Is someone asking these questions about Libya?

All around, or at least in the US media, every inch of progress by the rebel forces in Libya is hailed and announced time and over, with a literal celebration breaking out when the capital was run over. We hear from ordinary Libyan citizens expressing that they are finally free to express what they like, reaffirming the value of the "freedom" the NATO troops and the rebels are bringing to the country. The messages from Col. Gaddafi about his wish to fight till martyrdom for his country are portrayed as a mad dictator's rant. Confirmed news of his capture and death will perhaps make this story less interesting, and we move on to the next country.

I am, however, intrigued by a few things. And I am hoping someone who is showering bullets and ammo at the Libyan government forces is also thinking this through. First of all, and this is of my paramount concern, why is the Colonel still sticking up? What is it that he believes in? Armed gunmen running amok through the streets of the country aren't welcome for any leader, even a dictator as him. So if he genuinely believes he is defending his country against someone, maybe we ought to hear him out, and his speeches should be published full text as well sometimes? And what about the forces he commands? Surely every single man in there does not owe a personal allegiance to the leader? What is it that they are defending? Why are they fighting, if they are rational people? Is there a difference in perception and propaganda?

Next, what about the rebels? I heard on NPR that there isn't a leader - everybody is claiming that he is one. Could Libya be headed towards the way of Iraq, with no leader after the so-called "victory" of the rebels? After this event, or even right now, who is ensuring the basic safety of civilians? How do you know that women aren't being raped or shops aren't being looted by the rebels themselves? There isn't a government in command, remember?

The US and other NATO countries are covertly arming these rebels, and helping them with logistical support. Who would be responsible for these sophisticated weaponry after the conflict is over? If there isn't a proper government, are you sure that you aren't creating another Afghanistan after the Cold War? What guarantee do you have that another Osama bin Laden would not be created? Or that these very weapons wouldn't be used in cities like Mumbai and Srinagar to target innocent civilians?

Finally, what after the war? Could there be a civil war, using the weapons we are dropping off there now? How do we know that the state wouldn't get converted into a radical Islamist state with more terrorists coming out to haunt us? And it would be easy to tell them, "Look the rest of the world joined forces in attacking us and made us kill one another". There is a virtual civil war already in progress - Libyan people killing off other Libyan people! What makes this stop?

I know, I know - there are lots of oil refineries in Libya and those are the very reason you are after the country. But please, make sure you know what you are doing before you fire the next gunshot.


  1. Food for thought. Charlie Wilson's War, anyone?

  2. Arunava, wow... haven't watched that movie yet. I need to see it now, after the quick glance at wikipedia.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts