The American Spectator : Once a Mad Dog

Text Size

Once a Mad Dog

By Roger Kaplan on 2.23.11 @ 6:09AM

Muammar al-Gaddafi will not be missed -- but his durability remains a reproach to the West.

Whether or not he survives the wrath of his own subjects, Muammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, will be missed only by a grab bag of plug-uglies whose terrorism he encouraged for decades. But it would be a mistake to write off the latest chapter in the Arab revolt as a case of a bomb thrower hoisted by his own petard. Gaddafi, beyond the oddities of his personality, represents as well as anyone the shame and the awfulness of the first decades of post-colonialism. It might be well to consider that his durability is also a reproach to the Western powers that let appalling regimes take shape and endure -- he lasted more than four decades -- out of their own indifference.

Gaddafi is -- or was, depending on when you read this -- not as murderous as Saddam Hussein, nor as contemptuous as Zine Ben Ali, but all that signifies is that not all Arab zaims look alike, any more than do African big men or Latin caudillos. Indeed, his surface eccentricity, just like Libya's historical and geographical peculiarities, should remind us how different the various Arab lands really are, and how fatuous were the dreams, the chimeras rather, of pan-Arabism, no less than those of pan-Africanism. Gaddafi, an African Arab, tried both. He was unsuccessful, but the efforts caused much mischief. A bullying child cannot persuade other children to acquiesce in his desires, but he can try to coerce them. Similarly a megalomaniac among his peers, on the Continent as in the Middle East, he was feared more than derided.

Gaddafi, who came to power in 1969 when not yet 30 as the leader of a bloodless coup against the pro-Western King Idris, represents the confluence of two powerful currents in the Arab mind: anti-colonialism and pan-Arabism, which is separate but sometimes concurrent with pan-Islamism. He was just old enough for the most powerful influences on his mind to be some of the iconic, and misinterpreted, events and personalities of post-world war years: the Algerian Revolution, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the Egyptian Free Officers and the regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Jewish national movement and the successful rebirth of Israel, the Ba'ath ("renaissance") movement in the Middle East. And these: the end of the French Empire, Britain's withdrawal from east of Suez. To the young Gaddafi, who with his contemporaries adopted the imported language of the Western left to describe what he thought of as the rise of the Orient, colonialism was being replaced by a new era of Arab domination.

Gaddafi, however, was also young enough to be in a position to reap the consequences of the failure of the anti-colonial movement. Since anti-colonialism did not liberate the ex-colonial subjects in any meaningful way (except to the degree it allowed them to get away from the ex-colonies and build lives for themselves and their families in liberal Western countries), the task of the leaders of the anti-colonial movements was to maintain the replacements of the colonial regimes.

It is for this reason that you see in Gaddafi, once you get past the posturing and the clowning (not that it was funny), a coherent and consistent system, in the best sense of the word. First, stay in power: kill your opponents, preferably at home, in other countries when necessary or desirable. Put "the people" in lockstep by adopting and adapting the methods of the European police state, complete with mukabarat (secret police), statist economy, scape-goating of minority groups and foreigners, invention of foreign threats or invention of foreign adventures.

Libya is a loose geographical expression invented by Italians (whose "conquest" when it occurred in the 1920s required killing about a third of the natives) to designate Bedouin, Berber, and Arab tribal areas between Tunis and Cairo. Idris had favored Benghazi, the eastern city, Gaddafi would favor Tripoli, which the Italians had preferred. In keeping with one of the main principles of neo-colonial post-colonialism, it was imperative to unite disparate regions and population groups, some more marked by Arab influences, others more attached to their Berber origins, to create a "nation" that would be properly managed by a "state."

At once anti-colonial and pan-Arab, Gaddafi concentrated his ire on the imperialist incursion represented by Zionism. In this he was typical of Arab tyrants: deflecting attention from their own atrocious and cruel misrule by spewing hatred upon the only successful national liberation movement to have emerged from the years after World War II. But Gaddafi also looked east and south, upon lands that should be ripe for Arab conquest, African lands, the traditional hunting grounds of Arab slavers and predators. The 40 years of Gaddafi's Libya are inseparable from incursions into the Sahel, the regions south of the Sahara where black Africa begins, as well as into Sudan and the Horn.

