Libyan Civil War Megathread

[Ed Anger]

Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.

We were wrong to rebel actually.

Rule under a bunch of Josq's? Hell. On. Earth.

[Berkut]

Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.

We were wrong to rebel actually.

Well, no, that is not really the correct conclusion at all.

We were perfectly right to rebel - in fact, the lack of any overt oppression makes our rebellion that much more principled! Or something...

[Caliga]

We were wrong to rebel because doing so means I can't legitimately complain about wanting to get rid of the monarchy.  Also, I would have gotten those free days off when Harry and Kate got married.

[DGuller]

And we would've had socialized medicine by now. 

[Caliga]

And we would've had socialized medicine by now. 

Oh, I forgot about that.  Thanks for reminding me.

Nobody is going to take away my right to suffer with no help GODDAMNIT.

[Malthus]

What if the French in the American revolutionary War had said "Oh man, the Americans are in a stalemate! This is the worst case scenario, lets abandon them! We never should have helped to begin with!". Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.

Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... 

[alfred russel]

I disagree completely. This is not even close to "one of the worst scenarios" - people fighting to get out from under a dictator makes the "worst scenario" pretty simple. It is when the dictator wins and they get to look forward to another 50 years of dictatorship since it means the dictator just become an order of magnitude stronger.

Worst case scenario? North Korea is the "worst case scenario" that can result from intervention, or not intervening and letting the dictator win - although in that case at least we managed to keep South Korea from that same fate, so the "worst case" only applied to half the country instead of the whole.

You are suffering from the fallacy of seeing a situation at the worst moment (or just a bad moment, it could get even worse before it gets better), and assuming this is the end state. It is only the end state if you convince yourself that it cannot be better, and simply give up. This is the error made by those who said the US should bail from Iraq when the insurgency was at its worst, because it was the "worst case" outcome.

And even if the entire thing eventually fails, and the worst case scenario still does come about, I won't regret supporting people trying to overthrow a dictator. Even with all their Islamic bonkers warts.

What if the French in the American revolutionary War had said "Oh man, the Americans are in a stalemate! This is the worst case scenario, lets abandon them! We never should have helped to begin with!". Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.

According to Wikipedia, Libya had a nominal GDP of just over $11k. Granted, there was a lot of income inequality, but that would be right at the top of Latin America (if not the top) and ahead of parts of Eastern Europe. The country isn't analogous to Egypt, which was under $2k. This was a decent middle country. Now it is relying on aid shipments, and there is a breakdown in law and order.Whether or not this will have a long term happy ending, it is a short term catastrophe, and you are contemplating "food security" jokes.

This isn't the American Revolution. Aside from why France was intervening (I suspect they cared more about crippling the British Empire than whether the colonies descended into chaos), the colonies were quite well organized, had a government tradition on which to rely once the British were removed, and they had many leaders available. The Libyans have none of those things. What odds would you put on Libya being a stable democracy in 5-10 years? I'd put the number quite low.

[Legbiter]

3000 Légionnaires and this shit would be over in a month. What's with the pussyfooting.

I am intrigued by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[DGuller]

If there is one lesson to be learned from the last decade, it's that tradition of governance is extremely important.  Without good governance, removing the tyrants running the country is ultimately futile. 

Of course, it's often catch-22, because tyrants with survival instinct make sure that there is no tradition of governance left that doesn't hinge on them, but armed intervention unfortunately does not break that vicious circle.

[Zanza2]

About the only good policy of the German government in the last few months was not to get involved with this shit. We should have voted in favor at the UN though.

[Berkut]

What if the French in the American revolutionary War had said "Oh man, the Americans are in a stalemate! This is the worst case scenario, lets abandon them! We never should have helped to begin with!". Of course, that analogy falls down only to the extent that British rule was vastly more benevolent that Qaddafi's dictatorship.

Also because the French bankrupted themselves by intervening, leading to all sorts of trouble for themselves and the rest of Europe ... 

True. They did kind of run into some problems of their own a little bit later, IIRC. Some kind of trouble in Paris or something? I forget how it all worked out for the French monarchy...

[Berkut]

If there is one lesson to be learned from the last decade, it's that tradition of governance is extremely important.  Without good governance, removing the tyrants running the country is ultimately futile. 

