-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
Special Report
On the Side of the Big Battalions
Overthrowing the worse maniacs in power is not automatic or easy.
Well, we have had our euphoria over the revolts in the Arab world. Whether anything has changed much as a result of them is a moot point. The unlovely Egyptian and other regimes, whose departure was shaking the world a week ago, at present still seem in place. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Moslem countries continue to wipe out the last of their Christians.
And, as far as Libya is concerned, it may be that the gone-to-seed flower children of the U.S. and Britain (to say nothing of the unfortunate people of Libya itself) may be about to have their collective nose rubbed in the truth of a very old saw: God is on the side of the big battalions.
Personally, I don’t like it this way. Apart from anything else, I knew people who perished at Lockerbie.
The day Gaddafi makes his long overdue career-move to Hell I intend to get out the champagne. But what seems never to have occurred to many of those caught up in the grand dramatic narrative of the last few days is that people like Gaddafi very seldom tend to be overthrown from within. If he is to be overthrown, the rebel forces will need not words of encouragement, or even a few advisors, but substantial modern weaponry. The present $64 billion question is whether Obama or Cameron has either the political will or the physical military resources to provide it (no one seriously believes the other powers will take real action — at least not on our side). The Libyans might do it on their own, but I’m not sure that that’s a good way to bet.
Countless lessons of history confirm this. If one names Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot as the greatest mass-murderers of the 20th century, two were pulled down by foreign invasion, and two died in office. (Stalin may have had treatment withheld when he suffered a stroke, but up till then there was no challenge to his power.) None were overthrown by their own people.
Even such specimens as Castro, Mugabe, and the North Korean leadership, not only revolting criminals but also physically decrepit, seem destined to die in office. Of all the monsters who occupied the position of First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, only the least ruthless and the only two who could be described as having even the most qualified humane (or human) aspects about them, actually lost power by anything short of death.
As for the leaders against whom popular internal revolts did succeed, they include Charles II of England, Louis XVI of France, Louis Philippe of France, Louis Napoleon, Czar Nicholas II, and that horse-faced man in East Germany whose name no one remembers. Several were remarkably similar characters. In each case they tried to be nice guys and tried to avoid shedding blood. If they moved to display force, they left it too late.
No one, on the other hands, revolted successfully against Henry VIII, Cromwell, or Napoleon. Even the demented Idi Amin had to be brought down from outside, and was not succeeded by anyone outstandingly better. Ancient Rome had one serious slave revolt, led by Spartacus, an able leader with a vast pool of manpower to draw upon. Rome solved it by mass-crucifixions.
Even in the Nazi extermination camps, where the victims knew they were going to die anyway and had nothing to lose by revolting, uprisings were few and unsuccessful. Hardly any of the millions involved succeeded in saving their own lives or damaging the enemy. It is said that before the Second World War Neville Chamberlain waited in hope that the German people would overthrow Hitler when it became obvious that he was leading the country into war and Europe into ruin. If so, he waited in vain. It has been an obvious fact since ancient times, and in every culture, that dictators do not get to be dictators unless they are well-guarded, know how to make themselves popular, and know how to watch their backs. The history of China, Japan, and practically every country in the world teaches similar lessons.
Yet we have become so used to the fiction of the happy ending that, I think, most of us, at least subconsciously, expected over the last few days that the overthrow of the obviously unbalanced and detested Gaddafi would only be a matter of time. That may still, by the Grace of Providence, come to pass. But events of the last few days have shown how much our political leaders — and the people who elected them — have been living in a Fools’ Paradise if they think such an outcome is somehow inevitable or automatic. Again I must make the obvious point that the leaders of the U.S. and Britain have been criminally negligent in both allowing their armed forces to run down and simultaneously over-committing them.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/09/on-the-side-of-the-big-battali
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Robbins Mitchell| 3.9.11 @ 6:19AM
I think you mean England's James II...not Charles II who died in his bead in 1685...lacking a legitimate male heir,he was succeeded by his brother the Duke of York as James II....his rash efforts to restore Roman Catholicism to England proved to be his undoing and he as deposed during the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 which also directly brought about the 1st English "Bill of Rights"
Alan Brooks| 3.9.11 @ 10:53PM
Gadhafi will be dead before the year is out.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.9.11 @ 7:32AM
UH HAL,
You forgot to mention Iran.
Steve A| 3.9.11 @ 11:36AM
Hal, This all sounds great on paper but where do we stop if we go take out Quadaffy Duck? Hey, what the hell, we may as well go zap N. Korea & Iran while we are at it.
