I have a few problems with the way the Khadafi/Qaddafi/Gaddaffi killing went down, and not just because we’ll never know the correct spelling.

All joking aside, there’s a reason for all the different spellings: the absence of formally recognized standards for translating to English. Because there’s no standard, the spelling depends on where you’re looking. We know who or perhaps what he is and can pin down the pronunciation, but don’t know where all the letters fit or even which ones to use.

Was he executed, murdered, or put to death? Depends on where you’re looking.

We cannot be surprised that he was killed by an angry mob. Qaddafi (the spelling we’ll go with for the time being) used deception and manipulation to pit factions and even family members against each other, until one day the people of Libya were awoken by the angry shouts of neighbors to the East. Libyans didn’t know reality and truth let alone democracy for the better part of four decades, so of course they reacted first and foremost in an anger that bubbled over into violence. Qaddaffi didn’t help matters when he turned his guns on his own people, an unusually desperate tactic from a man who so brilliantly co-opted resistance movements in the past and warped them into new systems of patronage that actually strengthened his regime. Mix that with values that differ from our Western mores (even though we compromise them on a nigh daily basis) and you have a recipe for assassination, regicide, or justice, depending on the vantage point. Rebel forces weren’t an organized collective of the oppressed guided by the free world, they were what we saw on cable news outlets all weekend: the aforementioned angry mob that was let loose in a particular direction. What happened is inherent in the nature of rebellion, and nobody should be surprised by it.

But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a better way. Christopher Hitchens (if you don’t love the man’s writing even when you disagree with him then I don’t want to know you) put it best in a piece for Slate:

It is some time since the International Criminal Court in the Hague has announced itself ready and open for business in the matter of Libya. But now Muammar Qaddafi is dead, as reportedly is one of his sons, Mutassim, and not a word has been heard about the legality or propriety of the business. No Libyan spokesman even alluded to the court in their announcements of the dictator’s ugly demise. The president of the United States spoke as if the option of an arraignment had never even come up. In this, he was seconded by his secretary of state, who was fresh from a visit to Libya but confined herself to various breezy remarks, one of them to the effect that it would aid the transition if Qaddafi was to be killed. British Prime Minister David Cameron, who did find time to mention the international victims of Qaddafi’s years of terror, likewise omitted to mention the option of a trial.

Hitchens is correct in taking us to account for not even suggesting there might be a process in place to bring the man to justice. If nothing else, our leadership here and abroad cheered on this mob and only raised questions after the fact as a formality to keep up appearances. And if we’re serious about building nations that respect the inherent rights that we cherish and champion, then we owe it to them to discourage this sort of thing, even if it’s in a passive manner.

I’m not sad that a terrible man died. Rather, I’m sad that Libya has exorcised the wrong demon. Qaddafi was weak, bloody, injured, hungry, and desperate when he was given up by one of his own and dragged by the collar to face the gathering of freedom fighters that had assembled in the wake of his government’s collapse. But even at the height of his power, he was always alone with that golden gun. It was the allure of that metal that allowed many Libyans, even those who were brave enough to demand reform, to be glad-handed into extending the Qaddafi regime well past its expiration date. The story of Libya in the latter half of the twentieth century bears at least one similarity to the story of Germany in the first half: one evil man with no shortage of willing accomplices. The Libyan people didn’t just put a bullet in Qaddafi’s skull, they executed their culpability at point blank range.

Toppling a totalitarian regime is like demolishing a dilapidated building. It requires careful planning. Bring it down the wrong way and the whole thing will collapse down on top of you. We’ve seen it before in Russia and Eastern Europe, which exchanged royal patronage and oppressive fascism for brutal Soviet totalitarianism, amounting to the same injustice but with a different set of seasonings to modify its flavor. Libya itself has has seen it before: in 1969, when the people cheered as a small portion of its military led by an opportunistic young Lieutenant named Muammar rolled into Benghazi, deposed King Idris, and abolished the monarchy. The coup was quick and bloodless, its leader lionized, and forty years later, Muammar was killed by an angry mob while the leader of the provincial government promised its people that the new country would adhere to Islamic law.

The world would not be better off with Qaddafi kicking around, but the manner in which he was killed has set a tone for the new nation.

Or, even worse, it may have continued it.

Required reading:
How Qaddafi Fooled Libya and the World – Max Fisher for The Atlantic on Qaddafi’s unusual but effective coup and subsequent reign.
The New Libya’s First Mistake – Hitchens on the death of Qaddafi

Tagged with:
 

One Response to How Qaddafi died and why it matters

  1. […] written before of my admiration for Christopher Hitchens. Just a few months ago, I wrote “if you don’t love the man’s writing even when you disagree with him then I […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>