At the same time, Gaddafi understood in his own way how vulnerable the West might be to its own perverse offspring, and he turned Libya into a recruitment, financing, and training base for every subversive terrorist movement that claimed to speak in the name of an oppressed class or ethnic group in western Europe. (For an excellent summary of the Gaddafi regime's record of mischief prior to the American attack in 1986, see Daniel Pipes, TAS, March 1981.)

Often described as crazy, Gaddafi represented rather a complete and in-your-face anthology of the methods of war against the West. Ronald Reagan was quite right to describe him as "the mad dog of Tripoli": he was that, too, but he did not do anything that other Arab despots did not do, or wanted to do. In this he was more Arab, less African. The African big men whom he resembled in so many ways never offered Western powers casus belli the way he did; they stayed on their own turfs, whereas he sought constantly to encroach on others'.

Of course, while carrying out his plans of conquest and revenge, he neglected Libyans. When they complained, he repressed them. When they rebelled, he shot them. In this, too, he is perfectly in type, even if -- especially if -- he called his regime the Jamahiriya, the peoples' republic. Africans were content to call themselves president, but he was the Supreme Guide and Leader.

One of the interesting aspects of the Arab revolt currently in progress is that it highlights how ineffective the West's response was to years and decades of aggression. Acquiescence and appeasement were the norm, yet the tyrants seem to have had feet of clay. Perhaps the West could not see this. Colonialism could be viewed only as a form of original sin; what followed had to be at least understood, when not praised. Then of course there was the blackmail, holding the world hostage for the oil fields that a few regiments might well have seized, avoiding much of the last half century's turmoil. We will never know; but it is noteworthy that only a year or two ago Gaddafi was in fine form at the blackmailing game, holding Bulgarian health personnel hostage on spurious charges and extracting meaningful concessions from European leaders (including the French president) who negotiated their release, and hitting up the Italian president only last year for some five billion in colonial reparations.

Even if it can be argued that colonialism was wrong, it is one of the great questions of Western history to explain why such an acknowledgment should be accompanied by across the board weakness in the face of wicked regimes. Notwithstanding the official third-worldist ideology that sees Western malevolence in every turn of international politics, the reality is that the West defended itself, and with it the goal of an eventual liberal world order, only when pushed to the limit of its endurance, in other words when threatened existentially.

Ronald Reagan struck back in 1986 at terrorist attacks ordered by Gaddafi, as Thomas Jefferson had struck back a century and a half earlier at other pirates from the same region. No more than Jefferson, Reagan did not follow through on his altogether justified act in defense of America. It cannot be proven that this restraint encouraged Gaddafi to order the outrage over Lockerbie two years later. Say what you will about the wisdom of our intervention in Iraq, it is at least possible that we erred in being overly mindful of our own, not our enemies', sense of how much force was morally acceptable.

The Arabs were never liberated by any of our interventions in their despots' affairs. Are they now telling us that they got the message, they have to do it themselves? We do not know yet. It is a truism, but it is true, that what they do after the despots leave will be the real measure of what they want. What follows from the protests, and in particular what attitudes are adopted toward us, toward Israel, toward their African neighbors, will tell us what sorts of lessons the Libyans have drawn from their experience under Muammar al-Gaddafi.

About the Author

Roger Kaplan is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (25) | Leave a comment

Robbins Mitchell| 2.23.11 @ 6:22AM

I note that Barokeydoke Hubris Obozo will not personally condemn Qadaffi's murderous rampage...after hosing Hosni so thoroughly....I guess the boy is reverting to form by not dissing those he secretly admires

Alan Brooks| 2.23.11 @ 8:03PM

Why? the hour is coming- the retirement plan for Gadhafi is 6 ft under. He goes to that Great Camel Bazzaar in the Sky.

Mark Shepler| 2.23.11 @ 7:15AM

What is it about third-world strongmen? The less consequential their countries and military the more ostentatious and ridiculous their uniforms.

Remember the Latin and Caribbean Presidents-for-life in the 70s and 80s whose "armies" consisted of a brigade, a few trucks and jeeps and maybe an armored car or two but the fearless leader always had ribbons, shoulder-boards and scrambled egss galore?

ncatty| 2.23.11 @ 4:12PM

Yeah, it is a fancy uniform for a Colonel.

