Isis on the march in Libya, threatens to blow more history up

[Thanas]

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isi ... r-tripoli/

Yesterday, ISIS managed to impose full control over the city of Sabratha which is situated some 50 miles west of Tripoli in Libya. Fears are mounting that Islamic State fighters might very well demolish several ancient priceless Roman landmarks in the city including a 3rd-century amphitheatre which is listed as a UNESCO world heritage site.

The capture of the city happened after 30 ISIS trucks, seemingly out of nowhere, were able to launch a major offensive on the city, effectively overwhelming many checkpoints and military outposts belonging to the Islamist coalition of the ‘New General National Congress’, thus forcing their retreat.

In Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State has already blown up countless historic sites in Palmyra and Mosul, including temples, columns and sculptures which the Islamist group claims depicted ‘false idols’ and thus were deemed unIslamic.

ISIS now controls some 15-20 % of Libya with the port town of Sirte firmly under their control along with several oil fields, key neighbourhoods in Benghazi and now the city of Sabratha.

[K. A. Pital]

ISIS now controls some 15-20 % of Libya with the port town of Sirte firmly under their control along with several oil fields, key neighbourhoods in Benghazi and now the city of Sabratha.

There's something I respect Germany for - it was very cautious and wary and did not participate in the recent action in Libya. I think now a lot of people are coming to realize that what happened back then was seriously wrong.

[Thanas]

I am a bit more cynical about Germany's refusal to participate there - IMO at least half of the sentiment to stay out of it was more a result of our perpetual shortages in the army and air force. If we had something like 300 operational planes instead of 30 back then the call might have been a different one.

[Simon_Jester]

The biggest problem in Libya is that we were so used to thinking of Qaddafi as an evil son of a bitch that we didn't look very closely at his opponents.

[Tribble]

I am a bit more cynical about Germany's refusal to participate there - IMO at least half of the sentiment to stay out of it was more a result of our perpetual shortages in the army and air force. If we had something like 300 operational planes instead of 30 back then the call might have been a different one.

Oh right yes I remember our little comparison over which of our armed forces is the most stripped down. Not to worry, my new government has already promised major cutbacks! Though I don't know what cutbacks we can possibly make when our ships are stuck in port for lack of fuel, we don't have live firing exercises for lack of ammo, and we're still raiding museums for spare parts. Plus the previous government already gutted little things like veteran affairs. Maybe we'll have to cut back on how much we feed our geese? (Seriously Canadian geese have brought down more aircraft than our airforce post ww2)

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The biggest problem in Libya is that we were so used to thinking of Qaddafi as an evil son of a bitch that we didn't look very closely at his opponents.

Also, people were still very drunk on the "regime change" koolaid and still are.

[Simon_Jester]

I feel that this is closely related to the first problem- the idea that changing a bad regime leads to a better regime.

[Channel72]

I feel that this is closely related to the first problem- the idea that changing a bad regime leads to a better regime.

It's more about the fact that the US seems to consistently demonstrate ZERO understanding of the underlying evils these brutal dictators were, in fact, keeping in check. It's like Bush and Cheney had this fantasy that removing a brutal dictator automatically results in a Western-style Democracy spontaneously forming. In reality, people like Saddam Hussein, Qadaffi and Assad were in fact keeping in check hardcore Islamist forces that have been percolating since the 70s. And Obama basically just continued implementing Bush doctrine type policies as if he didn't know any better.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, it's not just Bush and Cheney, it's much of the population of the US and for that matter the rest of the developed world. It's not like France or Italy was packed with citizens screaming at their governments for helping to overthrow Qaddafi either.

There's this notion among democratic nations that if you remove a dictator, democracy will follow. It's not based on a real analysis of the actual political dynamics of specific nations; it's based on the historical experience of those same democratic nations. Which, by definition, are the ones where tyranny was removed and replaced with democracy.

[Adam Reynolds]

I am a bit more cynical about Germany's refusal to participate there - IMO at least half of the sentiment to stay out of it was more a result of our perpetual shortages in the army and air force. If we had something like 300 operational planes instead of 30 back then the call might have been a different one.

