Posted By Daniel W. Drezner
Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 1:20 PM
Share
Reports are flying around the interwebs that the last Gaddafy holdout of Sirte has fallen, and that Gaddafi has been killed -- Blake Hounshell has the grisly photo here. A few scattered thoughts on this:
1) This photo comes on top of numerous reports that Gaddafi was captured or wounded or whatnot. Given past NTC statements and reversals, I'd like to see further confirmaion. In the meantime, as I stated on Twitter this AM, I think we can clarify it this way: Gaddafi has been captured, Qaddafi has been killed, and Khadafy is still at large.*
Readers are invited to suggest the fates of other spellings of the Libyan dictator's name in the comments.
2) Assuming that Gaddafi really is dead, Adam Serwer tweets that how this came to pass "makes a huge difference." Well.... maybe. I suspect it won't matter all that much in Libya -- and to be cold-blooded about it, there are ways in which the spectacle of a capture and trial might have been more problematic. I'm not even sure that Gaddafi's fate affects the new Libyan regime's image and reputation overseas.
The more serious effect might be in how this kind of outcome affects the behavior of other autocrats. As Giacomo Chiozza and Hein Goemans observe in Leaders and International Conflict, the private incentives of leaders profoundly affect their use of force. Simply put, when leaders have expectations of a violent demise if they lose power, they have a more powerful incentive to use force to stay in power. So, congrats to Libya, but this is simply going to harden the hearts of Bashir Assad and others out there determined to stay in power through any means necessary -- including instigating cross-border conflicts.
3) At the risk of seeming like a grump, I'd prefer a situation in which the best news in world politics is something other than "[INSERT SCUMBAG'S NAME HERE] is dead!!" Because for the past six months, these kind of deaths have been the high points.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not sorry bin Laden or Al-Awlaki or Gaddafi have departed the scene. This probably is addition by subtraction. I'd just like it if there were other sources of addition.
What do you think?
*I should probably stop tweeting right now and end on a high note.
I agree, the high points should not be someone's death, even if they are as evil as bin Laden. Humiliating people in death is a character fault of anyone, no matter who the dead person is. Which is why I can say the US handled bin Laden's death very well.
Check out the blog I found about it...
http://coldwarcontinues.blogspot.com/
Hmm agree that its morally unjust to prance around with the dead body. But how else is the rebelions going to rejoice, I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy to see him given a burial ritual with flowers and morning loved ones around him to remind them of his devoted supporters as such. Also adding to the fotos or footage shown, it calms the minds of the revolters and public that he is dead (regardless if its a montage or not). If the media just said he was dead, then people would ask for evidence as they always have. The world may be stupid, but not that stupid.
Incentives for staying in power
It also might provide an incentive to take the immunity deal and jet off while you still can. Gaddafi (and all of his other names) after all refused to cede power and fought to stay by any means necessary. It didn't work out for him.
The thought of future substantial US involvement in Libya requires some optimism. The history of US success in the region could be better.
C'mon Dan, if you're going to end a meeting on a high note . . .
at least be topical. If you're going to tweet about a revolution, then think revolution:
I mean Seinfeld is funny and all that, but we're talking about resistence here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4uvLXCUhVg
Gadaffi was obviously no saint, but he wasn't the eye of sauron either.
Americans (of which I am one) don't understand what it's like in a nation of tribes. Gadaffi feared a total civil war if he was removed from power.
He said he would fight until the bitter end, and he did. There would be no exile for this Bedouin, this man of the desert.
I know he and his family did some horrible things. But then, so has the US government.
I'm taking a moment of silence to recognize the passing of a true warrior from this world.
A true warrior? He managed to run his nation into the ground (and then further down) and probably did more than anyone else to make sure that his nation would have a civil war if he disappeared.
Whatever might happen, this is definitely showing the slow but definite end of Cold War figures. In South America the left wing insurgencies and right wing coups are largely gone, Europe is more peaceful now than since the collapse of the Roman Empire, in East Asia and the Pacific it's China that people worry over, in northern Africa the nationalist soldiers are largely gone, the Middle East is going through its own slow changes. I'll bet that by the 2020s or 2030s at the latest there won't be a single leader left from the Cold War era, and quite possibly not even the states from that time.
I don't think Assad et al will be affected one bit by this
With the body count in Syria at three thousand and rising, you can safely say Assad has placed all his chips on red. It might give his opponents some heart though.
That was more or less my thought.
I suspect that Assad assumes that he's only leaving power in a coffin, one way or another.
(Where would he run to, if he fled Syria, where he'd be safe?
Man's got plenty of enemies at the personal level by now, and if he's not ruling Syria with an iron fist he's got nothing. I can't think of a state that'd want him...)
Considering that he's shown willingness to use force I doubt he would have given up anyway, but it was possible if the economic upper class showed discontent. In the improbable event that he did decide to flee it might be possible to run to Saudi Arabia.
In South America the left wing insurgencies and right wing coups are largely gone, Europe is more peaceful pc geek now than since the collapse of the Roman Empire, in East Asia and the Pacific it's China that people worry over, in northern Africa the nationalist soldiers are largely gone, the Middle East is going through its own slow changes.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE