EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Beyond Qaddafi's Good Riddance
The death of Libya’s Muammar el Qaddafi on Thursday recalls the death of Mussolini in 1945, of Romania’s Ceauşescu in 1989, of Saddam Hussein in 2006, and of course of Osama bin Laden in May. They were violent, gruesome deaths at the hands of those they’d tormented, ending lives of violent, gruesome men who thought nothing of making life hell for millions. It’s not diplomatic to celebrate their deaths. It’s difficult not to.
It should be just as difficult not to feel revulsion at the manner of those deaths: summary executions, whether bloodied by revenge or whitewashed by kangaroo courts, reflect the killers’ contempt for law and not, as we’re so barbarically manipulated into believing by the commentariat’s more vulgar chest-thumping braggarts, the upholding of justice. It’s been just as revolting to hear American commentators remark about the violence of Qaddafi’s death by way of raising questions and doubt about his killers (“can these barbarians really be friends of America when it’s all over?”), when the same commentators spoke only heroically of bin Laden’s more professionally polished Navy Seals killers. The reality is that both men’s ends were identical, minus the cell-phone video of bin Laden’s more surgical assassination, which must be floating somewhere out there. And bin Laden’s assassination is now the template, blessed by the United States, for the extra-judicial killing of fallen despots.
That’s not to be shedding tears for those fallen murderers. Only for their ability, even in death, to corrupt the people claiming to be bringing them to justice.
There’s not much separating these men from serial murderers aside from numbers. The Qaddafis and Saddams of history had the lessons of Stalin and Mao to learn from, and means of mass repression and mass murder at their disposal. They availed themselves of those means for as long as they were in power. It was the only way for them to remain in power. So 2011 will be a good year for the end of bad men. In Qaddafi and bin Laden, within a span of five months, the world has been rid of two of the worst. Let’s hope the streak doesn’t end there.
Qaddafi and bin Laden were cut of the same bloody cloth. But in matters of human suffering and destructiveness, Qaddafi was worse. He was bin Laden before bin Laden was, to murderous Islamists anyway, cool. We have short memories in the West. But for almost three decades, the champion of terrorism–he was an ATM to the IRA, the PLO, the Red Brigades–, the cash cow of civil wars and mercenaries, the fan of hijackings and rogue bombings, was Qaddafi. It’s not for nothing that Ronald Reagan called him the “mad dog of the Middle East.” He managed to do in Libya, North Africa, Lebanon and Israel-Palestine what bin Laden never could manage: he bankrolled entire wars, not just a few terrorist attacks. He had billions of oil dollars at his disposal, year after year, an entire nation under his boot, and illusions of becoming the Arab world’s universal leader.
On Thursday, he lay naked, a bullet hole through the head, the plaything of insurgents yanking his head up and down. More important is the manner of Qaddafi’s downfall: it was started and ended by Libyans themselves. They had NATO’s help, and there’s much to celebrate in ending NATO’s mission in Libya. But it was mostly a Libyan fight to get rid of a Libyan murderer.
It’s natural for the West to worry about who will take over. But it’s not the West’s place to decide. The last 40 years are Libyans’ best lesson in what to avoid, and the next 40 weeks likely their best chance to begin building a more civilized society on their terms. The good news is that the Arab Spring continues as a truly Arab, democracy-driven revolution. The better news is that a few more dictators will be falling yet, in Syria, in Algeria, in Morocco, in Bahrain, in the United Arab Emirates, in Iran, and hopefully in the holy grail of autocracy: in Saudi Arabia. The bad news is that in some of these places, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia especially, the United States is an obstacle to liberation, and still an ugly, inexcusable accomplice to repression, torture and worse.
None of America’s leaders—not Barack Obama, not Congress nor any of the GOP demagogues, buffoons and parodies posing as presidential candidates—have yet figured out that bombing and invading some dictators while aiding and abetting others ensures only two things: zero credibility and hollow leadership in the eyes of a world that once depended on both from America. While Arabs celebrate their endless spring, Obama and his GOP look-alikes are lions in winter, and their manes are shedding.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
29 Comments so far
Show All"More important is the manner of Qaddafi’s downfall: it was started and ended by Libyans themselves. They had NATO’s help, ... But it was mostly a Libyan fight to get rid of a Libyan murderer."
