Some comment necessary about the Arab Spring

What we know as the Arab Spring is in fact a very complicated subject. In each Middle Eastern and North African country where there was some form of uprising there were many factors involved. The movement got started in Tunisia because one man had enough and torched himself. The end result of that initial reaction was the removal of the Tunisian President… and then it was on to Egypt.

What did Egypt and Tunisia have in common? It was not the Muslim Brotherhood, although that is indeed something they have in common. It was in fact the role of the Left Wing faction in each country. The Egyptian uprising in particular was not the work of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was not the work of an Islamist faction. It was the work of people who had left leaning tendencies in politics coming together with other factions to demand some changes.  The Muslim Brotherhood however saw the opportunity to promote themselves and the rest is history. What you need to understand is that Christians were working with what we understand to be moderate Muslims in order to bring about change. I will go one step further here and dare to point out that U.S. Administrations had for some time been educating Egyptians on things like democracy with the intention of bringing about change. Their plan backfired when Morsi was elected as an interim President.

I have always maintained that the Libyan situation was different. I continue to maintain that what took place in Libya was in fact something that no one had really anticipated. I doubt that the CIA was ever involved, unlike CIA involvement in Egypt. The difference was in fact the impetus of the people who were willing to take up arms against the dictator of their country. The difference is in fact that the people who operated as the link between Libya and the West were majority non-Islamist and they had a different set of values. The real difference is that they had to join forces with the Islamists in order to throw out their own terrorist dictator.  In Libya there were many motivations all leading to people with disparate views coming together to bring about change. Today Libya remains a country with unstable government, but I have not given up hope where that country is concerned.

There are people who continue to draw the long bow with regard to their comments where Libya is concerned. By this I mean that their viewpoint is a distortion of what the truth might be. I am not writing this to intimate that I have the truth where the situation of Libya is concerned, but rather I want to point out that the motivation of Libyans was different from the motivation of Egyptians to get rid of their leader. Gadhafi had outlasted his use by date. In Libya he had a reputation as a bad ass. He was brutal in the way that he put the people’s rebellions against him down. The majority of the people of Libya had no love for Gadhafi.

The Libyan revolution began in much the same way as in Egypt and Tunisia. By this I mean that the revolt started out being low-grade and then it began to gather into a storm as people became incensed over what was taking place. This resulted in one man in Benghazi who had always eschewed jihad to decide to take his own life by using his car as a bomb to breach the walls of the fort in Benghazi. The man had become so angry that he personally got involved. There were others who became involved in getting the message out there. They faced certain death from the pro-Gadhafi sector in Benghazi and at least one person who had been brave in broadcasting lost his life thanks to a sniper.  He did not have a gun, he did not preach Islamism. Instead he had a message of freedom, but a sniper did in fact cut him down.  Most of the people who took up arms in Benghazi had no idea as to how to use those arms, and the same was true in other cities.  The Libyan revolution was really about freedom from tyranny.  The move against Gadhafi had been a long time coming, but the movement had existed for years, and it took the savagery of Gadhafi against his own people in places like Misrata for the rest to take up arms. This is also true with regards to what happened in Tripoli. Normal people risked their lives and took up arms because they were sick of the way that they were being treated. On top of that they moved against Gadhafi because women and children had been his victims during those early days of the revolution. Many Libyans who were living abroad returned to help get rid of Gadhafi.

The Libyan opposition (now the government) were adamant with regard to foreign boots on the ground. They were adamant because they did not want to see Libya invaded by Al Qaeda. You could say that they were aware of the dangers because they had to work with the pro- Al Qaeda elements, and they had to make sure that they, not Al Qaeda controlled the country after the downfall of Gadhafi. I think overall they have been successful, BUT they are so weak that they have not been able to overcome those same Al Qaeda elements in order to bring about full stability.

Syria is a very different kettle of fish. Whilst it was possible to identify those who opposed Gadhafi, it has not been possible to fully identify those opposed to Assad in Syria. Prime Minister Tony Abbott summed up the situation as “baddies vs. baddies”; in other words one lot of baddies was only marginally better than the other baddies. The problem in Syria is that by ignoring the civil war that was happening when it was relatively young, the West allowed Al Qaeda get in with a very strong foothold.  In those early days I was prepared to speak against Assad because of the level of killings of innocent bystanders. There were villages where Assad’s team moved in and randomly killed everyone. The villagers fled across the border into Turkey. Today the Syrian Civil War continues to draw in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.  What is barely discussed though, is the involvement of Iran in Syria. It is not a very healthy situation at all.

The purpose here is to remind people that sometimes speculation and the blame game can get out of hand. I do not believe that Obama wanted to get involved in Libya. In fact Barry fought against involvement initially. Barry had almost nothing to do wtih the NATO forces and their actions in Libya because he did draw back. If anything this made Barry look very small on the national stage because if anything drawing back at a critical time during the civil war actually helped to prolong the life of the whole war. It was very bad timing and it showed to the rest of the world that Barry is clueless.

One thing I want to dispel is the notion that Gadhafi was paid to help keep the African immigrants out of Europe. I have not seen any evidence that this was the case. Until I see some definite proof that this actually happened, then I would say that this is just a silly rumour that is being used to continue the anger against Barry’s short-lived involvement in the whole affair.

Comments are closed.