Oh right yes I remember our little comparison over which of our armed forces is the most stripped down. Not to worry, my new government has already promised major cutbacks! Though I don't know what cutbacks we can possibly make when our ships are stuck in port for lack of fuel, we don't have live firing exercises for lack of ammo, and we're still raiding museums for spare parts. Plus the previous government already gutted little things like veteran affairs. Maybe we'll have to cut back on how much we feed our geese? (Seriously Canadian geese have brought down more aircraft than our airforce post ww2)

Not to say that your country doesn't have problems with its defense budget, but even the USAF hasn't had much in the way of air combat in the last twenty years. The last US aviator to have kills in aerial combat is almost certainly retired. Even in the 2003 Iraq war the USAF and USN failed to get any real aerial kills. The Iraqis just didn't come out to fight, they knew they didn't have a chance and would just be throwing their lives and planes away. Though that is the best sort of victory.

Thing is, it's not just Bush and Cheney, it's much of the population of the US and for that matter the rest of the developed world. It's not like France or Italy was packed with citizens screaming at their governments for helping to overthrow Qaddafi either.

There's this notion among democratic nations that if you remove a dictator, democracy will follow. It's not based on a real analysis of the actual political dynamics of specific nations; it's based on the historical experience of those same democratic nations. Which, by definition, are the ones where tyranny was removed and replaced with democracy.

Even in those countries it was hardly an ideal process, given the reign of terror in France and the fact that America didn't solve its teething problems without an extremely brutal civil war(that killed more than the current Syrian Civil War, though even then, the US was a bigger country). We look at the history today from the perspective that we saw how it ended and thus assume it must have been easy.

Going from a dictatorship to a democracy is always hard and always problematic. Especially in the current Middle East with the problem created by Islamism. What really needs to happen is that Islamism needs to die as a political force. Though that will take awhile. In the meantime secular dictators are the lesser evil.

[Simon_Jester]

Not to say that your country doesn't have problems with its defense budget, but even the USAF hasn't had much in the way of air combat in the last twenty years. The last US aviator to have kills in aerial combat is almost certainly retired. Even in the 2003 Iraq war the USAF and USN failed to get any real aerial kills. The Iraqis just didn't come out to fight, they knew they didn't have a chance and would just be throwing their lives and planes away. Though that is the best sort of victory.

While this is strictly true, the US Air Force at least has the budget to train and supply its planes with munitions. Highly trained pilots with good aircraft and plenty of high performance weapons may not have air to air combat experience, but neither do a lot of their likely opponents (there just haven't been that many major air-to-air wars in recent history). One can be fairly sure that the highly trained, well equipped pilots will perform well and accomplish their missions.

Meanwhile, undertrained pilots with inferior aircraft and very limited stockpiles of high performance weapons will accomplish less, and are more likely to die in either accidents or due to enemy action.

Thing is, it's not just Bush and Cheney, it's much of the population of the US and for that matter the rest of the developed world. It's not like France or Italy was packed with citizens screaming at their governments for helping to overthrow Qaddafi either.

There's this notion among democratic nations that if you remove a dictator, democracy will follow. It's not based on a real analysis of the actual political dynamics of specific nations; it's based on the historical experience of those same democratic nations. Which, by definition, are the ones where tyranny was removed and replaced with democracy.

Even in those countries it was hardly an ideal process, given the reign of terror in France and the fact that America didn't solve its teething problems without an extremely brutal civil war(that killed more than the current Syrian Civil War, though even then, the US was a bigger country). We look at the history today from the perspective that we saw how it ended and thus assume it must have been easy.

That's definitely in play. However, it's hard to look at the history of, for example, France and say that the monarchy was 'the lesser evil' overall... which colors our perception. Even if we're aware that progress is not easy, we have the notion that political revolutions ARE a progressive force and will make the world a better place. So when we see revolutions in Arab countries we use positive metaphors like "Arab Spring..."

Then we notice that many of the revolutionaries are profoundly regressive and, for lack of a better term, evil.