Melvin| 2.23.11 @ 7:33AM

Barry isn't going to one thing to harm one little hair on Mo Mo's jerry curled head. Mo Mo hates Western imperialism, Barry(Dreams of my Father) hates Western imperialism, their both more alike than we know.

Stormzeye| 2.23.11 @ 9:05AM

Excellent piece Mr. Kaplan. I disagree with your assessment of Israel as the only successful post-war example of national liberation. What about India and it's misshapen spawn, Pakistan/Bangladesh.

roadmaster| 2.23.11 @ 9:22AM

My Uncle worked in the Libyan oil fields in the 60's and guess who was stationed at the airport, screening/harassing arrivals? Unk had many run ins with this crazy bastid and told me ole Momarr was a dirty, rotten SOB, dripping with venomous hatred for Westerners. A brutal, ruthless sociopath, without conscience or empathy.
It wouldn't surprise me if Gaddaffy commits mass murder on the scale of Pol Pot or Stalin - that's how nucking futs he is.
As far as Libyans bringing about their own "liberation," WTF do they know about liberty and freedom? NOTHING! Libya is another Balkan state, arbitrarily drawn on a map by colonial powers wielding a pencil. These people are just as clannish and tribal as they were in the 10th Century. They reject the modern world for it's debauchery and immorality, yet see nothing wrong with their own savage culture.
Egypt may have a chance because a percentage of their population is highly educated and Westernized, BUT Islam being the predominant religion, these people may bail. Libya has no chance because it is the quintessential Arab dictatorship whose thoroughly oppressed/suppressed, ignorant people will think they're in heaven when it turns into another Islamofacist hell hole.

Nunya| 2.23.11 @ 2:18PM

Roadmaster:

I couldn't agree more, your statement "These people are just as clannish and tribal as they were in the 10th Century. They reject the modern world for it's debauchery and immorality, yet see nothing wrong with their own savage culture." is an EXCELLENT synopsis of the Middle East in general, with few exceptions.

As long as it's OK to maim children and women in the name of an immoral religion, the entire culture has no hope for the future.

Excellent post.

Hillel| 2.23.11 @ 10:55AM

isn't time to send Jimmy Carter to Lybia (Billy being unavailable)?

Nunya| 2.23.11 @ 2:18PM

I'll chip in for the ticker, as long at it's one-way.

Nunya| 2.23.11 @ 2:19PM

Sorry, I meant "ticket"

Fred Ward| 2.23.11 @ 12:36PM

What we call freedom is completely unknown to those people in that area of the world. They believe that what we have here is evil, and immoral. Therefore, they will never seek to establish a culture like ours. Islam facists will dictate their freedoms, and they will be content with it because they know nothing else.

Too Many Tims| 2.23.11 @ 1:05PM

At the end of the day what do the Libyans replace the old monster with? In all likelihood a younger monster.
Still I wish them luck.

Doctor Right| 2.23.11 @ 2:24PM

REALLY wish we could simply disengage from this part of the world, and let the Muslim barbarians destroy each other. It really wouldn't take long...

...And when it was over, only Israel would still be standing, with all of that oil.

I can dream, can't I?

Bob Grant| 2.23.11 @ 4:55PM

Saudi Arabia is now bribing its citizens not to revolt. It's game over for us if they do.

Now think about how much of a dent we could have made on our oil dependence in the middle east had GW Bush pressed the issue of drilling in Alaska, off the Coast of California and Florida.

Blame Obummer all you want but you tell me who really left this country vulnerable the last 8 years?

Vita Men| 2.23.11 @ 9:38PM

---No tears for tyrants surely, but likewise
cheers for Globalist/Tavistock Institute
engineered 'spontaneous unrest'.

We're afraid one too many Oxford accents
on the ground.

Learning that Mubarak fiercely opposed the
covert EUGENICS agendas of the WHO/UNESCO
(i.e. banksters et al) ---and that Islam generally forbids the very practice of USURY ---seems
franchise slumming ain't quite as harmless and
empty as we're led to believe.

