DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Let's arm Libya, then dodge our own bullets

**niemamczasu** · 02-04-2011, 08:41 AM

What do the pro-Libya intervention suggest Gaddafi should have done in response to the rebellion?

That's a hard question as it's in response of the "rebellion", not the "protests". It means the crowd had already been fired at and violence was already in progress. I actually have little idea of how the early events unfolded, where to say the "protests" ended and when the "rebellion" began. An easy answer would be to not have used violence against protesters, as to not produce the rebellion. That would have equaled mostly to stepping down, which I guess isn't an acceptable answer.
It's also a hard question because of the context, let's say twenty years of what's been described as repression, tribal tensions and a lack of trust in his own army. Given that, another easy answer - to follow strict RoE, to avoid casualties when possible and mostly repress with "western" standards - would be flawed. Which is also a problem, because to justify a counter-insurrection the UN would have mostly expected from him a "western" behavior, unfitted to his country.

Basically your question isn't, should he have stepped down, but could he have repressed the rebellion in a manner that wouldn't have started an international effort against him. If the army in the east had proved more reliable, probably yes, he could have. If he had specialized units at hand, using his army to only fight rebels outside towns or at town's entrances, maybe... It's also probable that he couldn't do better with his media campaign, as he had to convince his country as much as the international community - and he really tried all he could.
As to repress it non violently... I truly don't know, and have to suppose it wasn't feasible.
Gaddafi couldn't do much more to... either maintain the unity of Libya or stay in power, depending on which side you support. He had to bet that the international community wouldn't intervene, and he could have succeeded. So he did nothing wrong to end the rebellion. And he has the right to counter-insurrection. But the only option left was apparently to massacre - I'll allow myself that term - which, of course, wasn't acceptable.

I have to guess, for an interventionist, the answer should be something like "he should have stepped down".

02-04-2011, 08:41 AM	#38
niemamczasu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 440 Senior Member	What do the pro-Libya intervention suggest Gaddafi should have done in response to the rebellion? That's a hard question as it's in response of the "rebellion", not the "protests". It means the crowd had already been fired at and violence was already in progress. I actually have little idea of how the early events unfolded, where to say the "protests" ended and when the "rebellion" began. An easy answer would be to not have used violence against protesters, as to not produce the rebellion. That would have equaled mostly to stepping down, which I guess isn't an acceptable answer. It's also a hard question because of the context, let's say twenty years of what's been described as repression, tribal tensions and a lack of trust in his own army. Given that, another easy answer - to follow strict RoE, to avoid casualties when possible and mostly repress with "western" standards - would be flawed. Which is also a problem, because to justify a counter-insurrection the UN would have mostly expected from him a "western" behavior, unfitted to his country. Basically your question isn't, should he have stepped down, but could he have repressed the rebellion in a manner that wouldn't have started an international effort against him. If the army in the east had proved more reliable, probably yes, he could have. If he had specialized units at hand, using his army to only fight rebels outside towns or at town's entrances, maybe... It's also probable that he couldn't do better with his media campaign, as he had to convince his country as much as the international community - and he really tried all he could. As to repress it non violently... I truly don't know, and have to suppose it wasn't feasible. Gaddafi couldn't do much more to... either maintain the unity of Libya or stay in power, depending on which side you support. He had to bet that the international community wouldn't intervene, and he could have succeeded. So he did nothing wrong to end the rebellion. And he has the right to counter-insurrection. But the only option left was apparently to massacre - I'll allow myself that term - which, of course, wasn't acceptable. I have to guess, for an interventionist, the answer should be something like "he should have stepped down".
	Quote