Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1 Who Is Fighting Libya's Civil War? 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    A very good, very brief summary of the tribal groups in Libya and their relationship to the central government. Also highlights key differences between Libya and the other Arab states that are engaged in similar conflicts.

    April 27, 2011
    By Khaled Nasir

    The Arab uprisings in the Middle East have swept the region like wildfire in recent time -- the fall of the Tunisian president had a domino effect throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Both Tunisia and Egypt's regimes have been burned, and the fire is spreading to Jordan, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, and perhaps even Iran.

    The Libyan conflict seems to be a prime concern of the international community now. Fighting between Moammar Gaddafi's loyalists and the rebels, which has centered mostly on the coastal city of Benghazi, appears to have reached a deadlock.

    As with all the other revolutionary situations across the Middle East, the Libyan conflict is multifaceted and abstruse. Included among the many causative factors are the prolonged era of Gaddafi, the complex tribal relationships in Libya, and a lack of a formal government structure or constitution.

    Tribal relationships in Gaddafi's Libya
    Gaddafi's rise to power says much about the connections among the tribal societies living in Libya. The Libyan potentate adopted a policy of playing patron to some of the tribes; by selectively filling his staff, Gaddafi was able to play on tribal identity to make entire tribes loyal to his regime.

    Most notably, Gaddafi's assumption of power in 1969 resulted in members of the Gaddafi tribe (the "Qadhadhifa") and the allied Maqarha and Warfalla tribes taking over all key positions in the security arena, including the armed forces, the police, and the intelligence services. For obvious reasons, it was never expected that in the event of a political uprising, any given member of these well-represented tribes would renounce his own tribal affiliation and defect to the opposition. However, the Warfalla tribe opposed Gaddafi's harsh treatment of the opposition, and its members accordingly distanced themselves from the Gaddafi tribe.

    Of course, the Warfalla tribe can afford to change course on account of its power and influence. (Smaller tribes are less likely to have this choice.) In Tripolitania, which is in northwestern Libya, the Warfalla tribe, in addition to the Wana Farsha and Tarhunis tribes, traditionally has played a central role. The small and otherwise insignificant Gaddafi tribe, which allied with the Warfalla tribe and whose territory borders the Surte region in the east, took on a politically central and dominant role when Gaddafi came to power -- a position it has been able to maintain since then by entering into tribal alliances.

    People, mercenaries, and democratic reform
    Libya has not had a constitution since 1977, which means that, unlike Tunisia or Egypt, it has no legal frame of reference. That is why statements about future developments in Libya are impossible to make. However, it is clear that the Libyan military, the domestic opposition, the opposition among exiles, and the Islamists will play a role -- and this against the background of their respective tribal affiliations. No matter what happens, more tribes than ever before will have to be represented, be it in a new transitional government or in a government of national unity.

    The familial and tribal intricacies in Libya coupled with the money coming from the oil revenue make it very hard for NATO to stop Gaddafi's loyalists from advancing to Misrata or Benghazi. And Libya's oil-based riches have allowed the regime to hire loyalists and mercenaries alike. Indeed, reports that the Gaddafi government has used mercenaries mainly from Sub-Saharan Africa (and the former Yugoslavia) have drawn attention to the African Union Convention on the Elimination of mercenaries in Africa. Media reports have claimed that Gaddafi's loyalists have recruited Ghanaian mercenaries, paying them a colossal 2,500 dollars per day. There are also claims that advertisements for mercenaries have appeared in Nigerian newspapers. Ukrainian and Serbian mercenaries have been reported to be fighting alongside Gaddafi loyalists -- a charge reinforced by the fact that Libya used Serbian fighters to put down a civilian uprising in the 1990s.

    Libya compared to other states
    Unlike Egypt and Tunisia, where the militaries have a tradition of loyalty to the state and to the armed forces as an institution, the regular Libyan military has been kept deliberately weak and divided by Gaddafi (who seized power as a 28-year-old Army captain with a few hundred confederates in 1969).

    The best-trained and equipped forces in the country are paramilitary units commanded by Gaddafi's friends and family members, who answer directly to him. At present, only the generals in power could convince Gaddafi to negotiate with the rebels, but the majority of the military stand strongly behind their leader. Furthermore, much of Gaddafi's military forces are controlled by his three sons, making it very difficult for any outsider to penetrate the command and control structure of pro-Gaddafi forces.

