The situation in Lybia is all too complicated. People around the world want to influence the elections and want to have a say on who the new leader of Lybia will be. The issue with that is that why would Libyans want to listen and take advice from people outside their country, specially when you are not even from the middle east such is the case of Americans and Europeans involved. I am not opposed to the idea of having a king as long as the king is what the people want. Another thing I respect is that prince Mohammed el-Senussi is not forcing his way into Lybia like most others are. He is standing by saying "If you want me to take over I am ready" so if the people want him why not? We are nobody to dictate whats best for Lybia. Our reality is different from Libyans, let them play their own game.
In the late 70 I worked in the petroleum industry in Libya with the national drilling company .in the same period Libya standard of living was the hyghest in Africa and certainly better than Spain or Portugal today because of Sarkozy and consorts ( even the complicity) of Obama we end up in this chaos and anarchy .
1
Many commentators here seem to have a feeble grasp of recent history. First, the decision to intervene in the Libyan Civil War was not made solely or even primarily by the United States. It came about as a UN Security Council resolution. The main efforts were led by France, and Qatar had sent military advisors to support the rebel groups.
Second, there is this fantasy that if the West had not intervened in Libya all would have been well. But consider Syria, where the West was very slow to get involved. If the West had not intervened in Libya, we might simply be looking at another Syria. Certainly not an improvement.
There is a false belief if that US just did this or that, there would be some kind of happy outcome in these Middle Eastern civil wars. But why? There is no rational basis for such a belief.
These are conflicts that have been brewing for a long time. The dictatorships that some Westerners pine for now never created true stability. They only put a lid on a pressure cooker that was ready to explode. In many of these cases, the point of no return was decades ago, and it was only a matter of time when the facade of stability crumbled away.
Second, there is this fantasy that if the West had not intervened in Libya all would have been well. But consider Syria, where the West was very slow to get involved. If the West had not intervened in Libya, we might simply be looking at another Syria. Certainly not an improvement.
There is a false belief if that US just did this or that, there would be some kind of happy outcome in these Middle Eastern civil wars. But why? There is no rational basis for such a belief.
These are conflicts that have been brewing for a long time. The dictatorships that some Westerners pine for now never created true stability. They only put a lid on a pressure cooker that was ready to explode. In many of these cases, the point of no return was decades ago, and it was only a matter of time when the facade of stability crumbled away.
1
Restoring the monarchy sounds like a desperate fantasy. In Libya, you have a bunch of rival militias, none of which has much incentive to put down their arms and trust other groups. I doubt restoring a monarchy all of a sudden will change the situation.
1
I am baffled and amazed at Mr Walsh's simplistic suggestion of implanting monarchy in the war torn country. After miserably failing to install democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, the west is shamelessly trying to opt for a system that is in fact a very anti thesis of democracy. If Libya were to be ruled by a feeble monarch then what was wrong with Col Qaddafi: during his reign Libya was the richest region in the Northern African region; she had the lowest rate of joblessness in the region and an efficient governance system. The western insouciance has turned Libya into a haven for the would be terrorists. The next attack on the European soil will be planned and rehearsed somewhere in the forlorn streets of Libyan cities, and, with all the state of the art weaponry that the West boasts off, there is nothing substantial that they can do to stop this ever growing menace. Time has proven that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq played a pivotal role in radicalizing yet another generation of Muslim youth: another invasion or the installation of a puppet regime would be a blessing for Al Qaeda and ISIS. The key to resolving this crisis is in the hands of Mr Putin, who, much to the chagrin of the Western diplomats, does not differentiate between a good Islamist and a bad Islamist- he bombs both out of existence. And that is why he has been successful in turning the tide in favor of Syria's Assad and the same can be replicated in Libya as well.
2
I would really ask this question before even thinking about militarize Libya again.
Who did support Gaddafi to topple King Idris in 1969?
Who did support Gaddafi to topple King Idris in 1969?
1
USA
1
King Idris was from one tribe, Gaddafi, another. As I recall, the tribes were in different regions, far removed. His overthrow was as much a tribal coup as anything else. In it, one finds echoes of today.
"Libya" has been a colony or desert province in a dozen empires, maybe more, with occasional forays into imperialism itself. During Egypt's Third Intermediate Period (1050 BC - 650 BC) the pharaohs who ruled much of Upper Egypt from Tanis, in the Nile Delta, weren't Egyptian at all, but Bedouins from east Libya. King Solomon's Israel battled them. At one point they controlled much of what is now Palestine.
Empires divide to conquer and rule. Libya has been carved up countless times in countless ways. Today's political fragmentation reflects it. There is no Libyan nation because it lacks a societal center, thanks to Gaddafi's despotism. One thing most critics of President Obama's North African policy fail to realize is Gaddafi's domestic terrorism far exceeded his foreign. He had reduced Libya to wreckage long before his overthrow. Obama has nothing to work with.
Given four thousand years of this history does any solution to the internecine warfare problem exist? Maybe. It starts by accepting facts on the ground. There is no independent Libya. So impose a formal political partition. Divide the land into self-governing tribal cantons then demilitarize them as much as possible.
