You get used to a certain state of affairs — for example, the rebels with an uneasy hold on part of the country, while Gaddafi defiantly hangs onto Tripoli — and then suddenly, the tyrant’s capital falls:
Rebels Sweep Into Capital
Libyan rebels seized control over most of Tripoli on Monday amid scenes of jubilation, a day after surging into the city’s center and meeting little resistance from Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s defenses, though heavy clashes were reported at Col. Gadhafi’s compound and the leader’s whereabouts remained unknown.
Tanks emerged from the compound and opened fire at rebels trying to storm it early Monday, rebel spokesman Mohammed Abdel-Rahman told the Associated Press. Mr. Abdel-Rahman, who was in Tripoli, cautioned that pockets of resistance remained and that as long as Col. Gadhafi remains on the run the “danger is still there.”
The rebels’ top diplomat in London, Mahmud Nacua, said clashes were continuing in Tripoli, but opposition forces controlled 95% of the city, AP reported.
Rebel leaders said Col. Gadhafi’s son and onetime heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, has been captured, according to multiple reports. Along with his father, he faces charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands, which said Monday it is seeking his handover. Another son, Mohammed, was under house arrest, AP reported.
No, it’s not over. But things seem suddenly headed toward a satisfactory result.
When things like this happen, it gives me hope about everything. Suddenly, any intractable problem, anything we think of as being “just the way things are,” seems subject to change for the better. I find that enormously encouraging.
Related Posts
Before we get too giddy about all this let’s remember these rebels are still a big question mark. Will they be a good friend to the U.S. or will they be an antagonist? At least with Kaddafi we knew what we were dealing with. Hopefully it will turn out well but let’s not celebrate just yet. Remember, at one time Saddam Hussein was our friend.
Bud, change is risky. Sure, a time could come when we miss Moammar as a tyrant who at least was susceptible to being intimidated into better behavior (I’m thinking of his suddenly taking the pledge against obtaining WMD after the Iraq invasion).
But right now, we’re on the right side of this tyrant-vs.-rebel equation. We’re not doing the old thing of supporting the strongman in the interest of stability — the way we did with Saddam and Marcos and so many others (can anyone believe it took all the way until last week for the U.S. to call for Assad to step down?).
We’re taking a risk on freedom. Which is kinda key to who we are.
Let’s not forget the Shah.
One lesson we can learn from this is how un-necessary it is to send in American military power to topple a tyrant. Heck all we did was fire a few cruise missles and lend a bit of moral suppor (and perhaps some intelligence info). And with nairy an America casualty and little financial treasure we accomplished in Libya the same thing as the thousand of lives and trillions in $ we devoted to Iraq and STILL don’t have a positive outcome. Sometimes it’s best to use a pen knife rather than a meat cleaver.
Glad to see that the rebels seem to have finally broken the stalemate. Kaddafi was about as bad as it gets, so just about anything will be better.
It’s easy to “Monday morning QB” the President on this operation, but I have to say that his balancing act of limited force seems not to have turned out so poorly. However, the story isn’t over.
I’ll celebrate when there’s an elected representative body of the Libyan people.
While I think we have been stretched militarily, this is one case where we needed to do something. This guy is a real terrorist, one responsible for taking down an American jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, bombed a German Discoteque, had his diplomats shoot british subjects on british soil, trained and supported the IRA, Red Brigade, and other terrorist organizations, supported Milosovik. That we even cozied up to him (Yes, including Obama, Senator McCain and Tony Blair) was shameful. Libya should have been in our crosshairs rather than Iraq. If there is a risk that the rebels may be bad, well, it can’t be as bad as this festering sore.
Let’s compare and contrast the events of 2003 as they relate to Iraq and those of 2011 in Libya.
Neither posed any threat to American Security.
Both has been a thorn in the side of the international community for decades.
Both involved a tyrrant who mistreated his own people.
In sum, the world would be better off without them but was not in any immediate danger.
In 2003 the president made an impulsive and arrogant choice to send in ground troops even though that would distract us from an ongoing war that was generally considered justified.
In 2011 the POTUS showed restraint in using American forces.
In 2003 the POTUS lied to the American people and Congress about the threat of Iraq.
In 2011 the POTUS was honest about the operation.
In 2003 the POTUS repeatidly claimed success only to be proven wrong.
In 2011 the POTUS remained largely silent about the operation. This drew the ire of many of his political opponents but was a good strategy to keep the profile of the mission low and not create the atmosphere for branding the US an imperialist nation.
The ongoing war started in 2003 has claimed nearly 5000 American lives, upward of 100,000 Iraqis and at least a $trillion in treasure.
The 2011 conflict has not claimed any American servicemen and the cost has been minimal.
The 2003 conflict rages on and now the Iraqi government, unable to handle the situation, is asking for more time.
The 2011 conflict is likely at an end with a difficult but manageable rebuilding process about to begin.
Hey, Bud — MOST of us would consider this as a case of the application of military power. Unless you, like “Ben” in “No Time for Sergeants,” don’t consider the Air Force and Naval Aviation to be the “real fighters.”
Is Obama going to turn out to be the George HW Bush of 2012? That is, an administration that will have turned out to manage world affairs and earth-changing events more than competently, but was turned out of office because the US economy was so lousy and thus people didn’t really care much about the other stuff? Most Americans reading a headline like “Then, suddenly, things change radically for the better” would be hoping that the body of the piece would be about 2 million new jobs nationwide projected to be created in the next half-year or something like that…Of course everybody would like to see Qaddafi go but this is just so far down most Americans’ priority list now I don’t expect to see Obama get much bounce from this.
Bud,
While I understand your concern, I’d say the people of Libya deserve anybody but Moammar at this point. Forty-plus years of tyranny is more than enough.
I’ve never understood the argument that says let’s not push for a new leader, boss, etc. no matter how bad they are because the next person might be worse. Yeah, they might be, but you know the one you’ve got now is awful. Why not take a chance?
You’ve got it right, Brad. Taking a risk on freedom IS who we are. Cross our fingers…