Log in

View Full Version : Islamic State now in control of Libyan coastal city/towns



-:Undertaker:-
24-02-2015, 12:37 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/egypt-bombs-isis-libya-beheading-video/385544/

Libya is turning into Iraq

Just four years after the Arab Spring, ISIS attacks reveal a country on the brink of total failure.


http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/newsroom/img/mt/2015/02/RTR4PUBP/lead.jpg?njx6ug
Relatives of Egyptian Coptic men killed in Libya mourn in al-Our village, south of Cairo. (Asmaa Waguih/Reuters)


On Sunday, the Islamic State released a video showing the beheadings of 21 Christian Egyptians in a stretch of land near Tripoli, Libya. The recording—narrated by a fighter speaking English with a North American accent, is similar to many other gruesome videos that the group has released. But the setting of the attack—Libya—represents two disturbing trends in the Middle East. One is that ISIS's reach now extends thousands of miles from its base in Iraq and Syria. The other is that Libya—the one-time stronghold of dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi—is now arguably worse off than ever.

Sunday's massacre occurred four years to the month after anti-government protests in Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city, sparked a nationwide uprising that brought down Qaddafi. The United States, which intervened on the side of anti-Qaddafi forces along with France and the U.K., reacted to the fall of the regime with optimism. Speaking in the Rose Garden after the dictator's death in August 2011, President Obama said that Qaddafi's beleaguered subjects now had an "opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya.”

Less than four years later, Libya now exists in name only. The country is effectively divided into western and eastern halves, each governed by a militia comprised of a loose coalition of forces. Both sides claim legitimacy over the country as a whole. But the top United Nations envoy in the country, Bernardino Leon, is not optimistic the two will soon reconcile.

"Libya is falling apart," he said. "Politically, financially, the economic situation is disastrous."

Enter ISIS. As in Iraq and Syria, the organization has filled a vacuum in Libya left by the dissolution of the state. The murder of the Egyptians—who were likely lured west by the prospect of work in Libya's oil fields—could destabilize the region as a whole. On Monday, Egyptian President Fattah el-Sisi launched retaliatory air strikes against ISIS holdings in Derna, a city in northeast Libya, killing an estimated 40 to 50 people. el-Sisi is allied with Libya's Dignity militia, which controls the country's east, while Turkey and Qatar support Libya Dawn, the movement that governs the west.

Since Obama's optimistic Rose Garden declaration, U.S. enthusiasm for intervening in Libya has waned. In 2012, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the U.S. consular compound in Benghazi, an event that soon stoked controversy in Washington. Congressional Republicans accused the Obama Administration of failing to provide adequate security as well as orchestrating a cover-up, a charge the White House denied. But the damage to Obama's Libya policy was done.

"Because of the politicization of that episode in the U.S., the government paused to make sure no one else got hurt, and reduced our geographic scope and presence in the country," a senior administration official told the New Yorker's Jon Lee Anderson.

Would Libya been better off had NATO not intervened in the first place? As with any counterfactual, it's impossible to prove. Critics of the invasion, like the journalist Glenn Greenwald, have argued that the war accomplished nothing but empower "an endless generation of [American] enemies." But Benjamin Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor who supported the invasion, disagrees. He told the New Yorker's Anderson that "if Qaddafi had gone into Benghazi, I think Libya would look more like Syria today."

Four years after the first hopeful protests against Qaddafi, Libya is now divided, lawless, a haven for extremists, and a country unable to capitalize on its vast oil wealth. In a sense, Rhodes is right—Libya doesn't look like Syria today. But it's sure beginning to look a lot like Iraq.

Remove the strongman and this is what you get.

The real question is when these non-countries are going to be internationally acknowledged as being non-existant, because from this conflict whatever happens I can't see there being something called Iraq, something called Syria or something called Libya arising again. They're completely failed states and it is time the map was withdrawn along religious and ethnic/tribal lines. And Kurdish independence should happen too (although that said it already de facto has).

Isis has a lot more support across the Islamic world than you are led to believe too. Hence their ongoing success.

Thoughts?

ItsMeerken
24-02-2015, 02:17 AM
seems legit. I wish the ISIS people would just stop what they are doing, come to reality and get shot themselves. Its just wrong!

James
24-02-2015, 10:09 AM
All these wars happening in the east are becoming a bit of a joke now. I honestly wish more was being done to stop them.

