The Madness of King Gadaffi

Recently, I've been watching with a mixture of horror and amusement at the events unfolding within Libya. Colonel Gadaffi, long time ruler of about forty years, has been pretty much doing just about everything he can to cling on to power. And the results translated down thought the seemingly non-stop media coverage - quite an achievement in itself, given the total lack of journalists in Libya - I find him to be far more entertaining than I previously thought.

If you've never seen Gadaffi, even his appearance is comical. He looks like a snowman whose face caught fire and was extinguished with a screwdriver, dignified by a small and absurd looking piece of facial hair that should probably endeavour to cover as much of his stupid face as possible. Despite his immeasurable power, influence and wealth, he dresses like a guy who lost a fight a pair of sofa-covers from the DFS sale, which has been running continuously for as long as he has been in power. Coincidence?



DFS declined to comment on whether or not this outfit belonged to the winter collection.

But despite looking like a bit of a goon, all the best parts of Colonel Gadaffi really come out when he speaks. Thus far, he has accused Al'Queada, Britain and America, or possibly just the west in general, of trying to destabilize or colonise Libya. This seems pretty out of the question, unless there is a run on sand, since Libya is one of the most desolate and pointless countries in the entire world. He blamed the uprising on kids with guns who had been given drugs and sent into combat against him, and that they were beginning to give up now that the drugs were wearing off.

Lul whut?

Maybe someone else needs to wait for the drugs to wear off.

Later, he denied there was a problem at all, making increasingly bizarre and pointless statements to underline just how completely insane he really is.

Oh Mubarak, all is forgiven!

"You don't understand the system!", he cries "I can't resign, I have no title." He tells a few jokes and makes a string of rambling excuses and outright denials, stating that "My people love me. All the people love me! They would die for me!", which makes him sound like a deranged stalker who has just been spurned by the girl of his dreams and is currently hatching a plan to kidnap and mutilate her so that they can be together forever.

It would be funny if it were not quite as terrifying. We often make jokes about people in authority losing the plot, going mad or whatever. But not to the extent of Colonel Gadaffi. He must actually be insane. Look at his eyes. All you can see is madness. There are a few mitigating factors, though. If you like hard, dirty politics, keep going. If you are offended easily, turn back now.

The Problem with the Military Case

Speaking of corrupt leaders who are completely out of touch with reality, David Cameron has adopted a hard line pro-democracy stance, probably to try and cleanse his soul from hanging around with a load of arms dealers the other week. Cameron - who also has an interesting face that could have been stolen from a child and stapled directly to his smooth, android head - has echos of Thatcher about him as his increasingly unpopular decisions land him in trouble. Like Thatcher, sending in the troops might be a welcome break from criticism, although he's ironically coming under fire from the curiously named Ministry of Defence about cutting their ability to use force proactively in other countries.

Still, Libya is a welcome relief for a man who needs to desperately divert attention away from the cuts. And that's what's been happening. In the last few days, all that has been on the news is constant rolling footage of Libya, showing hordes of desperate people milling around in bovine confusion and groups of over-enthusiastic bearded men waving giant antique guns around which would have probably given the Nazi's pause in 1942 but aren't a huge help in the 21st century. Still, it's a convenient emergency to buy a few weeks respite from domestic policy criticism as all eyes turn aboard, and it couldn't have come at a better time. Nick Clegg seems to have absorbed just as much abuse over the cutbacks as possible, the angry public have have discarded his broken cadaver and set their sights on nailing Cameron, who has adopted the 'pretend it isn't happening and focus on something else' defence that seems to be a favourite of Gadaffi. Maybe they are not too dissimilar.

So Cameron has been talking about 'no fly zones' to prevent Gadaffi from bombing his own people, and using stern language and possible hints of military action proper in Libya. Like, going in and removing him as part of an international military response. But there are serious problems with this approach.

• After Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and UK military is just about stretched to capacity.
• With a ten year war raging over what may as well be the moon for all it matters, and an increasing number of soldiers coming back in body bags, public enthusiasm for conflict is at an all time low. Selling the war will be even more difficult. Studies show people generally care primarily about security concerns, then economic concerns, and finally humanitarian and ideological ones, which is why spreading democracy with guns is a doomed adventure - not least for the inherent contradictions it poses. People won't want their sons and daughters to die in a sandbox so a bunch of people they don't know can enjoy a better life. It seems harsh, and not necessarily something I agree with, but such is the realist approach.
• Germany, China and Russia are not so keen on the idea. While they have realpolitik concerns - and Germany has a lot of issues with using troops at all, which you can't really fault them for - I'd like to believe that they're just a bit less gung-ho than the rest of us, but it in the case of the latter two it is probably more to do with their relationship to NATO and the UN, their economic situation and their own ambitions of 'soft' Empire.
• Intervention will risk galvanizing radical Islamic elements who will play it as a third stage in the War on Terror. It could destabilize Libya, lead to further loss of life, and pitch occupying forces into another quagmire that they'll have trouble escaping from.
• It will upset any realpolitik interests America, Britain, and any participating nation will have in the area. It is not really a good idea to go around removing evil dictators in a region characterized by them. The Saudi Royal Family wouldn't be too happy, for one. Probably not Oman, Yemen, Bharain, or a number of other places either. The thing about removing Gadaffi, even as a tyrant who bombs his own people, sends an ultimatum to everyone else.

You see, the thing about Tunisia and Egypt is that they succeeded because they had a more reasonable outlook from the start, more friends on the world stage, and greater freedom for foreign journalists, despite there being some serious incidents of harassment and intimidation. This means that when people kick off, all they've got is water cannons and promises. Gadaffi can hold on, because he has no friends and no qualms and everything to lose. If he plays his cards right, he can hide the violence, or keep it to a dull roar and the international community will be powerless to act. Only if it becomes a real humanitarian emergency will the international community seriously consider getting rid of him, and if they do that, it legitimizes protests everywhere.

Think of a hypothetical Saudi Arabia as an example of a Catch 22.

The people are revolting and protesting. Brutal repression will almost guarantee that they'll lose their Kingdom to some sort of concentrated international effort, even if it is reluctant and a long time in coming. If Gadaffi is removed by external forces, the Saudi's will know that they can no longer rely on foreign support, which they rely on extensively. Even if protests never materialize in Saudi Arabia, the relationship with the west will be damaged. If protests do kick off, we've seen that they will likely succeed unless there is particularly brutal repression. If there is brutal repression, there will be an international response. So here it is - if there is a protest of a large enough magnitude, you'll lose your country either way. If there isn't, you know that you can't count on your friends. It's a foreign policy nightmare for everyone involved.

And back

So realistically, Gadaffi isn't in a whole lot of trouble. So long as the opposition doesn't move against him, despite being completely delusional and probably certifiably mad, he doesn't have a lot to worry about. We could see partition or civil war, but like all the recent uprisings, there's a lot to play for and nothing is guaranteed. At least he doesn't have to worry about the international community much, though. After all, if you lived in Libya, with no friends in the entire world, would you take a sternly worded dressing down from a prick like David Cameron seriously?

I didn't think so, because you'd probably be mad.

And yes. I know he isn't a king.