The Libyan Civil War

[tcaudilllg]

I'm not calling it an uprising because I don't think the sentiment is universal. These aren't real protests, but popular revolts.

A key element of Mubarak's fall was his ethical distance from most Egyptians. He was a personal ethical egoist and that sentiment doesn't play well with like 80% (or more) of the people. People of divergent values will nonetheless unite over a sense of common emotional disgust.

I don't think that's the case in Libya. The Libya case is very unusual because it's an instance of radical progressivism at its effective nationalist zenith. We see a leader who at once rules by consensus and brute force -- consensus when it is available, brute force when his position is threatened by a leader of superior ability with regard to an issue. Gadhafi is not a team player, however he does a very good job of looking like one. But he also rules somewhat like a king: he seems more like a person who receives requests for specific opportunities to act, and determines whether or not to grant them based on their qualifications, than a person who takes credit for others' accomplishments. He is an enabler who tightly controls opportunities and zealously guards against people who would take control of these opportunities. In this sense, he is anti-free-market because he insists on keeping opportunity control centralized, rather than dictated by wealth and resource holdings (although he has plenty of both).

While Gadhafi is indeed eccentric, his paranoia and craziness is balanced by his son, who is notably more level headed if no less ruthless. I don't see his son as particularly prone to mistakes like his father. His son IS LSI -- a simple VI analysis reveals that unambiguously -- and moreover seems at least as reasonable, in essence, as Hamid Karzai.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...addafi-madness

Silly quibbles over sports game outcomes reflect a deeper consequentialist sentiment: the continuous specter of danger demands a ruthless series of signals that one is not vulnerable. The game outcomes could conceivably be considered a sign of weakness (paranoia, I know) and so they are to be controlled to prevent the embarrassment of the head of state. Of course the outcome could have , but consequentialists are nothing if not shameless.

Saadi is a smart guy, and because of that I firmly expect him to keep his forces together. This is not to say that Gadhafi will not be defeated -- 10k soldiers is nothing against what will probably be an organized citizens militia of several times that number in a number of weeks -- but it looks unlikely that his defeat will be quick. The U.S. will probably not intervene unless asked directly by a commander-in-chief of this militia, so for the short term the regime may have the benefit of its aircraft. There is also the matter of his considerable oil wealth, which the family is apparently already putting to use paying African mercenaries. Not to mention that that wealth won't exactly be seeping away with export money headed directly to his coffers.

There seems to be a certain volatility in the oil markets. Is there a possibility OPEC will leave any supply disruptions in Libya be as a means of punishing the Western democracies for their support of these revolts?

At any rate, more democratic control of nations probably means a stronger UN and a weaker U.S.. The situation draws closer to the -- inevitable -- reigning in of the American Christian Right by regulations of U.S. military activity, perhaps by targeted sanctions. The democratization of Earth will unleash a new form of international rivalry in which more socially progressed democracies look down on less so progressed democracies, as is already hinted at by U.S. conservative fears of/contempt for Europeans.

[tcaudilllg]

This just in: Castro is warning of a NATO-led invasion of Libya. This could get really serious.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

Castro and others of his ilk frequently broadcast propagandistic warnings like this to bolster the facade that they are the best and truest defense against imperialistic existential threats. These cries of "WOLF!" also serve to keep the populace doubtful of counter-claims, and vigilant against dissidents, spies (or "spies"), and other challenges to these despots' arrogated and fragile authority.

A helpful tip:

Hyperventilation refers to excessively deep, rapid breathing to the extent that the patient develops noticeable symptoms. It is an unconscious response to stressful or exciting situations. The individual may feel strangely light-headed, and may feel characteristic tingling of the lips and fingertips (a dead giveaway for diagnosis). Persons who hyperventilate feel as if they will faint but rarely do. Their behavior is often mistaken for a seizure, leading to an exciting ride to the emergency room.

These effects are brought about because overventilation (too rapid movement of air in and out) of the lungs causes blood carbon dioxide levels to fall below the normal. This reduces the acidity of the blood, which in turn causes calcium levels to fall in the body fluids. It is this derangement of temporary low calcium levels that causes temporary nerve symptoms such as the tingling.