Zak
24-02-2015, 12:39 PM
This is what happens when the central all-powerful ruler is removed. These countries need that.

Happened in Libya and Iraq

AgnesIO
24-02-2015, 08:47 PM
This is what happens when the central all-powerful ruler is removed. These countries need that.

Happened in Libya and Iraq

Both you and Dan are being stupid. These countries needed the central all-powerful figure because they had oppressed their entire respective nations to make it that way. It doesn't have to be that way.

Additionally, Dan, how exactly do you suggest redrawing the lines? Who's decision should it be for the new lines? Surely ISIS have as much right as anyone to establish their own lines (God forbid).

-:Undertaker:-
24-02-2015, 09:50 PM
Both you and Dan are being stupid. These countries needed the central all-powerful figure because they had oppressed their entire respective nations to make it that way. It doesn't have to be that way.

So you think, like Blair did, that the likes of Iraq, Syria and Libya are possible to run like any western democratic country? Taking the fact that many in these countries don't hold the same values as the west (the religious factor) even if they did it still wouldn't work because many of these 'countries' don't have a demos and are simply random lines drawn across completely different cultures, religious sects, ethnic groups and tribes. Just look at the former Yugoslavia which was a post-WWI creation but which fell apart after the death of General Tito. Hence why all of these countries only held together when a strongman was incharge like Hussein, Gaddafi or Assad. Remove the strongman and you remove the only thing holding that 'state' together.

Look at Iraq with the divide between the sunni west, shia south and Kurdish north. Do you honestly think 'Iraq' can function as a democracy, ever?


Additionally, Dan, how exactly do you suggest redrawing the lines? Who's decision should it be for the new lines? Surely ISIS have as much right as anyone to establish their own lines (God forbid).

You'd be looking at something like this below, although you could go with even more Balkanisation especially in Libya which is mainly tribes in the desert south. And i'm not suggesting we get involved at all really, other than accepting new states when they are formed: Kurdistan de facto now exists, it's leadership are moderate... so let's drop the pretence that the Kurds belong in a post-WW1 creation called Iraq and formally grant them independence which they're exercising at the moment anyway. And at the same time, stop supporting the government in Baghdad which can barely project power over anything north of Baghdad.


http://www.ezimba.com/work/150225C/ezimba17648216926800.png

A quickly drawn map by me suggesting border changes based on the bigger ethnic/religious/tribal divides. There's even more within those.

You only have to look at the map of Iraq and Syria to see how false and straight the borders are. Why? Because they were drawn purely to designate the British and French areas of influence in the region after the dissolution of the former Ottoman Empire in the area, taking no consideration of the groups/nations of people there.

AgnesIO
24-02-2015, 10:03 PM
So you think, like Blair did, that the likes of Iraq, Syria and Libya are possible to run like any western democratic country? Taking the fact that many in these countries don't hold the same values as the west (the religious factor) even if they did it still wouldn't work because many of these 'countries' don't have a demos and are simply random lines drawn across completely different cultures, religious sects, ethnic groups and tribes. Just look at the former Yugoslavia which was a post-WWI creation but which fell apart after the death of General Tito. Hence why all of these countries only held together when a strongman was incharge like Hussein, Gaddafi or Assad. Remove the strongman and you remove the only thing holding that 'state' together.

Look at Iraq with the divide between the sunni west, shia south and Kurdish north. Do you honestly think 'Iraq' can function as a democracy, ever?



You'd be looking at something like this below, although you could go with even more Balkanisation especially in Libya which is mainly tribes in the desert south. And i'm not suggesting we get involved at all really, other than accepting new states when they are formed: Kurdistan de facto now exists, it's leadership are moderate... so let's drop the pretence that the Kurds belong in a post-WW1 creation called Iraq and formally grant them independence which they're exercising at the moment anyway. And at the same time, stop supporting the government in Baghdad which can barely project power over anything north of Baghdad.




A quickly drawn map by me suggesting border changes based on the bigger ethnic/religious/tribal divides. There's even more within those.


Simply put, no, I don't. I am pleased we are in the same mindset there. It's about time that we in the West paraded around forcing our democratic system onto other states. However, I also refuse to accept that it can be right for huge sections of a nation to be oppressed for the benefit of one figure-head who can do whatever they feel like. That is wrong. Of course, many of the lines in Africa are a direct result of colonialism, and people just slicing up the map with lovely straight lines - so the issue there is more likely down to the West!

