Zawiyah has fallen. Saif Gaddafi now likely to fulfill his promise to wage total war on Benghazi.The courageous rebels are hopelessly outgunned .The only support we can offer is not an international brigade but to squat Saif’s house.The Left, anarchists, myself and all of us are against western military intervention and a no-fly zone. Some of those arguments are worn out already ‘we did it because we wanted Libya’s oil’. But political positions have real consequences…………without such intervention we shall watch thousands die in Benghazi and the triumph of a nutter which will setback uprisings in other Arab dictatorships. We will have maintained our impeccable anti-imperialist integrity against the cries of soon to be annihilated rebels now asking for a no-fly zone. Do we have a problem – do we have any answers……….or do we just surrender to the inevitable. I really don’t know.
Recent Comments
ianbone on THE Q-TIPS Andy on THE Q-TIPS ianbone on I TOLD YOU REES MOGG WAS … bernadette Macfarlan… on I TOLD YOU REES MOGG WAS … ianbone on MICHAEL SHEEN FOR NEWPORT…
Ian Bone 
As a socialist I would ideally call for the trade union movement to fund the Libyan rebels, but they can’t even get their shit together in Britain, it’s not going to happen! I hate myself for writing this even as I write it, but I am moving more and more towards supporting some kind of intervention.
Is Gaddafi’s son and heir still in the UK?
The member of the Lybian youth Movement who spoke at a meeting I attended tonight made a few points worth bearing in mind. He has family and contacts in Lybia and before the BBC got journalists into Lybia they were useing his Twitter acount as a news source.
He pointed out the anger and resentment in Lybia has been building for years now. Gaddafi has literally crushed opposition. He has destroyed the country and made it to the point that he is inseperable from it in most peoples minds outside of Lybia. Meanwhile the Lybian people have suffered.
The people of Lybia have seen this as their one chance. They all knew it would be bloody and it would mean civil war but had reached the point where they could not continue under Gaddafi. Gaddafi might be militarily superior and causing massive casualtys but the rebels are not going to give up. Gaddafi is dependent on mecenarys and those who are too closely tied to the regime to step away from it. As such, he might win battles but he can never regain control of the people.
History repeatedly shows that in such a situation the regime will have to fall sooner or later. The civil war will become a guerilla war against a better armed army. It will be bloody but Gaddafi will never regain the support of his people and will eventually topple. Look at how the Mau Mau defeated the British in Kenya. Or how the Viet Minh defeated the USA. Or how the IRA won the war of independence (Tom Barry’s ‘Guerilla days in Ireland’ provides a classic account how it is impossible for an occupying army to defeat a small band of guerillas that have the support of the population).
Western intervention is not wanted. The Lybians are now calling themselves freedom fighters. They are fighting for their freeedom. They are aware how the SAS trained Gaddafis soldiers and how the Metropolitan Police trained the Lybian police in crowd control (seriously!). Gaddafi survived because of the West and they are not sacrificeing everything for the West to decide their next government and impose a constitution. The revolution will have failed if David Cameron (and other leaders) take over as its leaders useing western troops. But the (majority of) Lybians are saying that this is not what they are dieing for and not what they want. Acts such as France recognizing the rebels should remain the extent of the wests intervention.
Travellling to Lybia to give direct aid is not an option for most people. Although it is possible this might change in the next year as rebels get more organised and call for aid, even if it is simply humaitarian aid. As such the best we can currently do is offer what solidarity we can and remember a few key things. Western capitalism has made the Middle East dependent upon itself. Likewise the West, while not completely dependent, is reliant upon the middle east being how it wants it to be. Actions there for be done that have a knock on effect (no matter how small) on the strentgh of dictators regimes. Any change to the status quo and weakening of western backed regimes in the middle east also weakens western capitalism.
Gaddafi will fall, but its going to be bloody. Unfortunately we are so weak that all we can offer is small acts of solidarity.
Self-determination above all else. The libyan people have decided on a no-fly. As anarchists we should respect that.
This is a heart-breaking topic to read and write about, my eternal gratitude to the rebels across the Middle East you are setting us examples of heroism which will last a generation, but I won’t give up on you yet and I urge everyone else to keep faith with this fantastic revolution, it is far from over(never forget the British media pronounced that the 1984-5 Miners’ Strike was ‘collapsing’ even while it was still solid).