"Libya" has been a colony or desert province in a dozen empires, maybe more, with occasional forays into imperialism itself. During Egypt's Third Intermediate Period (1050 BC - 650 BC) the pharaohs who ruled much of Upper Egypt from Tanis, in the Nile Delta, weren't Egyptian at all, but Bedouins from east Libya. King Solomon's Israel battled them. At one point they controlled much of what is now Palestine.
Empires divide to conquer and rule. Libya has been carved up countless times in countless ways. Today's political fragmentation reflects it. There is no Libyan nation because it lacks a societal center, thanks to Gaddafi's despotism. One thing most critics of President Obama's North African policy fail to realize is Gaddafi's domestic terrorism far exceeded his foreign. He had reduced Libya to wreckage long before his overthrow. Obama has nothing to work with.
Given four thousand years of this history does any solution to the internecine warfare problem exist? Maybe. It starts by accepting facts on the ground. There is no independent Libya. So impose a formal political partition. Divide the land into self-governing tribal cantons then demilitarize them as much as possible.
3
They had the same dumb idea to restore the monarchy in Egypt, Greece and Romania after WWII. It didn't work.
2
What silliness. Libya until 1911 was two provinces of the Ottoman empire, Tripoli and Cyrenacia.
The Italians invaded and annexed the provinces, installing a monarch as a puppet of Rome.
Creating a monarchy makes about as much sense as handing back the area to be administered by Turkey.
The Italians invaded and annexed the provinces, installing a monarch as a puppet of Rome.
Creating a monarchy makes about as much sense as handing back the area to be administered by Turkey.
3
"Great" idea! Just what's (not) needed. More monarchs, oligarchs, and despots.
While we're at it, let's name a king/queen for the USA--the government is clearly not working!
The US and NATO created the chaos in Libya. The idea of putting some puppet king on the throne is just icing on the cake! After all, the West installing the Shah in Iran worked out so well!
While we're at it, let's name a king/queen for the USA--the government is clearly not working!
The US and NATO created the chaos in Libya. The idea of putting some puppet king on the throne is just icing on the cake! After all, the West installing the Shah in Iran worked out so well!
3
Doesn't matter at this point. The country has devolved into anarchy by design.
Sadly, all the European powers (UK, France, Italy) that pushed this idiotic war actually wanted were Libya's 144 tonnes of hard gold reserves, 150,000 cubic kilometres of groundwater, + the oil exports.
The gold reserves are long pilfered to Europe, the oil is nearly worthless in today's market, only the precious water is left.
Whether the Libyan people can get over the internecine conflict that left them ninths state is questionable.
The entire Eastern world has been run by despots, strongmen and emperors for 10,000 years, so the psychological change needed to accept and understand democracy never comes easily, and when it occasionally does... it usually does not occur as the Western thinkers would like.
Sadly, all the European powers (UK, France, Italy) that pushed this idiotic war actually wanted were Libya's 144 tonnes of hard gold reserves, 150,000 cubic kilometres of groundwater, + the oil exports.
The gold reserves are long pilfered to Europe, the oil is nearly worthless in today's market, only the precious water is left.
Whether the Libyan people can get over the internecine conflict that left them ninths state is questionable.
The entire Eastern world has been run by despots, strongmen and emperors for 10,000 years, so the psychological change needed to accept and understand democracy never comes easily, and when it occasionally does... it usually does not occur as the Western thinkers would like.
6
I would really ask this question before even to think about militarize Libya again.
Who did support Gaddafi to topple King Idris in 1969?
Who did support Gaddafi to topple King Idris in 1969?
There is no question that the Arab world is not ready for democracy and that our own obsession with democracy being the right system for all presumes that the entire world has Western Values. They do not. There is not one example of a successful democracy in the Arab world. Each time there has been an attempt either through external pressure or internal revolt - it was boomeranged back to a more authoritarian system. Whether it be a King, a Prince or a General - we cannot impose democracy on a culture or society whose values and basic religious beliefs negate the core foundation of democratic thinking.
6
February 25 2015
The default is to the State of Nature and belief in biological inheritance that may in fact is ancient and the forever plan B. However, we all know that sooner or late the body politic goes through difficultly and the bloody overthrow of the ruling family is purged - circular - Hey, let's admit other options for a ruling caretaker commission however selected is still better then the jungle politics of nobility. Plan C - hey faith in the sacred text to guide the state while having to live together on earth - it said that holy text are the wisdom guide for heaven and earth so ....
jja Manhattan, N. Y.;
The default is to the State of Nature and belief in biological inheritance that may in fact is ancient and the forever plan B. However, we all know that sooner or late the body politic goes through difficultly and the bloody overthrow of the ruling family is purged - circular - Hey, let's admit other options for a ruling caretaker commission however selected is still better then the jungle politics of nobility. Plan C - hey faith in the sacred text to guide the state while having to live together on earth - it said that holy text are the wisdom guide for heaven and earth so ....
jja Manhattan, N. Y.;
1
Having lived a few years in the Middle East, it's my perception that the "strong man", whether he be king or general, is essential, AT THIS TIME, to maintain peace within many countries in the region.
