Why Gaddafi’s Downfall was Positive
People often ask me: Tiberius, how the hell can you support NATO’s intervention into Libya? Don’t you know it was an absolute failure? Often opponents of the war — ranging from so-called “concerned humanitarians” to unironic Gaddafi apologists — often cite worsening poverty, slower economic growth, and a decade-long political crisis (including a civil war which only ended a few years ago); a country that’s now a breeding ground for terrorists, refugees, and other “undesirables.” And yet by hyperfixating on Libyans, people are unaware as to why NATO’s intervention was not only successful, but necessary. And there are two justifications for NATO’s meddling (which ultimately ended Gaddafi’s 42-year reign of terror).
First, we must establish Gaddafi was a ruthless tyrant. His brutality had no limits. He can take credit for:
- Backing terrorist organizations on a global scale;
- Launching an invasion of Chad that, to most sensible minds, is about as unjust as Russia’s shenanigans in Ukraine today;
- Butchering prisoners for purely sadistic reasons;
- Bombing civilians in North America and Europe.
So it was no surprise governments across the world were anxious when the rebellion in early 2011 went awry. To quote Shadi Hamid of Vox:
It was frightening to watch. I didn’t want to live in an America where we would stand by silently as a brutal dictator — using that distinct language of genocidaires — announced rather clearly his intentions to kill. In one speech, Qaddafi called protesters “cockroaches” and vowed to cleanse Libya “inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alleyway by alleyway.” Already, on the eve of intervention, the death toll was estimated at somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000. (This was when the international community’s tolerance for Arab Spring–related mass killings was still fairly low.)
We can then easily justify the intervention once we realize how undesirable the alternative was:
There was no end in sight. After early rebel gains, Qaddafi had seized the advantage. Still, he was not in a position to deal a decisive blow to the opposition. (Nowhere in the Arab Spring era has one side in a military conflict been able to claim a clear victory, even with massive advantages in manpower, equipment, and regional backing.) Any Libyan who had opted to take up arms was liable to be captured, arrested, or killed if Qaddafi “won,” so the incentives to accept defeat were nonexistent, to say nothing of the understandable desire to not live under the rule of a brutal and maniacal strongman. The most likely outcome, then, was a Syria-like situation of indefinite, intensifying violence. Even President Obama, who today seems unsure about the decision to intervene, acknowledged in an August 2014 interview with Thomas Friedman that “had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria… And so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction.”
To summarize: Given Gaddafi’s well-earned reputation for being a cruel son of a bitch and how a never-ending civil war seemed likely, NATO did the Libyan people a favor. Even with the aforementioned political crisis, Gaddafi’s survival would’ve spelt an even worse predicament; with the added bonus of the Kremlin, as they have done so in Syria, assisting him with what amounts to a genocide of his own people. If one honestly thinks Libya’s situation would have been better had Gaddafi been allowed to stay in power, they should be dismissed as a moron.
Second, I want you, fellow reader, to contemplate global oil prices. How rising energy costs — which means the production and transportation of necessities becomes costly, minimizing the supply of commodities in the face of high demand (raising prices) — makes life unbearable. You may have taken on a second job to cope with this. You probably spend more on groceries. Living standards today are inferior to pre-pandemic times and the culprit is high energy costs. Now, imagine this energy crisis and amplify it ten-fold. The very thing you and I (the common folk) and businesses alike rely on for survival and growth is now unaffordable. Turmoil, collapse, civil war, and general apocalyptic delay on a global scale would follow. Sounds like a good time for you and your family, no?
Let us flirt with the intervention’s critics for a moment: That Gaddafi would’ve eventually triumphed, crushed the rebel forces, and immediately returned Libya to its “glory days.” He would have pursued, with his stockpiles of gold, his lifelong vision for a pan-African and/or pan-Arab union. As former Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton noted in her private emails:
On April 2, 2011 sources with access to advisors to Saif al-Islam Qaddafi stated in strictest confidence that while the freezing of Libya’s foreign bank accounts presents Muammar Qaddafi with serious challenges, his ability to equip and maintain his armed forces and intelligence services remains intact. According to sensitive information available to this these individuals, Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli. This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
This economic alliance — composed of oil-rich nations — would be a protectionist racket. In order to trade with these countries, the global community must rely on gold or gold-backed currency to obtain something which fuels (literally) everyday life. This can only mean three things:
- There would be an energy crisis a thousand times worse than the one suffered under Jimmy Carter in the late 70s (which was worse than the current energy crisis exacerbated by the Russo-Ukraine War).
- Countries would have to resort to adopting the gold standard — a nightmare for Keynesians — even if only for oil markets, resulting in hideous inefficiency.
- The enrichment of dictators similar to or even worse than Gaddafi, as they accumulate billions from countries desperate for domestic stabilization.
I’m sorry, but until we finally break from our dependence on oil and gasoline, securing access to this natural resource is a valid foreign policy objective. Had Gaddafi been permitted to continue ruling the Libyan people, it would have left virtually the entire global economy at the mercy of leaders like Robert Mugabe and Khaled Mashal, and whomever they consider worthy of joining their alliance like the Kremlin-aligned Venezuela. From a strictly utilitarian calculation, the suffering Libyans endure today pales in comparison to the global suffering Gaddafi’s long-term plans would’ve brought; only a so-called “progressive” with a masochistic sense of guilt, or political extremists on either the left or the right, would find this acceptable. Fuck. That.
Yes, stabilizing Libya after the intervention should’ve been a top priority. To echo Hamid, Obama’s foreign policy weaknesses and his naive overreliance on European actors to address affairs “in their own backyard” led to inaction on all parties. This has resulted in needless, preventable suffering for the Libyan people that’s now being weaponized by populist, reactionary, and socialist forces. But nothing, and I mean nothing they say — no ifs, ands, or buts — can change the reality: Toppling Gaddafi was not only in America’s national interest, it was in humanity’s interest.
