Tristan Sloughter kungfooguru at gmail.com
Wed Aug 24 18:21:04 MDT 2011

> But the fact is that the forces behind the transitional council would have
> been smashed by Qadhafi were it not for NATO.

This is assuming a number of things, many the very basis used to intervene.
I don't exactly doubt the possibility of the Bengazhi massacre, but to
follow that with it meaning that the revolution would be over, not just
delayed/stalled, and that the fact that an outside force assisted the
revolution takes out the revolutionary essence.

Did not the French assist the US against Britain? Did the revolutionaries of
the great Haitian slave revolt not gain assistance from other colonial
countries against France?

But, this also does not mean it was a revolution, we must go farther.

 It was even led by someone whom common sense would suggest was a CIA
> agent.

I'd say common sense doesn't suggest Khalifa Hifter was/is a CIA agent, I'd
say he definitely is :)

The vast majority of the population of some six and a half million people
> was not involved in the fighting.

True for the majority of the fighting. Also after the initial wave of
attacks from the Libyan military many who came out in support of Gaddafi's
removal fled, and some continued to flee during the fights.

My argument was based on the ease (possibly, Tripoli fighting is not yet
over) of taking Tripoli. Did the population take up arms in support of the
rebellion or just sit back and accept whatever happens as fate? What I was
seeing and hearing was the former.

And they were taking orders from NATO.

Yes, there were, maybe the majority, of rebel groupings being led by NATO
either by way of the NTC or directly by NATO people on the ground.

But doesn't the assassination of General Younis by the rebels suggest it is
much more complicated than saying the rebels are lead by NATO and the NTC?

Why?  Where is the revolution?

I would argue it is not over but not that it does not exist. Egypt's
revolution is in a new stage and Libya's is also entering a new stage.

If what I am saying is true, that the people are ultimately behind the
removal of Gaddafi, it will show itself in how the coming weeks unfold. It
could also end up being a NATO invasion which brings in the NTC to hold
power. Then the insurgents will be easily deemed pro-Gaddafi instead of
anti-NATO/NTC by the Western media.

So while aspects like oil deals have been being made from the outside, this
fact and that the rebels were assisted by foreign forces does not remove the
possibility the overthrow can be controlled by the people. It is going to be
tough for the people of Libya, but I think the initial outpour, the long
period of rebel fighting and their entrance to and acceptance in Tripoli
(tough the anti-anti-Gaddafi left seem to write this off as because NATO
demolished Tripoli during the 48 hours of bombing before, but that seems
unlikely due to the number of people in the streets) leads me to believe it
was a revolution assisted by foreign forces, that will attempt and already
are trying, to make it instead regime change with the Western allied NTC
(already having countries recognize them as the government of Libya) but
that doesn't mean it will be accepted in Tripoli. Which could force NATO's
hand to send in troops and make it a full on regime change under the guise
of "peace-keeping", installing the NTC as the government.


More information about the Marxism mailing list