Much of the population have what might be characterized as a "tribal mentality", seeing their identity as closely tied up with their immediate circle, rather than with their nationality. This breeds internal conflict.
The "strong man" imposes through force of arms or personality, a national identity. This suppresses (but does not eliminate) the tribal conflicts.
Only once the Libyans view themselves FIRST as Libyans, SECOND as Libyans, and only after that as members of other groups, will they not required a strong man to impose cooperation towards national goals.
Much of the population have what might be characterized as a "tribal mentality", seeing their identity as closely tied up with their immediate circle, rather than with their nationality. This breeds internal conflict.
The "strong man" imposes through force of arms or personality, a national identity. This suppresses (but does not eliminate) the tribal conflicts.
Only once the Libyans view themselves FIRST as Libyans, SECOND as Libyans, and only after that as members of other groups, will they not required a strong man to impose cooperation towards national goals.
3
My husband and I lived in Tripoli for seven years while King Idris was in power. The government was moving in the right direction, just not fast enough for the hot headed young men, mostly encouraged by Cairo. We were there during Ghaddafi's revolution and I have met Ghaddafi. Certainly, nothing is working right now. Why not try the monarchy?
3
It would seem that monarchy would be the best option, but the problem remains that we have little if any knowledge concerning the number of Syrians who would want to revert to a temporary Monarchy. It seems to be a sketchy maneuver to create a 'temporary' monarchy, which is supposed to step down as soon as the people want an election, does it not?
Libya had its glorious era under the crown of king Idris who established a modern country , thriving constitutional democracy despite lack of resources for the young independent nation back then , meanwhile plenty of our european Mediterranean neighbors were suffering dictatorship such as Greek and Spain .
the constitution of the libyan kingdom was providing for the protection of intellectual rights ,and gave woment the right to vote , nearly a decade before Switzerland .
Unfortunately plenty of comments are reflecting lacking to the minimal knowledge about king Idiris and the libyan kingdom , or about the constitutional monarchy regime at all .
Constitutionally prince Mohammed is the crown prince of the libyan nation , therefore, there's no competition or doubt about it, and he is a beloved prince ,well known for his nobel attitude towards jast causes and struggling to achieve the public demands.
Hopefully, Libya will restore its constitutional process that was confiscated decades ago .
Libyans truly deserve a better chance ،an opportunity to activate the Constitution and really resuming it , or to overturn the Constitution.
Our nation deserves the right to a fair referendum , giving people the right to choose instead of custody of its will by warlords .
Our people deserve this opportunity instead of confiscation and expropriation of his dreams for a better tomorrow .
the constitution of the libyan kingdom was providing for the protection of intellectual rights ,and gave woment the right to vote , nearly a decade before Switzerland .
Unfortunately plenty of comments are reflecting lacking to the minimal knowledge about king Idiris and the libyan kingdom , or about the constitutional monarchy regime at all .
Constitutionally prince Mohammed is the crown prince of the libyan nation , therefore, there's no competition or doubt about it, and he is a beloved prince ,well known for his nobel attitude towards jast causes and struggling to achieve the public demands.
Hopefully, Libya will restore its constitutional process that was confiscated decades ago .
Libyans truly deserve a better chance ،an opportunity to activate the Constitution and really resuming it , or to overturn the Constitution.
Our nation deserves the right to a fair referendum , giving people the right to choose instead of custody of its will by warlords .
Our people deserve this opportunity instead of confiscation and expropriation of his dreams for a better tomorrow .
6
So, the shady bussiness men of a failed state are lining up for the kingship. Whats so radical abouth that ?. If anything it seems positively in the spirit of the good old condotieri.
2
Couldn't the "international community" have thought about alternatives before venturing forth into the bloody overthrow of Gaddafi? All the Kings' horses and all the Kings' men won't put Jamahiriya* back together again. The destruction of Libya is a great disgrace and prime example of the destructive power of "humanitarian intervention". *https://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/
2
That could be the only way. The problem will be to find a man willing to submit to constant target practice and covert humiliation. I do hope the Libyans themselves will come up with a solution. But I would not "take that to the bank"......
As all the middle east monarchies teeter, threatening stability in the few places still stable, this proposes to create another one in one of the most unstable places of all as a means supposedly to make it stable.
This is barking at the moon.
This is barking at the moon.
Don't you think it might be best to let the Libyans decide this. Eisenhower overthrew Iranian democracy and installed the Shah as Dictator as will as having the CIA train his Savak secret police. How did that work out?
Eisenhower refused to accept the Geneva Accords settling the Indochina war after France failed in its effort to re-colonize Indochina. Ike took Ngo Dinh Diem from a Roman Catholic monastery in New Jersey and installed him as Dictator of a brand-spanking-new country he called "South Vier Nam". How did that work out? He also had the CIA overthrow the duly elected Arbenz government in Guatamala on behalf of the United Fruit Company. Not nice.
The Bush II-Cheney administration installed Hamid Karzai and his family in Afghanistan. They looted the Country.
The Bush II-Cheney administration invaded Iraq and installed Nouri al Maliki as the George Washington or Nelson Mandela as Prime Minister. How did that work out?