My suspicion is that, despite all the ‘neo-colonial’ rhetoric from NATO about imposing no-fly zones and military intervention, secretly they have been backing Gaddafi throughout this and still are. They are meeting with him continually and probably supplying satellite images to his mercenary thugs to help them target the rebels. If I am right, then they are doing this in order to protect their oil supplies, to maintain Gaddafi’s financial support for their markets during the credit crunch, to halt the spread of working class revolutions which could even reach the West (see Wisconsin), and after all, as a family of evil billionaires, hey, Mummah and Saif are part of their ‘family’. Further more, ‘threats’ of Western intervention aren’t real in my opinion they are intended to help Gaddafi by making him look like a Nasserite defender of Arab nationalism.
And the Libyan squatters in Hampstead will also have inspired the rebels more than you might think, I will always remember a youngster from New Zealand tellling me he and his friends were amazed and radicalised by reading about the Bash the Rich March on Hampstead in the 1980s!
(Tom Barry’s ‘Guerilla days in Ireland’ provides a classic account how it is impossible for an occupying army to defeat a small band of guerillas that have the support of the population).
ISTR that the IRA was actually next door to military defeat (exhuasted of men and ammunition) by the time they went to the negotiating table, but the British didn’t know that.
The point, though, is that Gaddaffi’s short term victory means long term political defeat. With all these uprisings, if the people in power had opted for victory through Massacres Thiers style they would have achieved it, instead in Jordan, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt a faustian bargain of protecting some parts of the old regime has been reached but with some significant ground given.
Best bet in Libya is to dissolve quietly and get as many out of the country as can be (especially any prominent folk at risk of reprisal).
It’s worth looking at the letters page in yesterday’s Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/10/libya-no-fly-zone?INTCMP=SRCH
Against: Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Lindsey German , Kate Hudson, Andrew Murray etc.
For: Geoffrey Robertson QC
I know who I’d trust. No fly zone now!
Here’s hoping the rebels torch as many oilfields as they can in retreat-The people never saw any of the wealth they produced, and the west would only take the side of those whop controlled the wells- Burn the fuckers!
ISTR that the IRA was actually next door to military defeat (exhuasted of men and ammunition) by the time they went to the negotiating table, but the British didn’t know that.”
This is debatable. Basically some sections of the IRA argued that they could not continue to fight and so had to accept the treaty that established the Irish Free State. Large sections (particularly around Munster and Kerry) argued that they could continue to fight. This then lead to the civil war between the two factions which lasted for about a year. The free state won this because they had superior armanenets. They also, unlike the British, had support amongst large sections of the population and so could occupy territory and establish control and rule.
The British did not have support of the Irish population and so, despite having large military might, could not control territory. This is what made them negotiate. Which ever side of the arguement about the establishment of the free state you support, the fact still remains that the British negotiated because they could not control Ireland. This was due to lack of support from the people and support for the IRA guerillas.
Lybia is a similair situation. Gaddafi has not got support from the majority of his country and so, despite his forces military superiority, he can not retain control long term.
Lybia, because of the nature of Gaddafis regime, was never and could never be like Egypt and Tunisia. In those countrys the initial uprisings aimed at establishing political rights which have given the freedom to fight for social rights. This is something that is happening in work places and communitys. It could continue for years and will not catch the attention of the western press but will continue to inspire through out the region. Basically the disruptions that brought down the presidents were the beginning of revolutionary movements, not the totality of the revolts.
The Lybians realise that ther could be no half measures and they had to bring down Gaddafi. This was going to be and is bloody. But this is all they could fight for and all they will fight for. Now the revolution has begun Gaddafi can not survive, he can only cause damage as he goes.
Mr Bone’s honesty is disarming. Damned if you intervene and damned if you don’t! Intervention by NATO seems to be unlikely given the fact that protests in Saudi Arabia, which as we all know is a key western ally, are being violently put down. If the western powers intervene in Libya, so the argument goes, why shouldn’t they intervene in Arabia and the Gulf? The EU leaders -Merkel and co- today are declaring that Gadaffi has lost legitimacy and therefore must go now. This is about as useful and effective as King Knut telling the tide to stop! It would be better to leave it to the countries in the region to sort out what kind of world they want but this too hits a blank wall. King Abdallah personally hates Gadaffi to death (the feeling is mutual) but can anyone forsee him or any of the other regimes in the region aiding the side of the rebels against a fellow despot? So the people in “free Libya” will be massacred and forced into exile. I agree with comments made above that Gadaffi is finished in the long term but what about the coming weeks. Are we, as Mr Bone asks, prepared to see a bloodbath for the sake of principles? Listen to the people of Libya is what I say. They have cast off an evil darkness of 41 years – give them at least the chance to determine their own future.
Our hope lies with the rebels. The soft left can whinge however much they like about ‘Western involvement in the region’, but lets face it, capitalism is already all over that region.
