Libya: Hope After Qaddafi

Last weekend, the Libyan people went to vote in the first election since dictator Muammer Qaddafi was killed last year.

Despite a hodgepodge of 142 parties and 2,500 individual candidates coupled with concerns about the political clout of Tripoli relative to the Eastern and Southern portions of the country, the overarching feeling of many voters throughout the country has been one of hope and optimism for the future.

Many analysts are not exactly sure what might come out of these elections, though Islamists are expected to do well.

The reason for such uncertainty is because many voters voted for local candidates unaffiliated with a political party. This is a sound strategy in the first election after a repressive dictatorship. Voters hope by choosing local candidates that they know, they can prevent the creation of another Qaddafi.

Is Libya A Model for NATO?

 Although the premise behind the NATO mission in Libya of few troops on the ground and overwhelming air support may hold appeal for those advocating a more interventional foreign policy, the conflict in Libya should be treated as an exception rather than a rule.

 Every conflict is fought on different battlefields. In Libya, we had a opposition force fighting a narrowly supported dictator, there wasn’t a superpower standing behind Gadhafi and as far as I know, there was only brief of putting troops on the ground. This would be the ideal situation, but wars aren’t fought in ideal situations.

Not every dictator has such a dogged group willing to fight them and not every dictator is as hated as Gadhafi. What if we back a group and the group fizzles or is more interested in pocket lining? We obviously can’t leave an angry dictator on his perch, requiring major boots on the ground. If we miscalculate the scope of the opposition, than we end up on the business end of a civil war.

The bottom line is that NATO was the beneficiary of an advantageous set of circumstances that though ideal can’t be depended on to occur again.

Qaddafi Dead?

Well this wasn’t exactly the news I was expecting to wake up to this morning. Various news outlets have been reporting over the last several hours that Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi has been killed. If confirmed, this would bring an end to forty + years of head games with the international community.

Qaddafi was one of the most colorful world leaders on the global stage from his cadre of Eastern European female bodyguards to his bizarre rambling commentaries like claiming that Obama was his son during one of his last appearances before the United Nations. For all his theatrics and rhetorical grenades, there was another very dark side to Qaddafi.

He was a state sponsor of terrorism, most notably the Pan Am Flight 103 attack over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988. Various sources also linked him to a deal with the AQ Khan Nuclear Network based in Pakistan that would’ve given Libya nuclear materials. These actions suggest that Qaddafi understood a basic axiom of international politics: A small state can be made big through force of action.

Domestically, Qaddafi terrorized his people, killing untold numbers of individuals who dared stand against him, in the most brutal ways known to mankind. To say, I won’t mourn his death is an understatement, but one certainly can’t deny there won’t be another like Muammar Qaddafi .