Going from a dictatorship to a democracy is always hard and always problematic. Especially in the current Middle East with the problem created by Islamism. What really needs to happen is that Islamism needs to die as a political force. Though that will take awhile. In the meantime secular dictators are the lesser evil.

The real catch is that while radical Islamic fundamentalism* may seem like the greater evil to us, many actual Muslims do not agree, which is why we have a problem in the first place. We saw this in Egypt- when they held elections, the fundamentalists won.
_____________

*I hate calling it 'Islamism.' Using 'Islamism' implies that the idea of Islam as a political force rather than a purely spiritual force is somehow new. Islam has always been a political ideology as well as a religion; Muhammad's vision of a community of believers was explicitly political and included fairly radical ideas about social behavior, treatment of the weak and vulnerable in society, and so forth. Separation of church and state is just not a thing in Islam, not to anything like the same extent as in Western-derived societies.

The reason is pretty straightforward: whereas Christianity in Western Europe emerged as a parallel power structure independent from the feudal network of warlords that took control in the power vacuum left behind by Rome, Islam was the power structure that ran the Muslim world in the early days of the Caliphate.

[Adam Reynolds]

Meanwhile, undertrained pilots with inferior aircraft and very limited stockpiles of high performance weapons will accomplish less, and are more likely to die in either accidents or due to enemy action.

True, but my point was that citing a lack of aerial kills really doesn't mean that much given modern aerial combat. In any case, the most effective way to kill an enemy air force is to bomb their airfields, as the US has done in every recent war.

That's definitely in play. However, it's hard to look at the history of, for example, France and say that the monarchy was 'the lesser evil' overall... which colors our perception. Even if we're aware that progress is not easy, we have the notion that political revolutions ARE a progressive force and will make the world a better place. So when we see revolutions in Arab countries we use positive metaphors like "Arab Spring..."

Then we notice that many of the revolutionaries are profoundly regressive and, for lack of a better term, evil.

Sadly I suspect that in the future the Arab Spring will not be remembered fondly. Especially the Western response considering it a net positive. In the long run, it sure hasn't been. Unless it means the death of Islamism in the future, though I'm not holding my breath.

Another part of the problem is the natural appeal of the underdog. This is what led both Islam and Christianity to be popular when they formed. The fact that their religions were the underdog against a major political threat.

*I hate calling it 'Islamism.' Using 'Islamism' implies that the idea of Islam as a political force rather than a purely spiritual force is somehow new. Islam has always been a political ideology as well as a religion; Muhammad's vision of a community of believers was explicitly political and included fairly radical ideas about social behavior, treatment of the weak and vulnerable in society, and so forth. Separation of church and state is just not a thing in Islam, not to anything like the same extent as in Western-derived societies.

The reason is pretty straightforward: whereas Christianity in Western Europe emerged as a parallel power structure independent from the feudal network of warlords that took control in the power vacuum left behind by Rome, Islam was the power structure that ran the Muslim world in the early days of the Caliphate.

I understand what you mean, and that is exactly the problem, but I refer to it that way for exactly this reason. If Islam is to enter the 21st century and join global civilization properly, Islamism must die. The religious and political bodies must separated. While that will not be an easy process, it is a fight that must be won. And it is a fight that can only be won by moderate Muslims. Outsiders will only make the problem worse.

In the short term the West simply needs to attempt stay out of it as much as possible. Though given problems like ISIS that is difficult at best.

[Simon_Jester]

Meanwhile, undertrained pilots with inferior aircraft and very limited stockpiles of high performance weapons will accomplish less, and are more likely to die in either accidents or due to enemy action.

True, but my point was that citing a lack of aerial kills really doesn't mean that much given modern aerial combat. In any case, the most effective way to kill an enemy air force is to bomb their airfields, as the US has done in every recent war.

OK, but correct me if I'm wrong but the original point was that a nation with a very very undertrained air force with 'thin' stockpiles of parts and weapons would be wise to keep its forces out of any optional wars.

Am I wrong?