Curing the symptoms of hyperventilation basically consists of stopping the behavior. Calm, slower, more shallow breathing is in order. Rebreathing exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2) by breathing into a paper sack is helpful. As the CO2 level in the paper bag rises, so will the CO2 level in the bloodstream rise, restoring normal acidity and normal blood calcium levels.

Frequent or incapacitating hyperventilation episodes probably warrant a review of stressful triggers and certainly a discussion with your child's physician about the problem. Some children and adolescents hyperventilate to a degree during exercise and may have some anxiety about the feelings of chest tightness they experience. A visit to the doctor may be in order for your physician to explain what is going on to your son or daughter and give some reassurance that nothing serious is going on.

[WVBRY]

I dont know about Mubarack's type, but Kadiffi is a beta and he will fight till the last drop of blood is sapped from his body if has to, and probably will have to.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

Qaddafi's situation and likely fate brought this song and band to mind:

[tcaudilllg]

I actually expect Gadhafi to hang on. Or rather, I expect his LSI son to hang on by being utterly ruthless. I see Gadhafi managing to hold Tripoli and take back several surrounding cities. The struggle will be for the oil once the battle lines are drawn.

I see this whole thing turning into another Iran-contra scenario, with the U.S. backing the rebels and the Russians backing Gadhafi. In fact, expect the security council resolution tomorrow to be vetoed by Russia.

The crucial mistake of the rebellion was its intent on executing Gadhafi and his family. Because of that, I think they destroyed their own legitimacy. They aren't fighting for Libya but for their own pride. The protests are not meant to overturn corruption in the government but to destroy the government itself. Gadhafi realized this immediately and responded as he would against a rebel army -- the protestors are an army which fights by creating outrage through provocation and self-sacrifice. The protest leaders aren't any better than Gadhafi, I don't think, and this truth will be born out over the next few years as the civil war between Benghazi and Tripoli drags on.

There is in fact the possibility of a return to the monarchy in Benghazi.

People think that Gadhafi will use chemical weapons against his own people. He won't: he's smarter than that and understands that such an act would be more than even his inner circle could stomach. Instead he will keep shooting up the protestors until he takes back the cities around Tripoli. Non-violent protest does not work when there isn't a social contract to mitigate it -- just ask the Tibetans.

What the Libyans fail to understand is that they are in the grip of discord. Gadhafi has sowed it into their hearts and they can't see beyond it. Libya is a toxic state.

[tcaudilllg]

Central to Gadhafi's power is his personality. Although charismatic to those who mean him no harm, he is also a level 4 discordant. Generally, level 4 discordants perform a temperance role, corralling in all or most of the lower level discordants (read: crazies) in their society and exalting them to rely on "the system" as a means to power. The sentiments of Ron Paul express level 4 discordant philosophy well enough -- they are plagued by self-doubts and internal questionings of their grip of reality, and as such rarely push as hard as they might for the reforms they believe in, but rationally question.

In democracies, discordant people rarely get elected. But when they do, or when they manage to take power in a coup or through inheritance of the throne, all of a sudden the inmates are running the asylum. All those people who they had counseled to obey the system are now a firm base of fundamentalist support on behalf of the leader's principles. In the case of sociopathy (egoistic discordancy or personal ethical egoism), this loyalty may not actually be very strong; but when the leader has normative ethics then there is no disgust factor by which the followers can distance themselves -- they remain beholden to the leader. It is this organized psychotic element which makes it so difficult to remove social discordant leaders from power once they get it.

I perceive something else about Gadhafi -- his role is not merely martial, but also clerical. He is a Moses-type, the "priest-king" who uses military dominance and prestige to defeat opponents of their spiritual ethos. By dismissing Gadhafi as an eccentric and a "madman", the West is making a grave error. They are not dealing with a military strongman, but the leader of a cult. Although he is not invincible, I don't see how he goes before tens of thousands of his followers are eliminated. I'm seriously seeing the concordant (and naive discordant) leaders of the protests getting gunned down by them first, which is why I believe Gadhafi will sustain his rule over West Libya. The wild card is his son, who does not have Gadhafi's spiritualistic persona. His son will need a different, altogether more civil strategy to rule after Gadhafi passes on.