Your system works perfectly, until you get to the stage of deciding who decides who gets what. That isn't a decision for a Western nation to make; and there lies the problem. It also doesn't work if you leave a near-failed state to decide, either. Then, once someone draws the lines, who gets to decide the leader?

-:Undertaker:-
24-02-2015, 10:13 PM
Simply put, no, I don't. I am pleased we are in the same mindset there. It's about time that we in the West paraded around forcing our democratic system onto other states. However, I also refuse to accept that it can be right for huge sections of a nation to be oppressed for the benefit of one figure-head who can do whatever they feel like. That is wrong.

But I am not arguing that is the solution, my solution would be to do what most people in these states want anyway and break them up. On the other hand, if we're not going to accept the breakup of these states and we are adamant that these states must continue then in that scenario it is better to have a hardman incharge as otherwise there will just been endless civil war with groups such as Isis rife as a result of it. Take Iraq: ideally I would dissolve Iraq. Second best option would be somebody like Saddam Hussein in power, and the third and least best is Isis.


Of course, many of the lines in Africa are a direct result of colonialism, and people just slicing up the map with lovely straight lines - so the issue there is more likely down to the West!

Indeed, the poorly drawn colonial borders across the world are the reason/a big part of the reason for many modern day wars.


Your system works perfectly, until you get to the stage of deciding who decides who gets what. That isn't a decision for a Western nation to make; and there lies the problem. It also doesn't work if you leave a near-failed state to decide, either.

War will decide it, war is deciding it right now.

I'm just urging that we stop clinging to the pretence of an Iraq, Syria or Libya. First step: formalise diplomatic relations with Kurdistan.


Then, once someone draws the lines, who gets to decide the leader?

I'm not promising that in the newly formed Shia Iraqi state that there would be an instant democracy, after all it took Christian countries (our own being the best example) hundreds of years to achieve democracy. That said, if you have a monocultural state where many of the people living in it are of similiar/the same culture, beliefs and religion then it makes it a lot more likely that the state will be stable and more open/democratic than it would be when it's different groups vying for power against one another.

Look at Syria as the example with that. The Alawites support the Assad dynasty because it is the Assad dynasty that guarantees them unproportional power and influence in the Syrian region. If it was simply a government for the Alawite areas, then the Assad dynasty would like be less powerful as tribal/ethnic and religious domination would no longer be a priority for the Alawites.

AgnesIO
24-02-2015, 11:12 PM
But I am not arguing that is the solution, my solution would be to do what most people in these states want anyway and break them up. On the other hand, if we're not going to accept the breakup of these states and we are adamant that these states must continue then in that scenario it is better to have a hardman incharge as otherwise there will just been endless civil war with groups such as Isis rife as a result of it. Take Iraq: ideally I would dissolve Iraq. Second best option would be somebody like Saddam Hussein in power, and the third and least best is Isis.

I would be for breaking them up; just I would want to avoid an imperalistic-style of the US deciding who gets what. I would argue there is only one real solution; having someone like Saddam Hussein next to the word 'best' doesn't work for me!




Indeed, the poorly drawn colonial borders across the world are the reason/a big part of the reason for many modern day wars.

Indeed, a real shame - but I guess what is done is done, now - maybe it is our job to fix it.... :L


War will decide it, war is deciding it right now.

I'm just urging that we stop clinging to the pretence of an Iraq, Syria or Libya. First step: formalise diplomatic relations with Kurdistan.

The issue is, in many cases it looks like Islamic State may end up winning that war. Iraqi-Kurdistan is certainly a strong case; amazing place to visit, I am told, too.


I'm not promising that in the newly formed Shia Iraqi state that there would be an instant democracy, after all it took Christian countries (our own being the best example) hundreds of years to achieve democracy. That said, if you have a monocultural state where many of the people living in it are of similiar/the same culture, beliefs and religion then it makes it a lot more likely that the state will be stable and more open/democratic than it would be when it's different groups vying for power against one another.

Look at Syria as the example with that. The Alawites support the Assad dynasty because it is the Assad dynasty that guarantees them unproportional power and influence in the Syrian region. If it was simply a government for the Alawite areas, then the Assad dynasty would like be less powerful as tribal/ethnic and religious domination would no longer be a priority for the Alawites.

I think the issue is that I am not convinced the states would stay stable for long enough to install any reasonable system. And someone has to pay for that. And that... would be us. Although, the long-term savings would probably be huge...

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!