    Current understanding of the democracy process in Libya pinpoints three groups believed to be instrumental in challenging the authoritarian regime: political parties, the Islamist movement, and human rights and other civil society organizations. In short, the focus has been on highly institutionalized actors operating in the formal public sphere. In Libya, there were no opposition parties catalyzing, organizing, and leading citizen movements (as in Egypt or Tunisia). These popular forces were all but missing from the scene at the outset. As for the human rights groups, their role in awakening citizens or mobilizing them into activism has been minimal to nonexistent.

    In spite of NATO's best efforts to cooperate with the opposition generals and restore order, the nation of Libya remains mired in a bloody labyrinth of tribal ties and political intrigue. Many lives, both Libyan and foreign, have been lost already. Though President Obama refuses to authorize ground troops to upset the current stalemate, he has decided to support NATO's use of drone attacks to bring down the Gaddafi regime. Whether this action has any effect whatsoever has yet to be seen.

    Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...s_civil_w.html at April 27, 2011 - 09:23:23 AM CDT
    __________________________________________________ ____
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    American supplied NATO
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    I thought huge droves of American liberals answered the call of O Blah Blah and were holding high the standard of liberal armies everywhere.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    American supplied NATO
    For once, you are right. And we've taken the side of al Qaeda. How stupid is that?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    For once, you are right. And we've taken the side of al Qaeda. How stupid is that?
    We backed Saddam against Iran, what turned into the Taliban against the Rooskies and now just one bunch of head choppers in Libya against another bunch of head choppers in Libya.

    Based on that I am assuming this was a rhetorical question?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Madisonian View Post
    We backed Saddam against Iran, what turned into the Taliban against the Rooskies and now just one bunch of head choppers in Libya against another bunch of head choppers in Libya.
    The Pakistani Intelligence Service...the ISI is the Taliban's Dr. Frankenstein. And they continue to provide support to them today.

    The U.S. and the CIA supported the homegrown Afghan Mujahideen...and only then with the limited support of stinger missiles and instruction on how to defeat soviet mines.

    When we compare the ideology of the two extremist groups, both have their ideologies based on Islam religion. The Taliban has an anti-modern ideology, which can be called as an innovative form of sharia combining Pashtun tribal codes. Taliban's ideology can be seen as departure from the Islamism of Mujahideens.

    The Mujahideen's have based their ideology completely in defending religious faith. They even think of fighting for faith and dying for faith. The Mujahideen ideology can be termed as a blend of Islamic fundamentalism.

    1. Taliban or Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 until they were ousted from power by the US military.
    2. Mujahideen groups fought against the pro-Soviet Afghan government during the late 1970s
    3. Taliban was born out of anger against Mujahideens.
    http://www.differencebetween.net/mis...nd-mujahideen/


    In reality, the Taliban is a military and political force trained and built by Pakistan. While it is true that the Talib foot soldiers are young Afghans who studied in religious schools in Pakistan during the Soviet war, the higher officials of the Taliban are made up of former communist government officials and puppets controlled by Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. There are even Pakistanis amongst them. Both Asiaweek (Not so hidden hand, 11/25/96), and Times Magazine (Friends of the Taliban (November, 1996) presented stories of Pakistanis captured amongst the Talib fighters. Time Magazine even published photographs of Pakistani prisoners, who were captured by the Afghan government, led by President Burhanuddin Rabbani.

    The Taliban were trained by the Frontier Constabulary, a para-military force of the Interior Ministry of Pakistan. At that time it was headed by Gen. Nasrullah Babar. The ISI, were not involved in the earlier stages of Taliban development, but they definitely had a hand in the later stages. After Pakistan properly prepared the Taliban, they spread the news that the Taliban is a group fighting the corruption amongst the Mujahideen, on grounds of Islamic convictions and the need to establish peace in that country.

    <snip>


    Pakistan created the Taliban, for the purpose of having indirect control over the policies made in Afghanistan. If Pakistan successfully installs a puppet regime in Afghanistan, they will benefit economically, the Durand treaty will be extended, and Afghanistan will continue to live occupied and in the dark ages.
    http://www.afghan-web.com/articles/story.html
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    For once, you are right. And we've taken the side of al Qaeda. How stupid is that?
    pretty stupid
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    pretty stupid
    Again, we agree. I must check the weather reports to see if Hell has opened an ice-skating rink.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •