Rhetorical question is rhetorical

[mahnmut]

One question sticks out in the whole Malian situation. How come some rebels (in Libya) are of the good guys, while other rebels (in Mali) are of the bad guys? Gaddafi was also fighting Al Qaeda, among other groups. And Libya, after the West-supported victory of the rebels hasn't become either more modern, or more democratic, or more peaceful - just on the contrary. It's looking very similar to Somalia. The parallels between the two neighboring countries are inescapable. So really - why these rebels are bad while those are good?

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

These rebels are comprised mainly of militant theocrats looking to impose hardline theocratic doctrine, the majority of rebels in libya were various dudes, including lots of professionals like doctors and lawyers. There were also some religous types but people tried to not throw out the baby with the militant bathwater.

It was my first thought too, believe me, but these rebels really are not "good guys" in any form of the term unless you yourself are also a militant theocrat with islam as your preferred flavor.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

What about the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, which is a nationalist Tuareg organization? Should they be thrown with the Islamist bathwater?

I'm not trying to establish who's a good or bad guy. I'm trying to establish why one militant group is our ally, while another militant group is our enemy.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Most are fairly grey and depend on what political alliances are convenient. There was plenty of grey in the movement to overturn Libya to be sure, but overall they were definitely toppling a dictator that had done plenty of terrible things.

This particular movement though in Mali, it would be hard to say there's much good about it. They wish to impose a hardline theocratic regime and overthrow a constitutional democracy.

There's plenty of questionable alliances and political support for parties, but this just isn't the comparison you're looking for.

You could be asking why the US continues to support Saudi Arabia for instance.

The N-M-L-A are a much more gray movement in that they took to overthrowing a democratically elected government because they couldn't get their way, and that is a crap thing to do, but they also have given power back over once they realize the people who backed them would make their country a living hell and broke those ties. They should be in a lot of hot water for being really stupid, but that probably won't happen as long as there are bigger fish to bomb.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

"Most are fairly grey and depend on what political alliances are convenient."

Yes, that's the point.

"overall they were definitely toppling a dictator that had done plenty of terrible things"

Saddam also did terrible things, which didn't prevent the West from supporting him against Iran - until he became expendable. I don't think I'm that naive.

It's true that the Tuareg nationalist movement has been hijacked by Islamists. But it's not like it met applause from the West even at the time when it wasn't yet hijacked. It's just that the Malian regime is friendly to the West and France in particular, the same way Mubarak's regime was convenient for the West and the US in particular.

It's all a matter of Realpolitik, and the fact that most of these issues are grey rather than black-and-white, doesn't help much, either.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Saddam also did terrible things, which didn't prevent the West from supporting him against Iran - until he became expendable.

I agree totally that he should never have been supported.

But it's not like it met applause from the West even at the time when it wasn't yet hijacked

Yeah they were sort of overthrowing a democratically elected government, one of the more stable ones in the region. You might not have noticed but western countries don't tend to like that. Especially democratically elected governments that are friendly.

Most of these issues are gray, but I don't believe in black nor white anyways.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

You might not have noticed but western countries don't tend to like that

Tell that to Sadat, Allende and Mossadegh.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

There was no issue with the Tuareg campaign for self-determination and even their own nation-state.

What has changed recently is that the secular-nationalist Tuaregs have been booted out and replaced by Islamicists.

c.f., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRY_UwsHG58

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

"There was no issue with the Tuareg campaign for self-determination"

Not true at all. The US, ECOWAS and France were in support of the Malian government against MNLA.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Support for Tuareg self-determination is not quite the same as support for the MNLA. This said, ECOWAS wanted a ceasefire and negotiations whilst also calling for the MNLA to relinquish authority back to Mali. In contrast Algeria withdrew military support to Mali.

France, up to recent times, seemed to be more concerned with the military coup last year, a position which was reiterated by the UNSC.