I want to make an additional point: Gadhafi doesn't seem to be exalting the "system", so much as an ethos of continuous contemplation of rebellion against it. As he remarked yesterday, "those who are not loved and in power do not deserve to live." It was this principle which guided him in his overthrow of the king, and now he finds himself in denial as he is increasingly unloved and unwilling to acknowledge a condition which, by his own ethos, requires that he die. In that sense, I think he is extraordinarily pitiable.

[tcaudilllg]

Well Russia may not have vetoed the resolution, but it's Russia: expect them to violate it anyway.

I'll bet Gadhafi plans to get the U.N. in his country, that way the Benghazi faction will be inert against him.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

I'm glad the paper bag worked. And you're welcome.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm glad the paper bag worked. And you're welcome.

You don't seem to be contributing to the discussion, actually. I'm not the topic of the discussion.

[leckysupport]

This just in: Castro is warning of a NATO-led invasion of Libya. This could get really serious.

What Korpsey said and I doubt there is much political will in Europe or America for a war.

Edit: The good old resource curse argument used to describe the difference between Libya and Egypt on Planet Money.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...gypt-and-libya

[The Ineffable]

I dont know about Mubarack's type, but Kadiffi is a beta and he will fight till the last drop of blood is sapped from his body if has to, and probably will have to.

I saw no typing on him so far, but I type him SLE. Yeah, Beta, not sure how this will end-up. He was funny.

[tcaudilllg]

Korpsey the U.S. does appear to be gearing up for air and missile strikes against Gadhafi.

This really pisses me off. I feel like Obama is trying to become a dictator now. What does Libya have to do with the U.S.? NOTHING.

[Crispy]

I feel like Obama is trying to become a dictator now.

Surprise surprise.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

Korpsey the U.S. does appear to be gearing up for air and missile strikes against Gadhafi.

This really pisses me off. I feel like Obama is trying to become a dictator now. What does Libya have to do with the U.S.? NOTHING.

The US and other NATO-member navies routinely patrol the Mediterranean, getting shitfaced in ports of call, conducting training exercises, and performing the occasional bit of gunboat diplomacy. And every so often live rounds are actually fired at live targets, but that's a rarity. Now moving a destroyer squadron or an entire carrier battlegroup into convenient striking range of Libya is a trivial decision because those units are really already there. Just like Castro's frequent cries of wolf, repositioning military units for contingency preparation is intended to send a message. This is all SOP. How do I know? Because I've been there, did that, got the cruise jacket.

If military intervention is realized it's most likely to take the form of regional air control to hamper the mobility of Qaddafi's loyalists and prevent them from mounting aerial strikes on civilians. The deep sectarian divisions of Iraq are absent in Libya and Qaddafi doesn't have much solid support other than his sycophants. That reduces the probability of (extended) civil war and necessary land engagement by US or NATO troops.

Then there's the matter of the president's nascent despotism that has you worried. Although, in respect to policy, his administration is largely a continuation of his predecessor's, Barry is a bland technocrat whose over-cautiousness makes him ponderous and fumbly. The halting and fidgety decision-making in Washington is further weakened by a rather curious aspect of American intervention. Namely, when crises erupt abroad and America steps in to assist it gets accused of imperialistic hubris, of colonialism, of imposing its alien and decadent values on sovereign nations. But when man-made or natural disasters strike and America declines to offer a direct hand it's charged with heartlessness, with playing favorites, with being too high on the hog to live up to its charter as a beacon to downtrodden victims of injustice. What's a budding dictatorial president to do?

All in all, though military action is said to be on the table and nearby units are being diverted to look tough offshore "just in case," it's presently unlikely that any drastic action will be taken. Will the barking dog actually bite? I don't think so unless the current situation worsens dramatically.

[tcaudilllg]

What do you make of the talk of "humanitarian corridors" and suggestions that military action may be necessary to "create" them?

[Creepy-Korpsey]

What do you make of the talk of "humanitarian corridors" and suggestions that military action may be necessary to "create" them?

It's bulldada, cheery wallpaper plastered over potential ugliness.

[tcaudilllg]

It looks like Gadhafi's sons (or somebody) are playing cat'n'mouse with the Benghazi camp. Apparently the "uprisings" in the cities near to Tripoli only succeeded because the Gadhafis staged a strategic retreat, destroying their munitions before they left. Now the rebels are trying to solicit aid from Europe and the U.S. to make up for their lack of arms. In the mean time, the Gadhafis appear to be achieving some military successes.