What a steaming pile of BS.
I agree. I am surprised that CD carried this article. The writer is either extremely naive or is a willing propagandist for the empire.
Quoting mad dog Reagan in calling Gaddafi a "mad dog"? That reminds me of Smedley Butler's quote about Al Capone, indicating that the only significant difference between Capone and the US military was in the scope, not the nature, of the endeavors. The scope of Reagan's misdeeds was far greater than that of Gaddafi.
CD is in the middle of a fundraiser, so it's running all the neocon garbage it can find. Sickening.
No kidding. How does a bozo like this get a column? No serious commenter, regardless of political inclination, thinks that the Libyan rebels had even a remote chance of success against Gaddafi's heavy armor, artillery, and air power, without using NATO as their own air force. To even suggest it is beyond stupid. In fact NATO only intervened after the rebels had been fought to a standstill and Gadaffi's forces had even reversed them in some places.
My thought exactly when I read that was neo-lib/neo-con propaganda bullshit.
Caleb Abell. Exactly!
That is one of most asinine statements from an assinine ignoramus that I have ever read! Pierre is either a presstitute and a media whore or is woefully naive. He belongs on Foxy News as a pundit.
"It’s not diplomatic to celebrate their deaths. It’s difficult not to."
!!!
Screeech! (backs up..) . wait a minute. Wait one dang minute here.
Pierre, that is NOT true. It is a rationalization! And it is made because
1. people WANT to enjoy "an eye for an eye" but
2 They are also conditioned to feel ashamed, or guilty, if they feel any pleasure from violence or the thoughts of violence..
This conflict is dealt with by by first ADMITTING:
a. "It's not diplomatic to celebrate their deaths" (meaning: "I feel ashamed of my savage and brutal impulses, since I masquerade as a person of peace"
-and then DENYING:
b. "It's difficult not to".
Which means "despite my good heart, [and good looks, good family, good clothes, good car, good haircut, good grades, good job, and good intentions ] I still feel all this hatred, and all this glee at the suffering of others.... Well, so what. It's only because this big bad thing is bigger and badder than the strength of poor little me to resist it. And so, if I enjoy brutality and revenge and the thoughts of violence, and still find myself celebrating other people's deaths... these are the just the faults of a good man, aren't they? So really, the way I feel about this stuff isn't MY fault."
------------------
Here's a tip: next time just write "the Devil made me feel this way" or something!
I don't mean to be rude.... really. But I also didn't want you to get away with the idea that (to paraphrase and exaggerate) it is inevitable that everyone must glory in the dark feelings of brutal revenge, and that it is "okay" to feel this way, bla bla, and, ba bla, we should just "own it", bla bla.
It's NOT inevitable and it is really NOT okay, IMHO, since vengeance, is rather destructive not just to its victim or object, but also to the people who allow themselves to rationalize it, instead of just rejecting it with the will.
Thoreau once wrote "It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil"- about a paperweight, I admit, but no matter. It's the same thing: "It's difficult not do"- that's what Thoreau meant by the word "beginnings".
Better to just reject that idea, before it puts in a hook and won't leave.
"The best lack all conviction."
William Butler Yeats.
"Qaddafi was worse."
The poor soul is dead, and not just merely dead, but if the news is not lying this time, he is most sincerely dead. It's done. I will not try to justify it by saying he was a bad man, or a worse man. Who am I to make such a judgment? I mean, really? I have no right to say such things.
Let us not beat our chests and crow AT ALL about this. To do so makes us the same as our enemies.
I reject any attitude of celebration, of judgment, and of rationalization trying to justify the morality of murdering a murderer. Killing is a dirty, ugly, sinful, horrid, ungodly business. Celebrating it, or even rationalizing it with words like "well, after all, he was a very bad man!" offend me deeply. I won't allow this rationalization that calls darkness light into my mind, heart, or life, if I can help it.
I know it is officially Hate Qaddafi Week, but I am not participating in this festival, thank you very much.
Bad men? Mass murders?
What about Nixon? Johnson? Bush senior? Bush Jr and Cheney? And now Obama. How many people have died because of AMERICAN mass murderers?
