Gaddafi: Is Killing Wrong? I Mean, Should I Not Do That?

It was too good to be true, this Mid East democracy thing. Up until now it has been somewhat easy, with Egypt's Mubarak rolling over, and Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali stepping down. But now the tricky rabbit has hopped onto the field. Mubarak was fundamentally a western mind, and was not willing to go down with massive blood on his hands. He calculated that the force necessary to maintain power would cause utter havoc across the region, and we see this option playing out with Colonel Gaddafi, whose alternatives lack a certain type of dictator standard of dignity (as in retiring in some comfortable nation with billions are your disposal and a sufficiently attractive populace and good health care). 

We don't imagine Gaddafi enjoying the black Africa that awaits him, if anyplace awaits him at all. The options seem to be an uncomfortable exile, future jail, death, or maintaining the status quo by killing others first. From a selfish perspective, morality removed, that last choice seems quite inviting to us. (Though, in theory, we would have been benevolent in the first place, and loved by all, thus avoiding having to kill our subjects to maintain a comfy home and leisurely lifestyle).

Gaddafi wants to put all his chips squarely down on brute force, and it's the inflection before the bet, where his financiers, the army, decide whether to finance him his luck, or cut their potential losses. Already there is rumor that he has encouraged the sabotage of oil production, though we tend to doubt this since it's like cutting off your feet as preparation for a marathon. He needs all the income and support he can get.

It would seem that all the easy revolutions are over, and now it's truly life or death. More unpleasant, the United States will have to really rethink the process of how we attach our brand, even our military might, to various nations. What happens when a place like Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet at NSA Bahrain, takes a decidedly leisurely or violent approach to requests for more democracy? What happens when those challenging the government (that we support) are Shiites? What happens when a democratic process brings in undemocratic forces?

We need some kind of rule book for this. The results of every revolution around the world should not be subject to the direction of the wind or the size of our footprint in a given land. We continually get caught in various levels of hypocrisy that don't serve our short term reputation or long term interests.

We end up with amusing statements like the following:

US Assistant Secretary of State, Jeffrey Feltman, will travel to Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, from February 22nd to March 2nd. In a statement the State department said his visit, "will reaffirm the United States' commitment to our longstanding partnerships in the region as well as universal human rights, freedom of expression, and the promotion of democratic principles."

(BBC)

Meanwhile, we continue to go to the day job, and hear not a word about revolutions or democracy. It's still mostly "Okay, headed out to lunch, want anything?"  Bliss in the sands of Arizona. So opposite the sands of the Middle East.