Libyan Lion

I have previously requested Gaddafi to blackmail the West to implement reforms. In a jointly-devised Anonymous pad we basically have this:


The recent Libyan revolution has created an opportunity to reform the Western political system:


Here are a list of specific changes which both those on the left and right wing can agree to:

1. Some political systems don't allow the gradual rise of a 3rd party. The STV voting system (as used by Australia and called "preferential voting") is able to address this issue, so that when an American votes for an independent, the vote isn't wasted. However, even in Australia, the major parties found a way of preferencing a 3rd party last to prevent the threat to permanent 2-party rule. Such collusion should be illegal, and the main opposition party should always be last instead.

2. There should be a mechanism for voters to register on the internet and directly request an issue to be debated. A similar situation should exist for asking questions, e.g. "Why haven't Australia's F-111s been deployed to Libya yet?

3. The western media (both independent and state-owned) does not give proper air time for any view that is against the status quo that those in power love. The pro-liberation Iraqi protests in Dec 2003 that were covered up would be a prime example. The media instead thinks (correctly) that it can ignore genuine political reform by telling westerners that freedom in the Middle East is a trivial issue, and that the endless and unsolvable "global warming/cooling/climate change/weather" issue is what is important.

4. The capitalist system in the West is truly horrible. Unfortunately every alternative ever tried is even worse than that. Given the unsolvable nature of this problem, there should be a social security safety net. In an effort to keep the politicians honest, they should be required to live on the social security "wage" while ever they are in office, so that they know what it feels like to not have a job. Or perhaps live on the average wage so that they have a direct incentive to increase the average. If they have trouble making ends meet, they can always live in a tent like Gaddafi does.

5. Again in an apparent case of collusion, the courts seem to follow their own political agenda rather than what the written law says to do. This is no different from Middle Eastern dictatorships. There should be some form of "external audit" which citizens can petition whenever the courts are shown to be endemically corrupt.

6. A feedback mechanism needs to be put in place, where every year, 10 randomly-selected individuals should be asked "are you happy?" and "what would you change if you had a voice?" to see whether or not the "representatives" are representative!

7. Corporate sponsorship of political parties should not be allowed. Alternative parties have enough trouble rising up in the first place against entrenched parties. Nevermind when politicians are flush with enough cash to plaster the airwaves with their message.

8. The sad truth is that western animals (cats, dogs etc) have more legal protection of their rights than foreign humans. As such, each year, every western government should be required to demonstrate it spent more time/money trying to protect foreigners from having their human rights abused than it did for domestic animals. Also, the effort should be tangible (or at least have an excuse why tangible wasn't available), rather than a talkfest to pretend to be caring. Military action in Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of "real effort", even if mistakes were made in the process.

These demands are negotiable, and are mainly intended to demonstrate just how far reality is away from the ideal. And to highlight why today's citizens feel so disillusioned about the political system they were born into and have little chance in reality of changing. In fact, it took a war in Libya to even provide an opening for negotiations.

However, Anonymous has gone into a hiatus with regard to press releases, so I have to publish it myself.

I went to considerable effort in "real life" to ensure that "Plan D" was posted on Gaddafi's Arabic site, but of course, he has no interest in working productively on this.

I also missed a golden opportunity a couple of weeks ago to create a conceptual blog post. At the time, there were US civilians trapped, and it looked like the rebels might have had the strength to rescue them. So I was going to draw a parallel with the Iraq war, and ask the US civilians to not complain if the rebels accidentally killed some hostages in the process of liberating them - it was a limit of the technology. I was also going to say that post-liberation, that the US Protestants and Catholics didn't start killing each other and then blaming the deaths on the rebels. ie to put blame where blame belongs - not on liberators.

There were also UK civilians trapped, and once again, I pointed out that those UK civilians were no more important than the UK civilians killed on the road, and the UK could just ban car travel for a month or whatever to compensate for the UK civilians killed in any rescue attempt. And that if I knew the British people, the civilians would have been horrified to think that the liberation of Tripoli was on hold while waiting for them to escape. So those were the analogies I missed as separate blog posts (that show that the Iraq war was done correctly).

Yet another another pre-destined analogy came up - Gaddafi calling all reporters Al Qaeda terrorists. Forcing the US government to explain that reporters were in danger, and others to point out that not all reporters are terrorists (same deal we hear about Muslims).

Now we stand at a different crossroad. Gaddafi's forces are clearly stronger, and have been making gains in Zawiya and Ras Lanuf. France has done something good in recognizing the rebel leaders as the legitimate representatives. This should make it easy to respond with air strikes if and when the new representatives call for them.

Note that Gaddafi should be given the same rights that a lion that ate your child would be given. For the initial battle, treat Gaddafi as if he is evil, and vanquish that evil. But after he is defeated, give him "lion rights". That's what any god worth worshipping would want.

I would hope that behind the scenes, equipment would be pouring into Eastern Libya as we speak (especially mobile SAMs), and any no-fly zone would just be the icing on the cake. But once again, do not underestimate the enemy and act as if a no-fly/no-drive/whatever zone is required to win the war.

In the absence of Gaddafi playing ball and terrorizing the West into western reforms, he's of no further use. He just needs to be vanquished.

Due to the sensitivity of air strikes, perhaps commando raids on SAM sites would be a way of allowing a no-fly zone that has a guaranteed 0 civilian deaths (from the air, anyway) result. Philippines 1989 is the best model for US air power - they just show up and everyone knows continued fighting is futile, because they are trained professionals. Note that one of the reasons that the US trains foreigners is so that when their civilian counterparts argue for a glorious war against the infidels, their own army replies that that is futile. They're more likely to believe their own military.

Anyway, I think Britain and France should be the ones leading the air war, after recognizing the rebel leaders. That way the US can say that it stuck to its promise to not attack Libya if Libya gave up its nukes (which it did). Have some very strict ROE on the planes, as they are not expected to do much anyway, as Gaddafi's forces will probably start surrendering as soon as they see allied planes around.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?