Of course, it's often catch-22, because tyrants with survival instinct make sure that there is no tradition of governance left that doesn't hinge on them, but armed intervention unfortunately does not break that vicious circle.

Does rebellion?

I am operating under the presumption that any form of democracy, even unstable, fucked up democracy, is much more likely to end up with a good outcome in the long run than continued dictatorship under a tyrant who is clearly unwilling to give up power peacefully.

Obviously the ideal solution is convincing the tyrant to transition away from dictatorship peacefully and in a controlled manner, but at some point, it becomes clear that simply is not going to happen - I think that point has been reached in many cases in the Middle East - and some of the responsibility for that reality is carried by the West for propping up these regimes. We cannot claim to be disinterested observers now, IMO.

So the question then becomes what we should do when people do in fact rebel. Do we sit back and watch them get crushed, or do we help?

[Berkut]

According to Wikipedia, Libya had a nominal GDP of just over $11k. Granted, there was a lot of income inequality, but that would be right at the top of Latin America (if not the top) and ahead of parts of Eastern Europe. The country isn't analogous to Egypt, which was under $2k. This was a decent middle country. Now it is relying on aid shipments, and there is a breakdown in law and order.Whether or not this will have a long term happy ending, it is a short term catastrophe, and you are contemplating "food security" jokes.

I think that is MY point - that you should not make long term decisions (as in we should get out and stop helping) based on short term realities.

This isn't the American Revolution.

True enough.

Aside from why France was intervening (I suspect they cared more about crippling the British Empire than whether the colonies descended into chaos),

Of course - but that doesn't really matter in respect to my point about France bailing because at some particular point the fight was not going as well as one might hope. There will almost always be a point where things are not going as well as one might hope. It if foolish to make decisions about the long term viability based on the instant reality of the moment. Like deciding that WW2 was not winnable 5 minutes after Pearl Harbor, because that outcome was so terribly bad.

the colonies were quite well organized, had a government tradition on which to rely once the British were removed, and they had many leaders available. The Libyans have none of those things. What odds would you put on Libya being a stable democracy in 5-10 years? I'd put the number quite low.

I think whatever the number is, it is quite a bit higher than if we let Qaddafi win. And I don't think the bar for success is "stable democracy in 5 years" anyway. The question is not "Are we certain that if we help the rebels will Libya will be a stable democracy in 5 years (or 10)". The question is "Should we support people trying to overthrow a dictactor, or should we ignore them?"

I think you are creating a false dilemna - saying that unless we can be assured of some outcome, we should not take action. If you use that criteria, then you will never take any action....ever. Because there are no sure outcomes.

[DGuller]

Does rebellion?

Actually, I wonder if there are any examples of totalitarian tyrants being replaced by surviving democracy through armed rebellion.  It's very much possible that I'm forgetting some examples, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.  It seems like democracy usually comes about when absolute rulers gradually relax their grip after more moderate pressure.

[alfred russel]

I think whatever the number is, it is quite a bit higher than if we let Qaddafi win. And I don't think the bar for success is "stable democracy in 5 years" anyway. The question is not "Are we certain that if we help the rebels will Libya will be a stable democracy in 5 years (or 10)". The question is "Should we support people trying to overthrow a dictactor, or should we ignore them?"

I think you are creating a false dilemna - saying that unless we can be assured of some outcome, we should not take action. If you use that criteria, then you will never take any action....ever. Because there are no sure outcomes.

The starting point of any decision needs to be that intervention could (and in this case has) resulted in a stalemate where millions have had their economic lives significantly disrupted, infrastructure has been destroyed, thousands of rapes and murders have taken place, tenuous routes for international aid are now needed to meet food and medical requirements, education has been disrupted, etc.

Is the level of intervention we are providing likely to produce an outcome that helps peoples lives to such an extent that the short term troubles are worth it? You can't just put a team democracy t-shirt on and say any price that by some small percent increases the chance of democracy is worth it.

Afghanistan is a great example. It was different in that we were fighting the Cold War, but in hindsight the war we helped them fight against the Soviets was a disaster. They may have won, but it actually eroded the cause of democracy and freedom.