Whatever the number is, I bet it makes Qaddafi's record as a death-dealer look like the work of a small-time hood, compared to what OUR thugs have accomplished
How much suffering did OUR mass murderers cause? What kind of bloody cloth are THEY cut from? What do THEY deserve?
Are you condemning the ones you condemn because they are foreign, or swarthy, or speak a different language, or read a different scripture, or what? Because the mass murder benchmark you are applying is being very selectively and unevenly applied, and definitely leaves out some of the worst, and most recent, ones.
People like neo-cons and neo-libs that do this sort of hypocritical murder and then promote it on the MSM are OFTEN "godly," otherwise agree 100%.
Excellent post. And to paraphrase Dr. Johnson, "There, but for the grace of God, go an enormous number of world leaders known to their admirers as 'heros.'"
FROD: Your comment reflects a debate I had last night with my boyfriend... he can't stand to witness the analogy so he reverts to anger when I point it out. A great many people are comforted by the illusion that the bad guy is dead, and refuse to consider how much the US collaborated with said "bad guy," or what it means when the rule of law is decimated as witnessed by this new pattern of extrajudicial killings. Furthermore, they cannot see the awful truth as portrayed by the actions of their leaders, what with the numbers of the dead served up in a neat sterile package of collateral damage, what's REALLY going on in the way of quite efficient barbarism, now the official business of state.
Thanks for your post.
That I can agree with, straightforward and to the point!
What everybody else (so far) said.
This article will please those who uncritically identify with the sentiment "It’s not diplomatic to celebrate their deaths. It’s difficult not to", and especially those who nod incipiently as they scan it.
It's gratifying that I'm not the only reader who veered off upon hitting this rhetorical spike strip. As I tumbled off the roadway, even the glimpses I caught in my rear-view mirror plainly show that Tristam buys into the standard liberal-hawk caricature of the events in Libya as an essentially wholesome "Arab Spring" popular uprising against a Villanous Dictator-- with a little help from its friends.
I'm certainly not above schadenfreude, but the sublimated and rationalized variety is deplorably grotesque.
By the 3rd paragraph, this article made me want to puke! So I had to stop.
Pierre Tristam is an intellectual terrorist and I feel I was being waterboarded into believing Osama Bin Laden was the moral and motivational equivalent of Jeffery Dahmer. As if I was being forced to believe OBL ate his victims or face more intellectual torture.
One can only wonder whether, if not hope that, Pierre Tristam will be shot in the head after being pulled bleeding form a sewer pipe by a mob of angry political scientists and literary critics.
Qaddafi is gone! Yeeeeeeeah! A dictator, a murderer, a thief, an oppressor, a loony tune. Can't think of a piece of scum that deserved what he got more than him. However, what lies ahead for Libya and the Libyan people looks actually as dark - if not more so - than under the Mad Dog's reign of terror. The tragedy of this whole thing is how the Libyan people have been used, abused, mislead and their land and freedom stolen from under them. I'm afraid that their woes are only beginning.
And more importantly, the US $'s status as reserve currency in Africa is intact and Libya is now safe for the IMF.
And all the Libyans had to give up was free education, free health care, comtrol of their oil resources and the county's debt-free status.
I cannot believe CD published this trash. Who's next -- Allan Dershowitz?
Having read Pierre Tristam's articles over the year's and on his blog, I can assure those who consider him a tool of the Matrix their view is completely out of line. He is a consistent critic of the US, the EU, the Israeli's, et al. He is an expert on Middle East affairs who writes at About.com on the topic, and indeed was born in Lebanon.
While I did not support the war in Libya that BO initiated (see Rolling Stone) nor do I believe that human's should be summarily executed without trial (see Nuremberg), I weigh Pierre's points with great interest.
What amazes me to no end, however is the personal attack, moral superiority and grandiosity that fundamentalists on the Left spew in their commentary here. No wonder we have no progressive left movement in the US; we can't even talk about a Mad Dog without taking on his verbal attributes.
Gaddafi's murder and coverup is led by the United States, UNSC, NATO and the Neo-Military-Dictatorship that has seized Libya for Corporate Plunder.
