'Islamic State' Pretense and the Upcoming Wars in Libya
"We came. We saw. He died." And now Libya is a chaotic shithole.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/27/islamic-state-pretence-and-upcoming-wars-libya
Another war is in the making in Libya: the questions are ‘how’ and ‘when’? While the prospect of another military showdown is unlikely to deliver Libya from its current security upheaval and political conflict, it is likely to change the very nature of conflict in that rich, but divided, Arab country.
An important pre-requisite to war is to locate an enemy or, if needed, invent one. The so-called ‘Islamic State’ (IS), although hardly an important component in the country's divisive politics, is likely to be that antagonist.
Libya is currently split, politically, between two governments, and, geographically, among many armies, militias, tribes and mercenaries. It is a failed state par excellence, although such a designation does not do justice to the complexity of the Libyan case, together with the root causes of that failure.
Now that ‘IS’ has practically taken over the city of Sirte, once a stronghold for former Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and the bastion of al-Qadhadhfa tribe, the scene is becoming murkier than ever before. Conventional wisdom has it that the advent of the opportunistic, bloodthirsty group is a natural event considering the security vacuum resulting from political and military disputes. But there is more to the story.
Several major events led to the current stalemate and utter chaos in Libya. One was the military intervention by NATO, which was promoted, then, as a way to support Libyans in their uprising against long-time leader, Gaddafi. NATO's intentional misreading of UN resolution 1973, resulted in ‘Operation Unified Protector’, which overthrew Gaddafi, killed thousands and entrusted the country into the hands of numerous militias that were, at the time, referred to collectively as the 'rebels'.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Forgettable. 
Libya: was it obvious in advance that the fall of gadaffi would lead, not to a Tunisia or Jordan or Egypt but to a Somalia? Was it obvious ENOUGH that NATO should have sat on its hands and let the locally-grown rebellion of freedom-seeking people be wiped out?
I don't know. I don't know enough about Libya to answer that.
Syria: looked hopeful for about five minutes at the very beginning. But I started rooting for Assad the minute Nusra came on the scene. Sad but true. I think it's nuts we've been supporting the rebels - I suppose it's because our Sunni gulf friends want us to. Maybe that's why we're doing such a half-assed job of it: everyone agrees with me that Assad must stay, but they have to go through the motions to please KSA!
Egypt: hell yes, al-Sisi beats the Brotherhood. Morsi and co weren't quite terrible at the time they were kicked out, but they were sliding from bad to worse: in terms of attacks on Copts and women's rights and religious liberties, a weird-ass Constituion, and the forced retirement of many judges. The US did good to back the dictator.
Iran: the Shah was better for the people than the idiot mullahs. Or so I hear from Iranian expats.
Iraq: we should have backed the dictator. That's obvious in retrospect. But I remember Iraqis throwing flowers at American tanks for the first two minutes of the invasion. They were happy to be "saved", until it went bad one minute later.
The big question: if the Sauds fall next... or if Lebanon goes back to war... Should the US back so-called democracy and self-determination (IOW bickering Islamist groups, all with heavy weaponry and God on their side) or set up a secular strongman?
I know which I'd choose - for humanitarian reasons.
But it's not very liberal of me 
