Has Gaddafi Totally Lost Touch With Reality?
Rick Moran, in "Gaddafi seals his fate" (American Thinker, February 23rd 2011, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/gaddafi_seals_his_fate.html), makes the point that Gaddafi may literally be going insane, judging by his statements. I'm not so sure, but it does sound possible. What I think is even more likely is that he's been insane all along.
Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi has decided to fight to the bitter end, thus assuring himself a martyr's death:
Yes -- but on the other hand, totalitarian dictators in general are megalomaniacs who go to extreme lengths to gain and keep power. They usually die in office, one way or another. To put it another way, their role as "leader" becomes vital to their egos, often more vital than their lives, and almost always more vital to them than the lives of any number of their own people.
Quoting Ian Black, "Gaddafi urges violent showdown and tells Libya 'I'll die a martyr'", the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/22/muammar-gaddafi-urges-violent-showdown)
Sane dictators don't attempt totalitarian rule: they restrict themselves to mere authoritarianism, and only to the extent needed to achieve their objectives. A totalitarian dicator is thus by definition insane. Given Gaddafi's previous behavior, including waging war on the whole West, I would argue that Gaddafi never really had much sanity in the first place to now lose.
Muammar Gaddafi set the stage for a violent, final showdown to crush Libya's popular uprising by urging loyalists to take to the streets to fight "greasy rats" in the pay of enemies ranging from the US to al-Qaida.
Indeed. If his orders are obeyed -- and they probably will be by at least some Libyans -- this will lead to chaotic street battles between loyalists and rebels, battles of a sort which might not end immediately even upon Gaddafi's own death.
This willingness to see everything go down rather than step down from power is not universal, but is not rare either, among totalitarian dictators. The totalitarian dictator identifies the nation with himself, because to him the nation is almost a part of his own personality. When rejected by the nation, the dictator responds with rage at the "betrayal," feels that the nation has "failed" him, and wants to punish it for this betrayal and failure. The classic example of this is, of course, Hitler's last months in Germany.
"I am not going to leave this land," Gaddafi vowed in a live broadcast on state TV. "I will die as a martyr at the end ... I shall remain, defiant. Muammar is leader of the revolution until the end of time."
Evidence of my point. To Gaddafi, his own policies are a "revolution" which is a tangible entity apart from himself or any of its supporters, but an entity which emnates from and is necessarily subordinate to himself. This externalization and nigh-deification of his own desires justifies all his acts, as in service to this imaginary entity. Also note the megalomania -- Gaddafi's "revolution," which in reality is just an unpleasant phase in the history of a minor North African Power, will exist "until the end of time," and Gaddafi, who is in reality just an unpleasant human being, is by implication become "immortal" in his leadership.
Speaking in front of the Tripoli compound bombed by US planes in 1986, he invoked the spirit of resistance to foreign powers and warned that the US could occupy Libya like Afghanistan.
Of course, if we did, it would largely be in response to Gaddafi's own actions, starting with his numerous acts of war against America and concluding with his crimes against his own people. But, of course, to Gaddafi, he serves a transcendant "revolution" which is bigger than him, bigger than his people, immortal yet mysteriously identical with Gaddafi's own whims and eternally subordinate to him as its "leader."
It doesn't make sense, of course. But then it doesn't have to make sense: the whole point of the "revolution" is to fill the hollowness at the core of the dictator. And after one becomes dictator, no one dares to point this out to him, and many are willing to help support the delusion, feeding the dictator's ego in order to win his favor or at least avoid his disfavor.
He claimed protesters were on hallucinogenic drugs ...
Uh-huh.
... and wanted to turn Libya into an Islamic state. They deserved the death penalty, he said, waving his Green Book.
Ironic, given that his "Green Book" is a mish-mosh of the Communist Manifesto and the Koran. But then, I guess that to either a doctrinaire Marxist or a fanatical Muslim, the Green Book would be the rankest heresy.
Gaddafi has sent out death squads to kill those he imagines has betrayed him
"Men in brand new Mitsubishi cars without licence plates are shooting at groups of people, three or four, wherever they see them gathering," said a resident of the Tripoli neighbourhood of Fashloum. "These are Gaddafi's death squads."
Back to American Thinker:
Gaddafi repeatedly had the army and air force attack the rebels, but ominously for the tyrant, he seems to be losing the loyalty of his own military. The eastern part of Libya, including the second-largest city (Benghazi) is now in the hands of the rebellion -- some of the military units have joined the rebels, while many more have simply refused to fight them.
He has also hired on an unknown number of mercenaries from Chad and Nigeria. Recent fighting in those countries where whole villages were massacred points to a willingness of these thugs to help Gaddafi maintain control.
This is an especially bad plan on Gaddafi's part. These mercenaries have dubious military skills, little loyalty save for pay, and are culturally and racially despised by the Libyans. Their employment does little to help him militarily unless his real army has utterly abandoned him (in which case his cause is doomed), and means increased anger on the part of the Libyan people and greater political support for the rebels.
The butcher's bill is already too steep to bear. Let us hope that his own people grant him his wish to die very soon.
(nods). The ideal outcome for Libya would be if a Libyan patriot shot him, and before this can escalate into a full-blown civil war.
Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi has decided to fight to the bitter end, thus assuring himself a martyr's death:
Yes -- but on the other hand, totalitarian dictators in general are megalomaniacs who go to extreme lengths to gain and keep power. They usually die in office, one way or another. To put it another way, their role as "leader" becomes vital to their egos, often more vital than their lives, and almost always more vital to them than the lives of any number of their own people.
Quoting Ian Black, "Gaddafi urges violent showdown and tells Libya 'I'll die a martyr'", the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/22/muammar-gaddafi-urges-violent-showdown)
Sane dictators don't attempt totalitarian rule: they restrict themselves to mere authoritarianism, and only to the extent needed to achieve their objectives. A totalitarian dicator is thus by definition insane. Given Gaddafi's previous behavior, including waging war on the whole West, I would argue that Gaddafi never really had much sanity in the first place to now lose.
Muammar Gaddafi set the stage for a violent, final showdown to crush Libya's popular uprising by urging loyalists to take to the streets to fight "greasy rats" in the pay of enemies ranging from the US to al-Qaida.
Indeed. If his orders are obeyed -- and they probably will be by at least some Libyans -- this will lead to chaotic street battles between loyalists and rebels, battles of a sort which might not end immediately even upon Gaddafi's own death.
This willingness to see everything go down rather than step down from power is not universal, but is not rare either, among totalitarian dictators. The totalitarian dictator identifies the nation with himself, because to him the nation is almost a part of his own personality. When rejected by the nation, the dictator responds with rage at the "betrayal," feels that the nation has "failed" him, and wants to punish it for this betrayal and failure. The classic example of this is, of course, Hitler's last months in Germany.
"I am not going to leave this land," Gaddafi vowed in a live broadcast on state TV. "I will die as a martyr at the end ... I shall remain, defiant. Muammar is leader of the revolution until the end of time."
Evidence of my point. To Gaddafi, his own policies are a "revolution" which is a tangible entity apart from himself or any of its supporters, but an entity which emnates from and is necessarily subordinate to himself. This externalization and nigh-deification of his own desires justifies all his acts, as in service to this imaginary entity. Also note the megalomania -- Gaddafi's "revolution," which in reality is just an unpleasant phase in the history of a minor North African Power, will exist "until the end of time," and Gaddafi, who is in reality just an unpleasant human being, is by implication become "immortal" in his leadership.
Speaking in front of the Tripoli compound bombed by US planes in 1986, he invoked the spirit of resistance to foreign powers and warned that the US could occupy Libya like Afghanistan.
Of course, if we did, it would largely be in response to Gaddafi's own actions, starting with his numerous acts of war against America and concluding with his crimes against his own people. But, of course, to Gaddafi, he serves a transcendant "revolution" which is bigger than him, bigger than his people, immortal yet mysteriously identical with Gaddafi's own whims and eternally subordinate to him as its "leader."
It doesn't make sense, of course. But then it doesn't have to make sense: the whole point of the "revolution" is to fill the hollowness at the core of the dictator. And after one becomes dictator, no one dares to point this out to him, and many are willing to help support the delusion, feeding the dictator's ego in order to win his favor or at least avoid his disfavor.
He claimed protesters were on hallucinogenic drugs ...
Uh-huh.
... and wanted to turn Libya into an Islamic state. They deserved the death penalty, he said, waving his Green Book.
Ironic, given that his "Green Book" is a mish-mosh of the Communist Manifesto and the Koran. But then, I guess that to either a doctrinaire Marxist or a fanatical Muslim, the Green Book would be the rankest heresy.
Gaddafi has sent out death squads to kill those he imagines has betrayed him
"Men in brand new Mitsubishi cars without licence plates are shooting at groups of people, three or four, wherever they see them gathering," said a resident of the Tripoli neighbourhood of Fashloum. "These are Gaddafi's death squads."
Back to American Thinker:
Gaddafi repeatedly had the army and air force attack the rebels, but ominously for the tyrant, he seems to be losing the loyalty of his own military. The eastern part of Libya, including the second-largest city (Benghazi) is now in the hands of the rebellion -- some of the military units have joined the rebels, while many more have simply refused to fight them.
He has also hired on an unknown number of mercenaries from Chad and Nigeria. Recent fighting in those countries where whole villages were massacred points to a willingness of these thugs to help Gaddafi maintain control.
This is an especially bad plan on Gaddafi's part. These mercenaries have dubious military skills, little loyalty save for pay, and are culturally and racially despised by the Libyans. Their employment does little to help him militarily unless his real army has utterly abandoned him (in which case his cause is doomed), and means increased anger on the part of the Libyan people and greater political support for the rebels.
The butcher's bill is already too steep to bear. Let us hope that his own people grant him his wish to die very soon.
(nods). The ideal outcome for Libya would be if a Libyan patriot shot him, and before this can escalate into a full-blown civil war.