*I hate calling it 'Islamism.' Using 'Islamism' implies that the idea of Islam as a political force rather than a purely spiritual force is somehow new. Islam has always been a political ideology as well as a religion; Muhammad's vision of a community of believers was explicitly political and included fairly radical ideas about social behavior, treatment of the weak and vulnerable in society, and so forth. Separation of church and state is just not a thing in Islam, not to anything like the same extent as in Western-derived societies.

The reason is pretty straightforward: whereas Christianity in Western Europe emerged as a parallel power structure independent from the feudal network of warlords that took control in the power vacuum left behind by Rome, Islam was the power structure that ran the Muslim world in the early days of the Caliphate.

I understand what you mean, and that is exactly the problem, but I refer to it that way for exactly this reason. If Islam is to enter the 21st century and join global civilization properly, Islamism must die. The religious and political bodies must separated.

I'm not actually so sure of that.

What needs to happen is evolution. Islam, in itself, contains many threads and traditions that are far more compatible with living in functional modern societies than what the radical Sunni fundamentalists are promoting. Nothing that has changed about the modern world compels us to the conclusion that there is no viable, characteristically Muslim, way to build a civilization.

And there are a lot of things about Western society as we know it that are clearly... not all they're cracked up to be. Our families and social groups are atomized. Our approach to sexuality and work, combined, is making it very hard to fit childbirth in with our expectations about work and careers*. Our economy is massively based on debt, and the individual's economic experience is dominated by debts.

So look at a civilization which historically never rejected extended family ties, doesn't particularly like debt and the payment of interest, and at least has a different basis for establishing new norms for relations between the sexes and customs for childrearing... Maybe they'll find some useful strategies for being functional, which we would not find left to our own devices.
_________________________________

*Among other things, this is resulting in a world where the people who are having most of the kids and the people with good career prospects to provide a good life for those kids are not the same people. That's... not the way it used to be, and there are alarming trends that can emerge out of that problem.

While that will not be an easy process, it is a fight that must be won. And it is a fight that can only be won by moderate Muslims. Outsiders will only make the problem worse.

Part of this is, it's not linear, it's not a continuum where "the West" has a goodness value of 100% and Sunni fundies have a goodness value of 0% and everyone else is in between and the more 'Western' they become the better they are.

This is why the Sunni fundamentalists were getting so much traction in these societies ruled by secular dictatorships, why they had enough popular support to win elections in their own right. The secular dictators were often very Western in outlook, adopting many of the trappings of Western government and marginalizing many of the traditional structures of Islamic culture... and yet these dictators were bad. They brutalized people, mismanaged their countries, and were not responsive to the wishes or needs of the people.

This leads to a deliberate, considered strategy of rejecting the West and all its works, simply because of the belief that 'anything has to be better than this!' where "this" is colonialism, imperialism, and tyranny.

[ArmorPierce]

I am not convinced that the situation in these countries becoming destabilized is completely an accident as opposed to a mix of apathy, attempts to destabilize foreign nations through divide and conquer approach (has been done for many centuries), and score political points under the guise of 'helping' them. I don't think politicians that all the politicians are complete fools, they rose to the top by being able to convince others to support them.

[K. A. Pital]

Revolutionaries or counterrevolutionaries?

The first revolutionary-secular wave from Nasser to Mossadegh was not imperialist but anti-imperialist, not colonialist but anticolonial and at the same time secular modernizing to be able to run industries, win wars against former masters, improve the education of these nations.

These governments experienced a decline in popularity after initial setbacks; their heirs were more, shall we say... Thermidorian.

But the "revolutionaries" funded by the House of Saud and Qatari sheikhs are, in fact, heirs to the old counterrevolutionary, reactionary-feudal or reactionary-monarchist movements.

Who is the revolutionary?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, at this point, people like Assad and (formerly) Qaddafi were the status quo in their respective countries. The people seeking to overthrow them are revolutionaries in the general sense even if not in the Marxist sense, because they intend a radical alteration of the status quo, after which nothing would ever be quite the same.