This weekend, Libyan rebels captured their capital city, Tripoli, after seven months of bitter conflict.
The streets aren’t safe yet, but pro-Gadhafi forces are fighting for a cause that’s all but lost. The biggest obstacle to victory, at this point, seems to be capturing the man himself.
There’s even a ready successor in governing. The Transitional National Council has been recognized by dozens of nations, and the U.S., EU and NATO are all working to fund it.
Apparently, everybody loves a revolution.
But with so many countries throwing down, should we call this something else?
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was forced out by a popular revolt. The crowd in Tahrir Square was hardly monolithic; they were hardline Islamic fundamentalists and secular college students. But they were all Egyptians, and it was definitely a revolution.
Of course, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein wasn’t ousted by his people. He was thrown from power by foreign armies that — justified or not —invaded his country from without. The Libyan revolt seems to be something in between. Homegrown rebel forces have nearly ousted the Gadhafi regime, but with a level of foreign involvement that seems almost unprecedented.
Throughout history, most revolutions have included some form of outside influence. The Spanish, French, and Dutch aided American Revolutionaries. So it’s not reasonable to judge any popular movement, including Libya’s, as though it should take place within a bubble.
And realistically, autonomous revolution is a tall order in the 21st century, where a militarized regime holds on to power. In Egypt, for reasons we still don’t fully understand, the government was slow to use violence. In Iran, we saw the opposite. Crowds of similar size and enthusiasm were brutally subdued by government thugs.
A modern dictator like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Muammar el-Gadhafi has overwhelming military strength at his disposal. In the early weeks of the Libyan conflict, we saw how terribly inadequate rebel forces were against Gadhafi’s mortars, tanks, and planes.
So European forces intervened. Technically, NATO has strictly limited itself to protecting civilians, and isn’t there to take a side. But protecting civilians has, so far, meant bombing the heck out of Gadhafi’s troops and military installations while arming, fueling, and feeding rebel forces. So I doubt Gadhafi appreciates that nuance.
Of course, even with NATO support, there’s been plenty of fighting for the rebels to do; after seven violent months, Gadhafi is still, tenuously, in power.
But the way this fight is ending suggests much about its nature. As the Internet comes back, as the rebels consolidate power, and as Gadhafi’s last strongholds fall apart, the international community is rolling up its sleeves.
There’s oil in the water, and sharks are circling.
For some seven months, Libyan oil has been shut out of the international market. This is exactly the situation most western nations’ Middle-East policy is designed to prevent. In oil-producing nations, stability is always the first priority.
When The New York Times ran an article this week on top Libyan oil exporters, companies in Italy, France, Britain, Spain, and America topped it, coincidentally.
So whatever just happened, it’s looking like a victory for NATO.
Reach the columnist at john.a.gaylord@asu.edu