"Free Trade, Globalism and EUGENICS are ALWAYS intertwined.
----ALWAYS."
-Alan Watt
(online)

-----ALWAYS

Mark Jeffery Koch| 2.23.11 @ 11:06PM

As an American I watched in awe as the Egyptian people rose up by the millions to overthrow their dictator and demand liberty and freedom and the Egyptian army refused to fire on its own people. It sickens me to listen to reports about the Libyan dictator ordering his soldiers to fire their guns indiscriminately into crowds of unarmed protesters as well as ordering his planes and helicopters to fire weapons and drop bombs on civilians who are asking for an end to decades of oppression by a murderous dictatorship.

What sickens me equally so is watching America and Europe sit by and do nothing but utter empty platitudes and threats, and of course the United Nations, which is well known for doing nothing more than uttering empty rhetoric, doing the same thing. Have we forgotten that when Serbia was conducting genocide in Kosovo President Clinton went to the U.N. to try and get united action to stop the Serbs and was turned down and it wasn't until America, with the assistance of Britain and France, bombed Serbia for several weeks that the genocide ended?

The United States is supposed to be the only superpower left in the world. Is there any reason why our government cannot enforce a no fly zone over Libya and inform Ghadafi and his murderous thugs that any plane or helicopter firing weapons at the civilian population will be shot down? If America will not take the lead then who will? The Europeans who crave Libyan oil more than they do an end to the brutal, oppressive dictatorship of a murderous psychopath?

For those who question what moral authority America has to take the actions necessary, it is America and America only that can take the lead in stopping genocide and the wholesale murders of tens of thousands of people. And, some people perhaps forget, Libya bombed a nightlcub in Germany and murdered several American soldiers when Reagan was President, and Libyan intelligence officers blew up an American civilian airplane over Lockerbie, Scotland, murdering almost three hundred innocent men, women, and children. The British certainly forgot about this because they released one of the men who planned this terrorist attack because they wanted British Petroleum to have access to hundreds of millions of dollars of Libyan oil.

America cannot, should not, and must not ever become a bystander in the face of brutal oppression and the murder of innocent people. In Tianneman Square a long time ago students protested against the Chinese dictatorship and held up posters of the Statue of Liberty. It was America who counseled the Egyptian military to stand down, and if there will ever be a real peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors it will only happen if and when America takes the lead in making it happen.

To hear commentators on the various television news shows and radio talk shows state that our options in Libya remain limited saddens me. I believe strongly in American exceptionalism. Yes, we have made many mistakes in the past but history has shown that only when America gets involved in a forceful way will tyranny and bloodshed end. It was America who helped ended Nazism and Facism, and it was America who, because of our military and economic strength made the the iron curtain and Soviet domination fall across Europe. To have our government sit idly by and limit our actions to verbally condemning Ghadafi saddens me because a country that the entire world looked up as the brightest hope against oppression has now become a paper tiger.

Mimi| 2.24.11 @ 7:42AM

BRAVO....amazing post ! Finally you put in words what must be done.
Never , Never again should AMERICA elect such a weak President!

Mistral| 2.24.11 @ 4:45AM

While I am delighted to see this "mad dog" sliding slowly towards his justified end it is interesting & significant to not on the BBC website that Mr Hussein Obama has denounced the Libyan government's actions as "outrageous and unacceptable".
He said he had ordered his administration team to prepare the "full range of options" for dealing with the crisis, but gave no details.
No details indeed on a full range of options - this sounds like a euphemism for not having any idea what to do.

Will| 2.24.11 @ 7:36AM

"Can we keep him Mom, puh-lease, I'll take care of him, please"

I'll kind of miss this maniac, even though he should be sacrificed in the most horrific manner possible. Would be great if we could keep him in some sort of side-show...perhaps set up his tents outside of the Florence Super Max. He could don his ridicilous outfits and supervise the Somali skinnies as they break rocks dawn till dusk...or perhaps host a new comedy show with Jon "Stewart" Like Idi Amin, these garish monsters slip away and are too soon forgotten.

GotFreedom| 2.24.11 @ 12:55PM

An Obama/Gaddafi connection worth looking into:

Scott Wheeler
(May 12, 2009)
Obama - Qaddafi Coincidence?