Further, I'm not sure I follow your last sentence. You seemingly argue for us to engage in conflict while simultaneously criticizing us for over-committing elsewhere. Which one is it? You lost me there.
Alan Brooks| 3.10.11 @ 12:10AM
"we may as well go zap N. Korea & Iran while we are at it."
If only we could-- but Russia and China wont let us.
Louis Jenkins| 3.9.11 @ 8:21AM
Huh? Here we go. Miring more troops in a N. African country. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a dove, but we cannot as a nation put troops in every single country. We haven't the resources, although we could have (too much techno-creatures, robots, etc.). You cannot possess a country without boots on the ground. What it boils down to is we're fighting one train of thought-Islam- in multiple countries. You can't take Islam on one country at a time, yet that is how our leaders view each conflict or rebellion. Until Obama recognizes Islam as the underlying problem we will never have a cohesive US national effort to combat it.
Brian Mc| 3.9.11 @ 8:59AM
Our only hope then, the alien would ask you to define "underlying", Louis.
Louis Jenkins| 3.9.11 @ 10:26AM
Brian Mc:
I think Obama will never define "underlying." He knows there is a problem, but refuses to recognize it for what it is. A huge threat to the USA. We know there is a problem. Our only hope lays with our resourcefulness, and that does not include dependence on the government. As far as alien goes, I have ranted and raved about his lack of credentials, or the closing of his credentials from outside viewers. We know nothing about Obama, and never will.
Brian Mc| 3.9.11 @ 4:09PM
I don't believe, due to his own usage of speech when discussing religious matters, he considers the situation a 'problem', LJ. Your final thoughts are why I will never, ever call him anything but 'alien' and thank God I'm no longer in the military...I would never salute him since he hoodwinked his way into the highest office in the land. I would rather face a firing squad.
Old Soldier| 3.9.11 @ 10:18AM
I hope not.
Some decent intelligence and a coulpe of well-placed warheads would send Gaddafi off to his eternal reward.
Old Soldier| 3.9.11 @ 10:20AM
No big military expeditions, no big risks. We don’t even have to take credit – call it a coup or lucky shot from the rebels.
Why we have SF Teams, Stealth Bombers, and cruise missles.
Harry the Horrible| 3.9.11 @ 8:41AM
We have no friends on either side in Libya. Providing aid will not change this. Whoever wins will be willing to sell oil at market prices to all comers, no matter how much they hate them.
It is not worth any American lives or treasure to assist the rebels.
The only thing I would do would be to take advantage of the chaos to send a little "present" to the Lockerbie bomber...
Hal G. P. Colebatch| 3.9.11 @ 8:51AM
Sorry, of course I meant Charles I, although James II would also fit the pattern.
JimH| 3.9.11 @ 9:01AM
If a dictator has the will to be ruthless along with sufficient military backing He is almost impossible to dislodge without outside intervention. Americans should keep in mind that just because the guy in charge is a real SOB, it does not mean that the opposition is a bunch of free market democratic reformers. Unless there is some clear strategic benefit we ought not to become entangled. We are the friends of liberty everywhere, but defenders of only our own.
CharlieEcho| 3.9.11 @ 9:24AM
We can't do it. We do not have the resources let alone the manpower to take on the task as it should be done. Once we go in we must be ready to go in hard and long for the full tour. We need to be ready to stay and see that the right people are the ones we are there to help. We did that in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? We are doing it in Pakistan and Somalia, right? Who do we go in saying we back? The Christians?
WE, had better to get ourselves home and get our own house in order. We will need the draft before long.
grant1863| 3.9.11 @ 10:20AM
There must be piles of surplus Soviet arms, AK47, machine guns, ammo left over in Iraq that we could lend(give) to the rebels. Shooting down the Libyan air force and the occasional bomb wouldn't hurt either. While both sides will sell oil, if Gaddafi stays its certain he will come after us. The rebels, whatever their nature will most likely look inward at least for some time.
Old Soldier| 3.9.11 @ 10:22AM
What can't we do? All we need to know is where Gaddafi is for a hour or two.
Kill him, don't take credit, and let them sort out the chaos.
Hillel| 3.9.11 @ 10:08AM
As the book on genocide says "who else you gonna call? Quaddafi will survive and the US might appologize. We betrayed the Kurds three times, the Sheites in Iraq, Obama ignored the "green revolution in Iran, The Democrats seem to prefer Danny Ortega,Castro and Chavez Since JFK there hasn't been a "Demcrat" who has liked America. or Democracy!