Eisenhower refused to accept the Geneva Accords settling the Indochina war after France failed in its effort to re-colonize Indochina. Ike took Ngo Dinh Diem from a Roman Catholic monastery in New Jersey and installed him as Dictator of a brand-spanking-new country he called "South Vier Nam". How did that work out? He also had the CIA overthrow the duly elected Arbenz government in Guatamala on behalf of the United Fruit Company. Not nice.
The Bush II-Cheney administration installed Hamid Karzai and his family in Afghanistan. They looted the Country.
The Bush II-Cheney administration invaded Iraq and installed Nouri al Maliki as the George Washington or Nelson Mandela as Prime Minister. How did that work out?
12
You mean, "Ike", a five star general who from the grave still warns democrats about the military industrial takeover?
I am somewhat bewildered by the venom expressed by many posters on this thread regarding the idea of a monarchy. I see no evidence that elected politicians do a better job, are less corrupt, less expensive or less divisive. Certainly our congress gives no evidence of it. A constitutional monarchy is a perfectly tried and tested concept that works well in a number of nations. The idea merits serious consideration if indeed it would provide a focal point of national unity that would transcend tribalism and religious issues. I'm in no way an expert of the affairs of Libya so I can't comment on whether it might be a success or not but as a concept, in and of itself, it deserves better than the out-of-hand derision some seem to be according it.
9
A French friend of mine (from a once noble family) once gave me the argument for the advantages of a Monarchy. I must say, it was fairly convincing. I wasn't sold that it would be the best option for the USA, but I did seem like it might be appropriate under the right conditions.
A more radical idea would be for the West to simply stay out of other countries and let them figure there future out for themselves. It's a simple concept called national sovereignty, the basic principle guiding international relations.
Unfortunately, when there is oil in the ground or other resources the West assumes that they have a right to manipulate nations states, even topple them and replace leaders with Western figure heads. The path of this conduct is littered with death, destruction and human tragedy. Enough of fixing other nations.
Unfortunately, when there is oil in the ground or other resources the West assumes that they have a right to manipulate nations states, even topple them and replace leaders with Western figure heads. The path of this conduct is littered with death, destruction and human tragedy. Enough of fixing other nations.
7
I agree, in principle, with what you write. But we still face situations such as the Taliban, acting effectively as the government of Afghanistan, shielding Al Qaeda, while it conducts attacks on American soil.
So we need to figure out how to address that, not just defensively, but also offensively, stopping such groups BEFORE they have a chance to attack us.
I certainly agree that most of our involvement in foreign affairs is meddling, with large negative consequences to us and the world.
So we need to figure out how to address that, not just defensively, but also offensively, stopping such groups BEFORE they have a chance to attack us.
I certainly agree that most of our involvement in foreign affairs is meddling, with large negative consequences to us and the world.
From its foundations modern Libya can be said to be the tale of two cities, Tripoli in the west and Benghazi in the east. The monarchy was based in the east and represented the Senussi of Cyrenaica. When Occidental Petroleum met the King, Armand Hammer devoted his presentation to the benefits for Cyrenaica not the rest of the country. This regional orientation was its weakness although the Senussi were perhaps better organised internally than other parts of whet was to become Libya. Possibly this is why their religious leader was made King of the united country at independence.
1
Pretty obvious what getting rid of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussain got us.
7
As Joseph Stalin asked, when talking about the Pope, what armies does he have? How many soldiers or tanks does he have?
Installing some distant relative of a "King" will not solve the problem unless he is also installed with a larger and better armed army than the militias. There is no military solution to the Middle East, Horn of Africa, Central Africa and so on.
All we've done is created civil wars when we've tried to force regime change. Look at Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria etc. IT DOES NOT WORK. Enough is enough.
If we must become involved then lets provide funds for education, funds for food and clean water, funds to eradicate preventable diseases and the such. Put away our guns and use humanitarian aid only.
Installing some distant relative of a "King" will not solve the problem unless he is also installed with a larger and better armed army than the militias. There is no military solution to the Middle East, Horn of Africa, Central Africa and so on.
All we've done is created civil wars when we've tried to force regime change. Look at Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria etc. IT DOES NOT WORK. Enough is enough.
If we must become involved then lets provide funds for education, funds for food and clean water, funds to eradicate preventable diseases and the such. Put away our guns and use humanitarian aid only.
1
Good Grief ! A monarch is anointed and all the militia's give up their competing interests in the realization of national unity. Is this before or after one clicks their heels three times and makes a wish.
Whether it is a radical idea or not, it is a bad idea. This will just sow the seeds for another Qaddafi to come on the scene, and we are back to square one.
Good Luck - no, the best option call Dr Frankenstein and ask him to revive Qaddafi! Just as Looney as bringing back the Monarchy!!
2
US idea to rebuild Libya by restoring monarchy could be another disaster in the making in the 'middle east' realpolitik.
US/'west' Libyan policy has created another Iraq in 'north africa' and ambassador Stevens has been tragically assassinated in Benghzai which US house select committee is still trying to figure out. Libya was a prosperous secular country till Benghazi tribe, carried away with Obama's Arab spring speech in Cairo, backed by US/'west' financially/militarily started the insurgency against Qaddafi. US/'west' supported by Nato bombed Libya to oblivion turning Libya into a medieval time tribal society. To shock and awe of world citizenry almost 200 billion dollars of Libyan assets in foreign banks, 150 tones of Libyan gold, and the best crude oil in the region ...all vanished in US/'western' greed of natural resource management in North Africa/'middle east'. After ruthless Nato bombing Qaddafi was lynched mercilessly by tribal mobs supported by the 'western' proponents of spreading democracy in Libya. Libya and Iraq have been turned into ghost civilizations for the 'western' greed of oil and natural resources. ISIS/Da'esh is a monster organization initially supported by the same stakeholders. In the guise of 'wiping off' ISIS; Libyan folks will be decapitated/annihilated exactly like Syrian citizens. Where are the anti-war conscientious folks!!
US/'west' Libyan policy has created another Iraq in 'north africa' and ambassador Stevens has been tragically assassinated in Benghzai which US house select committee is still trying to figure out. Libya was a prosperous secular country till Benghazi tribe, carried away with Obama's Arab spring speech in Cairo, backed by US/'west' financially/militarily started the insurgency against Qaddafi. US/'west' supported by Nato bombed Libya to oblivion turning Libya into a medieval time tribal society. To shock and awe of world citizenry almost 200 billion dollars of Libyan assets in foreign banks, 150 tones of Libyan gold, and the best crude oil in the region ...all vanished in US/'western' greed of natural resource management in North Africa/'middle east'. After ruthless Nato bombing Qaddafi was lynched mercilessly by tribal mobs supported by the 'western' proponents of spreading democracy in Libya. Libya and Iraq have been turned into ghost civilizations for the 'western' greed of oil and natural resources. ISIS/Da'esh is a monster organization initially supported by the same stakeholders. In the guise of 'wiping off' ISIS; Libyan folks will be decapitated/annihilated exactly like Syrian citizens. Where are the anti-war conscientious folks!!
6
Make Libya a democratic nation,and do not go back to kings. Even in some European nations,kings rule,and they are less talked about. Examples galore,queen in the UK,Spain also has a king. We have had protests in some Middle East nations like Egypt,for democracy.
1
With the UK your are referring to Constitutional Monarchies within a Parliamentary Democracy which also exists in Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc., etc.. 8 of the 10 most admired countries in the world have such a system.1 Canada
2 Norway
3 Sweden
4 Switzerland
5 Australia
6 Finland
7 New Zealand
8 Denmark
9 Netherlands
10 Belgium
2 Norway
3 Sweden
4 Switzerland
5 Australia
6 Finland
7 New Zealand
8 Denmark
9 Netherlands
10 Belgium
1
The big question is HOW do WE make Libya a democratic nation?
Another question worth asking ...
Do the Libyans themselves even want a democratic nation? Or do most of the people simply want their own particular group to dominate?
Another question worth asking ...
Do the Libyans themselves even want a democratic nation? Or do most of the people simply want their own particular group to dominate?
Libya needs modern, rational, and pragmatic leaders who can negotiate in good faith with the Libyan political actors and crush the violent radical lunatics running loose. Egypt and the GCC have meddled and only increased the polarization in Libya. The monarchy was unable to defend itself in 1969 and trying to revive such a sham of a royal family will just be further wasted time for the Libyans.
Libyans are very much divided at the moment. The only solution is to appoint someone like Prince Idris Al-Sanussi as head of state otherwise Libya will suffer and remain in constant turmoil. The Sanussi family are respected by all Libyans, by all regions and will no doubt be accepted
2
Well, after all, what could possibly be more democratic than a monarchy?
If this "radical" solution is a product of the author's fertile mind then better to turn the page right away and read about something else. If it has been suggested by some diplomat or other undisclosed high ranking source then the author should spend a few more days in that thorn country before dispensing his two cents. He should also study recent history a bit more attentively. In 2011 the Libyan regime did not "tatter", as he writes, but collapsed, disappeared, disintegrated in a bloodbath while some NATO countries like France were celebrating their victory over the dictator Gaddafi, and the country was abandoned in the hands of bitterly opposed tribal gangs. Please refrain from suggesting anything and let work on it the UN and some other people who are patiently trying to handle this nightmare with the humble weapons of diplomacy. Otherwise Mr. Putin & Co. could be tempted to intervene, as it's happening in Syria, and win also this hand of the poker game with the West.
2
Yes! But what sort of king would satisfy both sides?
Also, the world is moving into a footing that has no further use for kings and their favoritism and bigotry. King means "dictator" or strong man in that part of the world. And that is what we - the 98% rest of the world - is trying to move away from.
No! a king is not the way to go. A president is, but how will they get there?
Also, the world is moving into a footing that has no further use for kings and their favoritism and bigotry. King means "dictator" or strong man in that part of the world. And that is what we - the 98% rest of the world - is trying to move away from.
No! a king is not the way to go. A president is, but how will they get there?
Is the Times ever going to mention the fact that Gen. Khalifa Hifter, the general currently in "Open Warfare" in Benghazi is actually a CIA trained citizen of Virginia? The New Yorker ran a profile of the guy about a year ago. The CIA let him go back to Libya to engage in the "warfare" everyone's so worked up over. Maybe if we weren't sponsoring said warfare, Libya wouldn't be such a disaster.
2
Why some obscure crown prince then? I am sure there are some surviving children of Qaddafi for that role. Clearly, a still vivid memory of presperous and peaceful life under their father's rule should play strongly in their favour, not? If they had the foresight not to kill Qaddafi himself, but just keep him in exile for these few years, we would not have that problem. Surely, the exhausted Lybians would embrace his return most enthusiastically now.
1
The US plays a cynical, self-interested game in the Middle East. Now, 230 years after we overthrew monarchial rule at home, our leaders wonder whether monarchies aren't so bad after all. Gee, look at the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, Morocco, Jordan and the Emirates, what excellent models for us to be emulating. Have we gone mad or is does type of madness inevitably accompany empire building?
1
We are not successful in these matters and should first exhaust all other possibilities. Perhaps resident Obama can momentarily forget about his DOA SCOTUS nominee and approach Louis Farrakhan about the opportunity of a lifetime.
This would be the biggest and loosest band aid ever thrown on a middle east problem. In some way I welcome it though, because its eventual failure will pave the way for other monarchies, namely the one in Saudi Arabia, to be questioned.
1
Libya is a classic example of a puppet kingdom created by a post-world-war order which led to a nasty dictatorship which in turn left behind a political vacuum, chaos, roaming sharks and a largely helpless population. Another puppet king would just be going full circle again.
Brought to you by then-Secretary Clinton. Libya is not a failed nation, the U.S., acting through NATO, destroyed it. Then counter to the Powell doctrine of "You break it, you own it," we ignored the mess until ISIS forced us to re-engage.
Libya is one of many Clinton foreign policy failures, and it is indicative of the sort of bellicose policies we can expect from a Clinton White House.
Libya is one of many Clinton foreign policy failures, and it is indicative of the sort of bellicose policies we can expect from a Clinton White House.
2
A shame that Mr. Walsh didn't think to interview people from other parts of the country besides Tripoli. He would have represented the Libyan perspective more completely and honestly. The eastern part of the country views revival of a monarchy much differently than the Islamists he interviewed in Tripoli.
Strange too that Mr. Walsh did not reveal that along with a temporary monarch would come a constitution - something that Libya sorely needs.
Americans have a hard time imagining wanting a monarch, but having spoken with many Libyans about reviving the monarchy, I understand the rationale. If accepted by the majority, it could potentially bring peace until elections can be properly arranged.
A shame that Mr.Walsh chose to ridicule the idea rather than do the necessary research and provide a proper analysis.
Strange too that Mr. Walsh did not reveal that along with a temporary monarch would come a constitution - something that Libya sorely needs.
Americans have a hard time imagining wanting a monarch, but having spoken with many Libyans about reviving the monarchy, I understand the rationale. If accepted by the majority, it could potentially bring peace until elections can be properly arranged.
A shame that Mr.Walsh chose to ridicule the idea rather than do the necessary research and provide a proper analysis.
1
I thought we believed in self determination? Representation? Democracy? The socio-technological revolutions that created the modern era? Or is that juat for those of us with the most aircraft carriers?
1
"But a king without an army would seem foolhardy for a country awash with weapons...even the royal family is not immune from factionalism."
"We can't go back 60 years....People who talk about these things (=royalist movement) are living in cloud cuckoo land".
Libya has numerous problems. It would seem that a king would just be one more and not a solution.
"We can't go back 60 years....People who talk about these things (=royalist movement) are living in cloud cuckoo land".
Libya has numerous problems. It would seem that a king would just be one more and not a solution.
1
Strong man regimes are favorable to mineral extraction and keeping the peasants, especially those with dangerous ideas about positive and negative freedom in line. Feed them tall tales and strong authority, instead of political philosophy and nationalism. But for God's sake, keep those commodities flowing! What a crazy idea, a universal currency and pan-African assembly for Africa. That Quaddafi, what a crazy guy! The haute bourgeois are much more comfortable with royalty. Especially subservient types that a nice to them and not nearly so rude in manner and speech. King Idris looks like a very nice man.
1
The sad truth is confronted in this article: Americans nostalgic for the days of a more peaceful Middle East - even if it was ruled by autocrats. It makes one wonder whether the world would be better off if the Taliban was still in charge of Afghanistan, Hussein in Iraq, Qaddafi in Libya, and Mubarak in Egypt.
2
I come originally from the town where King Idrees Sanoussi resided which is Tobruk, hence I can testify to the good reputation he had overthere; he used to lead prayers in the main mosque particularly during religious ocasions such as at the end of ramadan; anyway his reputation as a modest and wise man may help accepting the return of the Sanoussis to libya .So the idea of rebuilding the country by resorting to his legacy could be a last resort for Libya so save it from the powerhungry militia leaders and the Beardos of ISIS !!
