BLUF. Conventional wisdom argues that the effects of the sanctions—which included skyrocketing inflation, political unrest and an Islamic insurgency—forced the Gaddafi regime to "convert" from a "rogue terrorist state" to a partner in the "War on Terror." Martinez addresses this in his introduction and states that his purpose is to show the reader how the "evolution" of the regime (notice he does not use the word "reformation") occurred as a result of the sanctions and a necessity to face resulting, unforeseen threats. He also wants to show the reader how—though it may appear that real reforms have taken place—the Libyan regime may not have changed much at all.
For those trying to gain a better understanding of Libya, Steven's review and Louis's book is a good start.
Comments
Why NATO can not possibly overthrow Qaddafi? Is the Army a few European countries is weaker than some Africans? Is it because this is what NATO and Sarkozy simply launder money? Responsible for this disgrace will be USA, because it is they have consented to the operation in Libya. And taxpayers will pay participating in this country.
Mr. Orenstein, "intheknow," and "maybe its the oil"
I found the point made by this comment - http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/03/rebels-love-us-right.html… - by "MK" of Ink Spots - http://www.blogger.com/profile/09101668944584403261 - on Abu Muqawama's blog, to be extremely well-taken. Libya may indeed have contributed the highest number of foreign-born fighters to Al Queda in Iraq on a per-capita basis. Nevertheless, to draw conclusions about the population of Libya writ large based on a self-selecting sample of 112 people would seem lazy logic. (I, myself, am being lazy by simply parroting the logic of MK.)
Regards,
ADTS
When was there ever a discussion about how events in Libya will impact upon core US regional interests? The administration seems to think it is irrelevant as it seem completely absent!
Consequently, it should surprise no-one that none of the policies the US administration is implementing in the region advance those core interests in any way. Indeed, they are being severely damaged.
Unfortunately, available data suggest that the rebels championed as freedom fighters are not exactly liberal democrats. Indeed, the data indicate that Gaddafi's opponents are more aligned with al-Qaida than with the US. Under jihadist commander Abu Yahya Al- Libi, Libyan jihadists staged anti-regime uprisings in the mid-1990s. Like today, those uprisings' central hubs were Benghazi and Darnah. In 2007 Al-Libi merged his forces into al- Qaida. On March 18, while denouncing the US, France and Britain, Al-Libi called on his forces to overthrow Gaddafi. A 2007 US Military Academy study of information on al-Qaida forces in Iraq indicate that by far, Eastern Libya made the largest per capita contribution to al-Qaida forces in Iraq.
This indicates that the forces being assisted by the US in Libya are probably no more sympathetic to US interests than Gaddafi is and the US has no compelling national interest in helping the rebels in overthrow Gaddafi.
This US's descent into strategic irrationality bodes ill for the US and its allies.
Until the US is again able to recognize & work to advance the US's core interests in the Middle East, America's policies will threaten both its allies & itself.