I would prefer to send International Brigades from all over Europe but it ain’t gonna happen, the realistic point of view is to argue for a No FLy zone to try and make the fight fairer.
Even Western leaders probably want to deal with new democrats than Gaddafi, and that would be progress. Stopping the humanitarian disaster and war crimes is a must as that lawyer said, and arguing yourself out of any proposal is the abdication of responsibility for creating a better world.
Victory to the Freedom Fighters!
My Libyan bredren, like at least some of his compatriots at home, has changed his position from being totally against any western intervention to supporting the no fly zone.
I’ll be going to the protest here in Swansea tomorrow (1 Pm Castle Square) in solidarity with him and with all the Libyan people, but I have to say I still cannot support the no fly zone. (Although I’m certainly not going to join the handful of paid Gaddafi supporters protesting against it). I can’t see it ending in anything else than all out war involving the western powers. When you make a deal with the devil, the devil will always want his due.
My friend and I’m sure most of the rebels feel that they can just take whatever aid is given and refuse to abide by any strings attached – but I’m not sure if that is the case. I think people may be projecting our own hopes and aspirations on to the revolutionary council in Benghazi. For all the similarities their methods of organisation may have, it’s not like any of them (to my knowledge) are actually anarchist-communists. It’s a council of 30-odd people, not a mass assembly of the masses of Benghazi akin to those created in Oaxaca, Mexico during the uprisings there. I don’t know what the composition of it is, but if it includes anyone in a position of privilege the chances are that they are going to be interested in preserving that privilege. For example – and I take anything I read in mainstream media with a pinch of salt, so I’m not saying this is necessarily true – when the SAS team was arrested and sent back home [did the Benghazi keep their weapons? I would have], a member of the council was quoted as saying that he would have liked the SAS to stay to train the fighters, but that he knew they would not accept that, especially as Gaddafi’s forces were trained and equipped by the same British government. But the fact that he was willing to consider that possibility makes me suspicious of at least some elements in the revolutionary council (not saying that more military training and a more formalized command structure for the fighters might not be desirable – I think war is one of the few situations where a form of hierarchy and authority *is* justified, as long as it’s established with the agreement of all involved – in warfare you have to make snap decisions and can’t sit around discussing things to reach consensus – Durruti column etc. did have a command structure, it was a mutually-agreed-upon one but not a free-for-all – but if I was in Benghazi I would never contemplate using the British military for such training.)
Also what has been largely forgotten in this crisis is the plight of Black African migrant workers and people en route to try to get to Europe who may be falsely accused of being mercenaries. I don’t know to what extent this has happened but it would be pretty naive to think it hasn’t happened at all, and as an African I cannot ignore that aspect of the conflict.
And speaking of that, let’s not forget what is going on in Cote d’Ivoire and elsewhere in Africa. Gbabgo’s forces have been at least as brutal as, if not more so than, Gaddafi’s, but there isn’t any talk of intervention there. Of course, all you anarchos and lefties already know that intervention by western powers has absolutely nothing to do with any actual concern about human rights, etc.
Bob Marley was widely rumoured to have donated large sums to the freedom fighters in South Africa and the then-Rhodesia to use for arms – maybe there are individuals out there who can fulfill that role for Libyans. It’s plain they need aid, but no government is going to give aid without strings attached, strings that could have very serious repercussions later.
My Libyan friend thinks the U.S. etc. may be waiting for Gaddafi to fall before moving in on the new government, accusing them of being Islamists or whatever. Who knows.
At the end of the day, it’s a dilemma… like Ian, I don’t have any answers… all I can say is, Victory to the freedom fighters in Libya and everywhere on Earth… but making any kind of deal with the devil will always backfire.
Check my bredren’s video of his rap for Libya here: the chorus means “tell Gaddafi and his children that Libya is a country of men [and women]” – one of the revolutionary slogans:
i favour the $1.50 solution. a sniper round through the brainpan of both the colonel and his son.
no person no problem…….
Ian comrade,
have you not received your copy of Newsline today, which sets out “the line to take”?
http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/6193
Seems Gadaffi is bombing the oil refinery at Ras Lanuf himself, possibly to deny it, and it’s fuel, to the rebels…The Arab League of Despots, Tyrants and Zionist-apologists certainly won’t intervene… As the oil burns and there is a sudden influx of Libyan refugees heading towards Europe, then maybe then NATO or the EU will intervene, but by then it’ll be too late, especially now that the terrible Sendai earthquake dominates the news- a perfect cover for atrocities… Meanwhile, the West says nothing about the quashing of protest in Eastern Saudi Arabia. I’m so glad I don’t drive. The best we can do is to oppose the state and capital here, all else is impotence.
its such a piss off that nobody with the power to,does anything because its the right thing to do,because they want to make the world a better place .theres always a price,always a deal.