6
Does it really matter at this point whether Libya or any other nation in the Middle East is ruled by a monarch or another form of governing representative or body?
The imperative for the Middle East is peace. Stabilizing and enduring peace for the people of each country is the responsibility, the trust, and the only criteria of governance that matters.
The imperative for the Middle East is peace. Stabilizing and enduring peace for the people of each country is the responsibility, the trust, and the only criteria of governance that matters.
If the idea of restoring the monarchy abolished by Muammar Gaddafi in his 1969 coup "finds at least nominal support from a broad, and sometimes unlikely, range of Libyans" is indeed a sign that they are "desperate" for a unifying figure to save their country from falling apart.
King Idris was a revered figure but he kept Libya too closely tied to the West than nationalists could tolerate. The vast oil revenues seduced the armed forces under Gaddafi to take control of the country. Fortunately the king was abroad when he was overthrown.
After the Taliban regime was toppled in October 2001, the last Afghan king Zahir Shah returned in 2002. A reform-minded monarch he was deposed in a coup orchestrated by his cousin, backed by conservatives. For many Afghans he was the symbol of a distant past when Afghanistan was at peace with itself and the rest of the world. Many Afghans saw him - a Pashtun - as a symbol of a new start, based on the old bond between a king and his people. But he was 87 and, to Hamid Karzai's relief, had no ambition to rule the country. In 2007 the king died in Kabul and was given a state funeral.
King Idris was a revered figure but he kept Libya too closely tied to the West than nationalists could tolerate. The vast oil revenues seduced the armed forces under Gaddafi to take control of the country. Fortunately the king was abroad when he was overthrown.
After the Taliban regime was toppled in October 2001, the last Afghan king Zahir Shah returned in 2002. A reform-minded monarch he was deposed in a coup orchestrated by his cousin, backed by conservatives. For many Afghans he was the symbol of a distant past when Afghanistan was at peace with itself and the rest of the world. Many Afghans saw him - a Pashtun - as a symbol of a new start, based on the old bond between a king and his people. But he was 87 and, to Hamid Karzai's relief, had no ambition to rule the country. In 2007 the king died in Kabul and was given a state funeral.
2
Installing a monarch due to hereditary lineage (one comfortably fond of sports and cars at that) would be a bigger affront to the struggling aspirations of Libyans who have come so far in building a pluralistic society; even if violent at the moment. Give it some time and a vibrant society will emerge. Just think of the birth of the United States, which took a century and a half to sort out the difference among violent and armed factions.
Restoring monarchy would never be good for the Libyans!
Restoring monarchy would never be good for the Libyans!
2
Really? Isn't a pluralistic society Canada(a Constitutional Hereditary Monarchy)? Or Norway, Sweden or the famous United Kingdom? Do you know what is and how works a Constitutional Monarchy?
Radical? It's a classic. Google the Shah of Iran
7
radical idea? more like counter-revolutionary idea.
why do humans like kings? they don't work. perhaps they kill and imprison fewer people than military dictators, religious zealots and brain-washed ideologues, but that is to be determined.
see also, england circa 1660 and thailand circa 2016.
why do humans like kings? they don't work. perhaps they kill and imprison fewer people than military dictators, religious zealots and brain-washed ideologues, but that is to be determined.
see also, england circa 1660 and thailand circa 2016.
1
they evolved as part of the widening inequality of the late roman empire.
Where Kings don't work? Can you make this favor: Come to Contemporary Age and see the Kings and the Monarchies, they does something that you said? Or they work, and hard, even if don't rule as Head of Government and improve the national unity and ironically the democracy?
gee didn't we do that in Iran ... remember the 'Communist Menace' so we put Palavi in... and just look at what we bought...
14
Wow. This sounds like another regime change to me, only this was done by the Brits and French in the Middle East 100 years ago. And then we came 90 years later and laid waste to the place. No! It's an awful idea put forward but nothing more than some nostalgic former spies who are now "consultants" in mass media and Hollywood. The only remaining monarchs are the clown in Thailand and figureheads in Europe.
7
Did you ever hear of Japan? How about the African kingdoms? Then there's a place called Saudi Arabia and one called Jordan plus various emirates and sheikdoms. I think you need a little more study before commenting further on this issue
Libya had a nasty uprising going when Qaddafi was still the nominal head of state. We intervened in the hope that a long civil war could be avoided or averted. If Qaddafi had been left to fight the uprising, he might well not have managed to put it down, and Libya today would look much the same. The country was doomed to fall apart and be a fertile recruiting ground for Isis whether we intervened or not.
Not intervening in Libya would be identifiable as a mistake only if we had a good idea of how leaving Libya alone to deal with its uprising would have turned out.
Perhaps we should have held our noses and arranged for Qaddafi to get whatever resources he needed to lay waste to his opponents and remain in power. This assumes that with enough resources he could have won and made his secret police powerful enough to stay in power.
Not intervening in Libya would be identifiable as a mistake only if we had a good idea of how leaving Libya alone to deal with its uprising would have turned out.
Perhaps we should have held our noses and arranged for Qaddafi to get whatever resources he needed to lay waste to his opponents and remain in power. This assumes that with enough resources he could have won and made his secret police powerful enough to stay in power.