Whose interest was President Obama serving when on March 30 he ordered Chrysler to either conclude a merger with Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days or lose federal bailout funds? That untimely announcement placed Chrysler in the untenable position of accepting whatever Fiat offered, literally cutting the legs out from under the struggling American carmaker’s negotiating platform. Some financial analysts had already determined that what Fiat was offering was a very bad deal for Chrysler. “The steal of the century,” Forbes columnist Jerry Flint wrote of the deal back in January, “Fiat gets Chrysler for next to no money, and American taxpayers must throw in $7 billion to make it happen.” By most accounts, Chrysler was in real trouble, but by announcing to the world that Chrysler had no other alternatives Obama effectively told Fiat that Chrysler would accept whatever they offered, eliminating Chrysler’s ability to cut a better deal.

Why would President Obama undercut a US company, involved in a heated negotiation, in favor of a foreign company’s interest? Clear answers are not available, but there is one very curious shareholder in Fiat that raises some interesting questions. The African nation of Libya owns at least a 2 to 3 percent stake in Fiat and thus makes Muammar Qaddafi, who controls the wealth of Libya, a direct beneficiary of the deal favoring Fiat.

Does Obama owe Qaddafi? That is a tough question to answer, but Obama’s record-shattering 700 million dollar presidential fundraising operation and a revealing speech made by Qaddafi nearly a year ago seems to undress Obama’s inexplicable sabotage of Chrysler’s negotiating position with Fiat. Before anyone was suspicious of the sources of Obama’s campaign funds, Qaddafi made a speech that was carried by al Jazeera on June 11, 2008 and translated by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

"All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency."

Is Qaddafi revealing his knowledge of something that no one else even suspected at the time? Since Qaddafi’s June 08 speech other evidence has surfaced suggesting that Obama raised significant sums from dubious sources in Qaddafi’s neighborhood including tens of thousands of dollars the campaign was forced to return once it was revealed its origins were in Gaza, the Middle East. So far there has been very little interest in the sources of Obama’s massive fundraising, and with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress it is unlikely that there will be an investigation into what many believe is the most prolific fundraising abuse ever.

Qaddafi’s prescient speech didn’t end with his apparent knowledge of Obama’s sources of campaign funds. MEMRI’s translation also included Qaddafi’s foreknowledge that Obama’s campaign rhetoric about supporting Israel was just a head fake also.

"But we were taken by surprise when our African Kenyan brother who is an American national, made statements [about Jerusalem] that shocked all his supporters in the Arab world, in Africa, and in the Islamic world… As you know, this is the farce of elections - a person lies and lies to people, just so that they will vote for him,” Qaddafi stated in his speech that got no coverage from the main-stream American media. Since his election, it has been pro-Israel Americans who have been shocked at how quickly Obama’s policies turned hostile toward Israel, such as the 900 million in aid headed to Gaza after they attacked Israel with mortars late last year, and forcing Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

With the precision of a campaign insider, Qaddafi also predicted a recently announced Obama policy regarding Israel nearly a year ago: "We thought he would say: 'I have decided that if I win, I will monitor the Dimona nuclear plant, and the other WMDs in Israeli's possession.”

Last week, a state department official announced that the Obama administration would pressure Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that would allow Obama to inspect Israel’s nuclear weapons program, something the Israelis have kept secret since its inception.

What is most amazing is that the propaganda arm of the Middle East, the anti-American al-Jazeera network, has proven more informative about Obama’s Middle East policies than the sycophantic American media.
http://townhall.com/columnists....._-_qadd...

Wynand| 2.27.11 @ 3:09AM

We have madmen in South Africa as well watch this
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?.....ml&h=1357b

David Sawyer| 3.3.11 @ 11:39PM

Colonel Gaddafi only likes one person Colonel Gaddafi he will twist and turn to try and make anyone like him and think he is good Should the UK step in and help Colonel Gaddafi
with out doubt NO help out someone who sends in the police and army to kill his own people and even tries to get the Air force to bomb them at least 2 of his pilots have defected to Malta in their MIG Jets so they didn't have to bomb their own people
Why should we help out a monster like him.
http://skinnyfiberpills.net/