Lenin's Tomb leninstombblog at googlemail.com
Wed Aug 24 15:09:16 MDT 2011

On 24/08/2011 21:53, Tristan Sloughter wrote:
> I can't speak based on full knowledge of the battles in anyway, but the idea
> that NATO was able to overthrow the Libyan government with, in comparison to
> other wars, little fire power and in such a short time seems off to me...
> This seems more to be what you'd expect when the foreign forces piggy-back
> on the revolutionary population.

But the fact is that the forces behind the transitional council would 
have been smashed by Qadhafi were it not for NATO.  The rebel army was 
wholly dependent on NATO's special forces and intelligence operatives.  
It was even led by someone whom common sense would suggest was a CIA 
agent.  Had it not been for external powers giving it military back-up, 
diplomatic support (recognition) and financial support (the contact 
group approved oil trading deals, and funding for reconstruction), the 
very fractious transitional 'government' would have crumbled in no time.

And NATO didn't piggy-back on a 'revolutionary population'.  They were 
simply excluded.   NATO hijacked a revolutionary situation that was on 
the road to defeat, gained effective control of a small army, with an 
even smaller trained core, and turned it into an auxiliary.  The vast 
majority of the population of some six and a half million people was not 
involved in the fighting.  Only a few tens of thousands - including both 
professionals and volunteers - were.  And they were taking orders from NATO.

> So even if its a "staggering victory for imperialism", I don't think its
> right to think this was not due to the Libyan people winning a
> revolution/civil war.

Why?  Where is the revolution?  I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that a 
revolution actually took place.  A minimal condition for it being a 
revolution would be that the process was controlled by indigenous 
political forces, and it wasn't.  The pace of advance, the politics of 
the leadership, even the scale of oil trading, was dictated from 
outside.  Another pertinent condition would seem to be the involvement 
at some level of the masses, but in fact most of the 'uprisings' after 
March involved small groups of trained fighters.  What happened here was 
regime change, not revolution.

More information about the Marxism mailing list