war, and eradicating foreign terrorists such as Daesh from their borders. You have to know what you're up against, and how to combat it. And I believe he knows all of that.
I would add a ditty about how some of America's best leaders-- including Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Teddy Roosevelt-- had a strong military background, but it's too America First, and I won't go there. Just barfed in my mouth a bit for what it's worth for having tacitly quoted the POTUS.
Unfortunately, Haftar does "suffer" from the "taint" of having at one time been an ally/top commander of Gaddafi's. While he likely COULD effectively advise and command troops at the national level (instead of operating one of many de facto National Guard-type units., e.g., the multiple militias existing in the country), there are many, including former allies of his, who decry his somewhat unorthodox methods.
It is also believed that General Haftar and Saif al Islam Gaddafi are allies, although some reports suggest otherwise. See-- Libya's Haftar denies insulting Saif al Islam Gaddafi.
It is also said that BOTH Gen. Haftar and Saif al Islam Gaddafi will/are running for the presidency in 2018, which could be interesting. Both men are, within sections of the country, popular. Both men are, with their somewhat unique skill sets, more knowledgeable of the struggles for security that Libya faces.
However, the problem remains, being, the complex nature of organizing a TRULY FAIR election process. Where everyone who WANTS to take place CAN, and where everyone feels like they have a voice in the process. That's where allowing Gaddafi or Haftar to run gets murky. They represent the OLD Libya, the PAST Libya, and to those who sacrificed FOR the revolution, it's a "here we go again" situation.
Again, being American, I could say something really smart ass about the elections process and fairness in it. TWICE in my (Presidential) voting history (I've been registered to vote since May 14, 1999-- two days after my 18th birthday; so yes, I've voted in the MAJOR elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016, not to mention, the minor & midterm ones, including the upcoming March election here in 2018 in which a couple of school measures are up for the vote, and for which I intend to vote "no") has the will of the people, e.g., the popular vote, been ignored, in favor of the electoral college. This system, originally designed to allow smaller states/regions an equal say in electing the nation's highest office(s), is no longer working as intended. That tends to happen when you have OVER a certain number of voters. In 2000, a damned "hanging chad" made the results from Florida be "under doubt" for a good two months. And in 2016, well, America, WHAT HAPPENED?
Considering the STATE of Washington (NO, NOT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, we're talking the rainy, coffee drinking, rather liberal, pot legalizing state), which has roughly a million more people than Libya, or the county of Los Angeles (no comment), with roughly 3.5 million more people, can make elections WORK, then Libya SHOULD be able to. Yet as far as elections go, Libya has basically NEVER known a "fair and balanced" election. Even those under King Idris were heavily corrupt and "purposely" stacked to favor pro-government politicians and positions. TECHNICALLY, women were allowed to vote (and run for office) in Libya from 1920 onward, but few women actually did until Gaddafi.
Yes, there were SOME positives to the 42 years of tyranny. There are also aspects of the Gaddafi regime which somehow, in spite of their flaws, somehow "worked" for the country and its citizens. While a complete purging of the past is desired, a saying from George Santayana comes to mind-- "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And of course, the rest of the quote in which this passage comes from-- "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is NOT retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual." So yes, as distasteful as it is, those who have previously led, or have knowledge of the previous regime, should not only be ALLOWED to run again, but be encouraged to do so. Yes, this may necessitate some "blanket amnesty", or a limited form of it (like what was granted to Saif al Islam Gaddafi by the Tobruk government led by Gen. Khalifa). Libya will remain in a perpetual state of chaos, a perpetual state of infancy in regards to freedom/liberty and justice for all, if they don't recognize the importance of the Gaddafi era in the collective Libyan story.
Excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit more. I would hope someone has the cajones to add some intelligent insight from the inside on this. Because as I've stated a thousand and one times, I am forever an outsider looking in. What I know and believe is secondhand at best, and usually, subject to the bias which MSM will convey.
There were also MANY negative aspects, which could be every day and every blog post until the end of time and STILL NOT adequately cover everything that "went wrong, bad, evil, morally bankrupt, etc." But Libya can and SHOULD use these as a building block to the future. Recognizing what went wrong is a basic beginning.
This is one of those posts I expect will be edited, and done so heavily and often. I just don't have many answers at the moment. Opinions, heck yeah, got them all day and night!
And then there's those who believe that I SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AN OPINION. Yes, I've gotten that from "Libyans" (mostly on Facebook) who are probably really Serbs based on their obvious disdain and dislike of America and Americans (I've been called things worse than a certain person with a supposedly peaceful name ever dreamed of!).
I have several things to say about them and their ilk, none of which are polite. Telling someone they CAN'T have a word is what was done for 42+ years.
Ignoring the West-- and the contributions it could bring to Libya and Libyans-- was yet another "fault" of the previous dictatorship. Disallowing someone's opinion and position because you don't personally LIKE it, or it "threatens" your beliefs, is the first step along the road to tyranny. It isn't helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment