Gaddafi killed: reign began with coup, ended in revolution

Col Gaddafi in early 2011 denouncing threat of revolution

No leader should reign over a sovereign state with utter disregard for the welfare and prosperity of the citizenry. This week marks the end of Col Muammar Gaddafi, who had been Libya’s tyrannical ruler for 42 years. It seems rather ironic that Gaddafi - who, at age 27, led a bloodless coup d’etat in 1969 against the Libyan monarchy – was disposed of himself in a revolution, which in many ways reflected the American struggle for independence. The assassination of Gaddafi marks the symbolic end to tyranny in Libya.[1] I wish Libyans Godspeed, as they secure the blessings of liberty and strive to establish a new republic in northern Africa.

Under the basic principles of Natural law, a government only exists as the result of the consent of the people. When a government no longer has regards for the general welfare, security or prosperity of the people; then there comes a point when the allegiance of the governed is no longer obligatory in the face of tyranny. The American Declaration of Independence promulgated this legal reasoning and made a call to action – “...it is [the people’s] duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Such basic fundamental rights of equality and self-determination are now enshrined in the UN Charter.

Gaddafi, struggling, after NATO

planes hit his convoy

Just as French air force jets fired warning shots in front of the convoy attempting to evacuate Col Gaddafi from Sirte, the revolution and death of a ruthless dictator should be a message to governments around the globe that it’s the people who consent to be governed. When those leaders fail to heed the warnings, ignoring free and fair elections and abusing power, reducing it to absolute despotism, then those grievances, under Natural law, are sufficient for dissolving the bands which tie the people to the government.

______________________________________________________

[1] M Soper, 'The Death of Libyan Leader Moammar Khadafy' (Denver Post: 22 October 2011); http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2011/10/21/the-death-of-libyan-leader-moammar-khadafy-2-letters/15186/; accessed 22 Oct 2011 

Lugar: Libyan "Conflict" lacks exit strategy, clear purpose, & US Senate approval to engage in war

US Sen Lugar (R-IN) has criticized Obama for deploying U.S. forces without a clear exit strategy, repeatedly called the conflict a “war” (a term the White House rejects), and said the president violated the Constitution in intervening without a formal authorization from Congress.[1]

Barack Obama left the Senate after two years there for a presidential run, making few close friends in the chamber because of his short tenure. But before he left, Obama cultivated an unlikely bond with a Republican US Senator 29 years his senior: Richard G. Lugar. Lugar was the former Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and negotiated the START Treaty. Many Democrats have floated Lugar's name as a possible Sec of State replace to Sec Clinton - not now, not after his remarks about Libya. Talk has shifted to Sen John Kerry.[2]

“The president still has not clearly stated what our goals are or what would constitute success. He has not stated whether the United States would accept a stalemate in the civil war, nor has he put forward a plan for ending Gaddafi’s rule,” Lugar said.[3]

The intervention in Libya is to oust an enemy of the US, create a new market for American energy companies (currently Libya has been dominated by Italian, British, French and Turkish Energy companies, which is anti-competition), use blow-up missiles so the US can purchase new ones (which helps the American Military Industry), and support the US allies in the NATO and the Arab League. Oh yes, and justify the war (my bad, “conflict”) with a UNSC resolution and calling the action one of humanitarianism. The US should be a pro at these things, they practiced in Iraq.

The senator’s criticisms of Obama’s Libya policy are similar to those of other members of both parties. Lugar is obviously one of those old anti-war, pro-rule of law, anti-humanitarian and anti-capitalistic Republicans. He should be ashamed of not seeing the potential economic benefits of Libya and the potential of killing an enemy of the US - Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi.[4]
____________________________________

[1] Landler & Shanker. "Gates and Clinton Unite to Defend Libya Intervention, and Say It May Last Awhile" The New York Times 28 March 2011 p A9
[2] "US public, Congress remain skeptical of Libyan mission" DEUTSCHE WELLE 1 April 2011 accessed 3 April 2011
[3] Bacon, P. "On Libya, former ally takes on Obama" The Washington Post 2 April 2011 accessed 3 April 2011 [4] Shanker & Cooper. "Doctrine for Libya: Not Carved in Stone" The New York Times 30 March 2011 accessed 3 April 2011