Oh Pierre, Ghaddafi did not need the likes of Stalin or Mao - or even Hitler or Mussolini, or Ghengis Khan - to learn from. In your words, he was cut from the same cloth. To act as he did was in his character - that's how he got where he was and how he maintained his position for 40 years - a better track record, timewise, than Hitler or Stalin. That's the very type that occupies that upper level of international predatory thugs who run the world and whose lapdog Ghaddafi once was. Among those thugs, he was a tool, but not content to remain a tool in the service of the big clubs of thugs, he foolishly tried to elevate himself by creating alliance structures outside of the established. Sure, he was repulsive physically and morally, but as long as he was playing his assigned role there was no problem. I'm not defending Ghaddafi, just refusing to get on the bash-Ghaddafi bandwagon - how brave at this distance to express outrage - where was it 6 months ago? He may have been clumsier, but he was no worse than the rest, certainly not worse than the stylish smooth-talker, or should I say plagiarizer, Bush-ama with his policies of extra-judicial illegal actions all over the globe. The death of a "dictator" is far less important than the damage done to constitutions, bills of rights, human dignity everywhere by those. And will no one show anger over the deaths of an entire family-is that acceptable these days, to execute entire families instead of trying in court the accused and properly araigned? That's the damage done to our souls, isn't it. Is there a way back home from that, Toto?
Red Balloon: Your concluding comments are right on.
Thank you, S-R. I knew you'd get it. That's where you reside, where you work at bringing light.
A couple of comments.
My first impression on reading this post was that Tristam couldn't have written the thing. It's style, content, and length are totally antithetical to what I've read by him before - it's too short, it's style too puerile, and it's assertions absurd. The CD editors should be careful with what they let get by, even those items submitted by regular contributors.
I must admit, Gaddafi's demise did remind me of Mussolini's. There's an interesting phenomena I observed years ago among Italian WWII warriors who spoke of their experiences. Almost all had fought as partisans. I wonder how many of those who did Gaddafi in collaborated with his regime.
The event was a big adrenaline boost for the US MCM and then the US public. "who..who..who - bad guy's dead - the US rocks". We gotta have our circuses.
Lastly, there is no such thing as Libya in that particular North African costal region you see on the map. It's just a place occupied by a group mutually antagonistic tribes - always has been and always will be. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
"the United States is an obstacle to liberation, and still an ugly, inexcusable accomplice to repression, torture and worse."
That doesn't sound like a propagandist for Empire to me. I also am familiar with Pierre's work and he has been a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, and occupations.
Jim R.
And I say Tristam is just a shill for Israel and the corporate state, since he conveniently failed to bring up anything at all about 9/11 as an insider job! He must be working for the neo-con Democrats. And he didn't even write this article, as one poster claims, because it isn't his style or LENGTH. Some CD editor wrote it and pasted his name on it!
I have yet to read a longer list of raving lunacy than these comments. Have you all lost your minds? Only yjoseph seems to have the vaguest idea about Pierre's work over the past several years. I've been a consistent reader of his blogs too, and I can tell you that you "critics" of his here don't have the faintest clue what this man is saying. He's apparently too subtle and nuanced for your taste, failing the test of ranting and raving every sentence about US terrorist diplomacy, that Bush-bama is worse than Qadaffi (or is it Khaddaffy, Ghaddafi, Quedaffy, or the 300 other alternate spellings?) and we should all hang our heads in shame for feeling even the tiniest twinge of gratitude for his death.
Times like this, it really seems that CD posters have finally lost all sense of reason and proportion. Too much time spent at the keyboard imagining what flaming revolutionaries we all are.
"He's apparently too subtle and nuanced for your taste, failing the test of ranting and raving every sentence about US terrorist diplomacy, that Bush-bama is worse than Qadaffi"
Well, by at least one measure -- number of dead bodies -- yeah, Bush-bama is plenty worse. Seems like a reasonable measure to me.
"and we should all hang our heads in shame for feeling even the tiniest twinge of gratitude for his death."
Well, excuse some of us for aspiring toward being civilized. If I had any reason to believe that the motley gang of ex-members of the Gaddafi regime, Al Qaeda, and fractious tribalists were going to be any better for Libya than Gaddafi, I might feel gratitude for his having been deposed. Exactly why that should necessitate his murder isn't quite clear to me. But I suppose I lack your red-blooded instincts.