Libya - Another instance of western countries going beyond UN resolution

The UN Resolution in March 2011 only authorised the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya. That objective was achieved almost immediately thereafter, but all along, the intent of the US and European leaders was to effect regime change. They are now closer to that objective - though the only thing they were authorized to do by the UN was to implement a no-fly zone. By openly supporting and arming the rebels, they have thrown caution to the winds, and are on the threshold of regime change, but no one knows what the new Government of Libya will be like, who will head it, and so on. A typical case like Iraq and Afghanistan - they have a plan for the war, but not for the peace that follows. 
Update:
Worse, there are now reports that the supposed scent-of-victory situation in Tripoli is mere war propaganda, and that Gadhafi' son and heir apparent has not really been captured. He appeared in person before international reporters in a hotel in downtown Tripoli. This is egg on the face of not just the rebels but all who are supporting them. 

Libyan Mess: The Awkward Position Obama Finds Himself In

.
Why does a woman agree to sleep with a known serial womanizer? Because she naively believes that she will be the woman who will cure the poor man of his womanizing ways. 
Why does a leader of a republic wedded to democracy attack nations run by despots? Because he believes (whether naively or not) that he will be the one who can liberate the poor (actually rich!) country from the despot, and introduce a happy-ever-after democracy. More ...

Did you know that ...

.
Almost every aggressor-country in the War of Libya has been consorting or hobnobbing with the despots ruling Arab countries that have been experiencing huge political upheavals? More ...

Why is the War of Libya being fought?

.
We think it is a war between the rich nations and a despot ruling a poor African country, in order to free them from, among other things, economic hardship. Right?
What is a rich country? A country whose income is far in excess of its spending. That is how we define a rich man, right? A man who earns more than he spends, by a wide margin? 
A good proxy for that at the country level is Current account balance (Percent of GDP)
Look at the table below: It is a report from the IMF's World Economic Outlook database, October 2010 edition.

Guess what? All the countries in the list are those who are actively fighting in the early part of the war in Libya. It clearly shows that Libya is the rich guy; and all the others are the poor guys, who are spending in excess of their incomes! For the last 3 years, and were it not for the war, that is what would be happening next year too, according to IMF estimates.
Not fair, you may say. What you should look at is the net indebtedness of the country, as a percentage of its GDP. That is a true indicator of who is rich, and who is not. Let us look at that, then, from the same source.

Guess what? You're right! Libya, again, is the richest among these countries - it had positive forex and gold reserves (not net indebtedness) to the extent of 88 to 100% of its GDP ! Indeed, Italy is getting as poor as Libya is getting rich by this definition, for the last 4 years!
But then you may say, what we need to see is whether the citizens of the countries are becoming richer or poorer; not whether they are rich or poor.

Surprise!! The average Libyan is getting richer (except in 2009 when international oil prices dipped) and citizens of all the other countries seem to be getting poorer, over the last 4 years.
No, you might say, is the country growing or not? And which country's economy is growing faster? That is a good indicator of economic well-being. 
Yet again, it is Libya that comes out on top, with an estimated 10% rise in GDP in 2010. 

So, is it the rich countries that are ganging up against one poor country, or are the poor countries ganging up to impoverish one rich country? Think Again! The evidence shows that poor countries full of rich people (ie, with high per capita incomes) who covet the neighbour's wealth (oil reserves), are going to war, to distract attention to the state of their economies.

The War of Libya, 2011 is underway

.
It bears striking similarities with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. A long-standing despot; international condemnation; soothing noises made by the despot when attack looked imminent. Only one difference: The UN Security Council has actually authorized implementation of a no-fly zone. In case of Iraq, the UN stopped short of authorizing entry. This resolution is the fig-leaf. Under cover of this resolution, the NATO and US forces will not stop short of doing anything to ensure “regime change” - doublespeak for killing Gaddafi. It will begin, almost certainly, with “decapitation” attacks aimed at eliminated Gaddafi, right at the start. The strategic justification is “elimination of command and control”. Then, there will be invasion, and finally occupation. Till here, things will move exactly as planned by the NATO forces. Of course, a few hundred civilians will perish for no fault of their own, especially likely in Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.
Libya is a huge country - the 17th largest in area, though relatively sparsely populated (less than 6.5 Mn), with barely 1% of its land area being arable and under cultivation - it therefore imports almost 90% of its food. Its oil riches, however, have given it one of the highest per capita GDP in Africa. Libya has the 14th highest reserves of foreign currency and gold in the world. 
One must remember that till now, Al Qaeda has not managed to make major inroads into Libya because Gaddafi did not allow it in his own self-interest. Gaddafi attributed the unrest in Libya to Al Qaeda in a recent interview telecast on BBC. While this allegation got swamped by the propaganda machine in full force by then, it might be worth bearing in mind that there could be some truth in it. Northern Sudan, to the south-east is a known Al Qaeda stronghold, as well as the abode of several “warlords” who have been quite willing to let atrocities happen on the populace in Darfur. Besides, there is a thinly policed 400-km desert-border between Libya and Sudan. To the south-west of Libya is Algeria – another country with known Al Qaeda sympathizers. Algerian nationals have been arrested in several parts of the world, implicated in terror plots bearing the unmistakable Al Qaeda stamp.
Already, hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee Libya. I fervently hope that the NATO and US forces authorized by the UN have a foolproof plan not just for the war, but also for the peace to follow; i.e., for what will be done after Gaddafi has either been eliminated or forced to flee and go underground. After all, we cannot forget that the US had a plan to win the war, but the debilitating influence of Iraq on the US economy and psyche was its inability to win the peace. There will be a power vacuum; and how that will be filled has to be planned. Till now, no clear rebel leader has emerged. It might be informative to know that Libya is 97% Muslim, with nearly 85-90% of them being Sunni. The Ibadis, constituting between 5 and 10% of the population, are neither Sunni nor Shiite, though they often follow Sunni doctrine. So bloody Shia-Sunni conflict is unlikely, even if Gaddafi goes. But power vacuums are always dangerous. Gaddafi, by the way, is a devout Sunni, though he feels that the ulama's (religious scholars) role should be restricted to religion alone. 

As an Arab hero, Gaddafi still stands tall in several parts of the Arab world, because he is one of the few who has stood up to the might of the US and is still standing.

I am praying that Libya emerges as a peaceful nation after a brief bout of inevitable violence. If my prayers are not fulfilled, we may see another large part of the Arab-Muslim world descend into sustained violence and chaos that no one can resolve. If that happens, it is time to start questioning why the war-mongering Western powers (NATO, US mainly) should get away cheaply while condemning large parts of the world to sustained violence. Is this why Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize? For announcing that he will withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and not doing so, while opening up many more war fronts in the Arab-Muslim world (Iran, Libya)?
.