Ian has yet again shone a light on one of the many contradictions that ail us.
Political integrity is all very well in a debating chamber but the real world is more Darwinian. If Gaddafi retains the support of most of his military and a big enough portion of the population, he will prevail. Western intervention opens up a completely new can of worms and much more misery for Libyans further down the track as it will open the door for jihadism to flourish.
The idea that the “rebels” will be able to maintain an effective guerrilla war is fanciful now the State more clearly knows who they are (thank you BBC & Sky).
Organisation will have to start from scratch from those who survive the retaliation and slowly build up to the next uprising.
Worse of all, Gaddafi’s success (seems likely) may discourage actions in other states in the region when it dawns that not all dictators are pussies, and not as daft as they are painted. Gaddafi may be a nutter but he’s a cunning one and has smart advisors/henchmen.
It will be interesting to hear what Hague has to say if the Saudi’s or that “Nice King of Jordan” start slaughtering their dissidents, methinks they are not going to get the mad-dog speech.
By all means necessary including no fly zones if that what is being called for by the Libyan resistance. The consquences can be thrashed out post- Gaddafi. Now is the time to act.
There’s similarities to Bosnia here where the anti-war left fell in line behind a British Tory-inspired UN arms embargo – “to level the playing field” – while a US Democrat president dithered.
That embargo allowed Serb death squads to roam free across Bosnia and culminated in Srebrenica.
Are we waiting for slaughter on the scale of Srebrenica before forming an opinion?
How would you feel if the actions of Blair had resulted in the bombing of your neighbor’s home, of your sister or brother’s home, or of your own house?
How would you react to NATO bombs tearing through your living room.and shredding apart your children, your lover, or your own limbs. And then to have a political commentator from Iraq suggest that it was in your best interest. A very fucking bitter pill to swallow I’d imagine, especially if your stomach is being held together by stitches after shrapnel has pierced it open.
Who speaks on behalf of the “rebels”? Who asks for a no-fly zone? Do not assume that it is as clear cut as you would hope. The outcome of the NATO intervention will be a longer, more-protracted bloodbath then would have happened if Gaddafi had crushed the rebels alone, Except now all those in Gaddafi controlled areas threatened by NATOs bombs are rallying to Gaddafi (who initially took power as an anti-imperialist) while the rebels continue to agitate,polarised by NATOs “collateral damage”.
It is only if you value the life of Libyan’s less then your own that you would make the decision to support intervention. You will not see what the bombs do to people, to friends and family, or just to strangers.
This is no joke, sort your fucking analysis out. This is Christopher Hitchen’s, Richard Dawkin’s, AC Graylingesque— Despicable, superficially analysed… SHIT frankly.
“The outcome of the NATO intervention will be a longer, more-protracted bloodbath then would have happened if Gaddafi had crushed the rebels alone,” Thanks, Mystic Meg.
‘What do we want? really short (former anti imperialist) blood baths! When do we want them? Now!’
Despicable, Gallowayesque, SWP, superfically analysed shite, anyone…?
Nice one Sauf, this was always a controversial post by Ian (who’s now sometimes referred to as ‘No-fly Bone’ as a result!). My own incoherent ‘analysis’ above was never intended to lend support to any proposed NATO intervention (which would only be terror against civilians on a vast scale) but to trust that the ‘Arab Spring’ could (at that time) continue successfully, as it had done in Tunisia and Egypt.
I still believe the current NATO bombing of Libya is designed principally to terrorise the working classes everywhere and to halt the spread of all revolutions in north Africa before they can reach Saudi Arabia and Greece – and not to secure Western oil supplies per se (I think the repeated non-defections of Libya’s ‘oil minister’ Shukri Ghanem to Tunisia on secret missions show that Gaddafi is still in reality arranging for oil supplies to reach the West).
And if NATO and the UN wanted to protect civilians using aerial bombing (if that were even possible) why is it not now bombing Bahrain?
I pray for the ordinary people of Libya sheltering from the NATO terror attacks and, as a father myself, feel for the pain they must be going through.
Gaddafi’s regime has a terror weapon of its own however, and it is already employing it. Italy’s banks have only survived the Credit Crunch so far due to massive secret support from Libyan investments propping them up (hence the regular meetings between Gaddafi and Berlusconi over the last five years ostensibly to discuss ‘immigration’), Italy’s involvement in attacking Libya has resulted in the sudden ‘discovery’ by Moodys that Italy’s banks and local authorities are ‘severe credit risks’ and they have been downgraded, I wonder why?