6
North Korea is showing the world how monarchies come into existence. A violent leader seizes a country by force, assumes the nation is his personal property, and wills it to his heirs.
The Prophet Samuel knew how bad kings are. He said, "And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king" (I Samuel 8:18).
The Prophet Samuel knew how bad kings are. He said, "And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king" (I Samuel 8:18).
1
NATO and the west made a complete mess of Libya by bombing that country and killing it's leader. As despicable as he was, he surrendered all of the country's WMD and kept the peace in that part of Africa.
Why do we keep blundering in and destroying countries and then bemoaning the disastrous chaos violence and barbarity that we ourselves create?
Why do we keep blundering in and destroying countries and then bemoaning the disastrous chaos violence and barbarity that we ourselves create?
31
I think things like this have something to do with it, as quoted from the story:
"The biggest point of contention, though, may be General Hifter, a onetime C.I.A. asset who returned to Libya in 2011."
It seems that most of the time when we let the CIA decide who's an asset, we end up with a mess.
"The biggest point of contention, though, may be General Hifter, a onetime C.I.A. asset who returned to Libya in 2011."
It seems that most of the time when we let the CIA decide who's an asset, we end up with a mess.
15
"It seems that most of the time when we let the CIA decide who's an asset, we end up with a mess."
Or, as an accountant might say:
"It seems that most of the time when we let the CIA decide who's an asset, we end up with a liability."
Or, as an accountant might say:
"It seems that most of the time when we let the CIA decide who's an asset, we end up with a liability."
1
Libya was a mess before the West dropped the first bomb. It was in the middle of a civil war before the West intervened. In fact, the bombing began because there was a humanitarian crisis in Benghazi, although as usual mission creep took over. If the West had not intervened, Libya today would probably look like Syria, where the West stayed its hand for several years and avoided direct intervention until the rise of ISIS. Not really an improvement.
Incidentally, the West did not kill Gaddafi. He was killed by a rebel militiaman.
Incidentally, the West did not kill Gaddafi. He was killed by a rebel militiaman.
I hope Hillary Clinton realizes her error in persuading the president to enact a “no fly zone” over Libya with the aim of toppling Qaddafi. ISIS was already in Libya. Our deposing of Qaddafi made it easier for ISIS to gain ground.
It’s a shame Kerry has to spend his time cleaning up a very dangerous mess that Hillary helped create.
It’s a shame Kerry has to spend his time cleaning up a very dangerous mess that Hillary helped create.
17
Libya was a NATO deal.
You give Obama, Clinton and the US more credit than they deserve.
You give Obama, Clinton and the US more credit than they deserve.
5
u.k. and france were merely uncle sam's waterboy or frontmen as far as Libya goes. the same is true of turkey's role in Syria.
complete deniability.
have you ever wonder why we pickup the bulk of the upkeeps of nato? we get to call all the shots.
complete deniability.
have you ever wonder why we pickup the bulk of the upkeeps of nato? we get to call all the shots.
3
It's a shame he watched her without doing anything about it.
Watch this situation worsen the refugee crisis in Europe further.
8
It is sad that the US and NATO allowed Qaddafi's regime to fall. The guy wasn't perfect, but he was immensely better than anything that ISIS has to offer. George Bush is ultimately to blame; his destabilization of the middle east has caused all of this. I think Bush and Cheney should be sent to Guantanamo - that would be righteous
29
They could try to resurrect Ghaddafi, or, if that's not possible, give Libya back to the Italians.
7
What an absurd and saddening article. Under the pretext of forming a no-fly zone over Libya for humanitarian purposes, the United States bombed and bombed Libya destroying the Libyan government and preparing the way for years of war-lord style wild violence in Libya as well as contributory violence from Mali to Syria and now comes the solution: Libya needs to be a monarchy.
What, in the style of Saudi Arabia?
Here was American foreign policy at its most harmful and self-defeating.
What, in the style of Saudi Arabia?
Here was American foreign policy at its most harmful and self-defeating.
23
Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. Let's get out of the business of deposing strongmen for some democratic ideology that only blows back on us.
11
If everyone is miserable, but at least doing so united together as one, is it technically still considered misery, relatively speaking?
Time to start applying Einsteinian logic and principles here on earth where they'll do us some good rather than always up in space where they do us none.
Time to start applying Einsteinian logic and principles here on earth where they'll do us some good rather than always up in space where they do us none.
1
So much for "democracy" pushed by the US and the Arab "Spring". Some countries and cultures are not able to tolerate "democracy".
And the US STILL doesn't get it...
And the US STILL doesn't get it...
25
Apparently, they don't even mention ethnocentrism in political science classes anymore or someone in the last 15 years - at least - would not be as deluded as - at least - a generation of foreign policy 'experts' seem to be.
Yeah, the white man's burden never ceases eh. Funny how other cultures got hip to democracy in the last several decades, like asia, latin america...the arabs just need more time and some proper cultural reform.
What came out of the civil war wasn't a democracy, but a split country ruled by armed militias. Democracy didn't fail in Libya. It was never given a chance.