JimH| 3.9.11 @ 10:23AM
Your examples are indeed betrayals as the government had earlier offered these groups support. We should not be making these promises. But if we do we must back them up. Even Kennedy was guilty when he walked away from the Bay of Pigs.
Bill| 3.9.11 @ 11:53AM
It strikes me as a curiously revealing commentary on the human spirit that two of the greatest murderers and tyrants of all history died in office.
So much for the ideals of human liberty and equality, eh?
And, by the way, both of those great slaughterers were leftists.
RWinks| 3.9.11 @ 12:22PM
"Fool's Paradise" is an excellent description of the space between Obama's ears.
putra | 3.9.11 @ 12:49PM
the cruel leader must be taking to an international court and sentenced to die, as like Ghadafi. I agree with you.
Occam's Tool| 3.9.11 @ 1:07PM
Dear Lord, in the Arab and Persian worlds in the last 50 years the only true hero was the Shah of Iran. I was trained, in part, by a friend of his. A Great, Good Man ruling over scuzballs.
cicero| 3.9.11 @ 1:12PM
What other great powers? America, England, Australia, and a few others can show up for the fight. Europe and the rest are lambs that will need rescuing when the real dust up begins. If we are smart, we will start thinking of the Alliance of the English Speaking Peoples. America. England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and India. Coordinate our defenses, and stand ready to go when the fight begins. The rest, and I mean all of the rest, from the middle east, Euarope, Africa, etc., will only watch from the sidelines, and hope to pick up some spoils. By the time it is over, they will all be starving wrecks.
As it must be apparent by now, we cannot save those who will not help in their own defense, or who insist in participating in their own destruction, (see Pakistan, Afgandistan, old Europe, etc.).
Dixie Pixie| 3.9.11 @ 4:37PM
Is there there anyone in the Obama administration smart enough to understand that when you fight for one side, you are also fighting FOR the other side?
I doubt it.
And just are we fighting for when we are fighting Daffy Gaddafi?
According to a few military websites the US Government does not know who the Libyan rebels are and what type of government they will create.
The websites report that US special forces have been sent in to find out.
Also that the surrounding nations are also sending in covert military to fish in troubled waters.
Give the Obama minions credit for being "Super Geniuses" for picking the wrong side to back and the wrong policies to implement.
Stefan Stackhouse| 3.9.11 @ 5:13PM
It may indeed not be advisable to put our own flesh and blood on the line in Libya. That does not mean that we are beholden to Gadhafi to do anything other than thumb our noses and make other rude jestures at him. We've already burned our bridges, he is not and will not be our friend, nor will any of his loyalists. We might as well at least cheer on the Free Libyans, then, even if they are up against long odds. Long odds are not the same thing as certainty.
Actually, most rebellions fail because they do not have the advantage of superior communications and intelligence. Those that do can overcome a lot of what are disadvantages on paper. That is something that we actually could help the Free Libyans with. Just get some satellite phones to them, and then start feeding them some real-time intel on the positions and movements of the loyalist forces. Don't underestimate the value of that, it could make the difference between victory and defeat, and would probably be worth a lot more to them than a no fly zone. The satellite phones can always be disabled remotely if they fall into undesirable hands, and they are non-lethal assistance which few outside of Gadhafi's people should have any objection to.
If we can't do even this, then we really must slink home with our tail between our legs, and cut out the fine-sounding but empty words about championing "democracy" and "human rights".
Leslie| 3.9.11 @ 5:52PM
Does this guy remind anyone of that Jim Jones character who committed murder by mass suicide? Dark glasses and all...
Christopher Holland| 3.9.11 @ 9:37PM
The UN, with the agreement of the US, on 26 February authorised an arms blockade on Libya. How is anybody going to help the rebels now, when they can not be provided with arms? And what is the purpose of going to war to help people when you have already decided not to provide them with weapons they can use themselves? This goes way beyond stupidity, it is the work of lunatics with too much time on their hands.
Letting the Obama idiots start yet another war with an Islamic country really is piling on the madness. These people simply can not be trusted to start a war, let alone finish it with a satisfactory result.
Andrew Symonds | 7.27.11 @ 8:46AM
Gadhafi will be dead before the year is out.
rhinoplasty atlanta
Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 2:04AM
is good