Libyan fighters prepare for assault on Gaddafi desert bastion

On September 5^th, Libyan rebel forces gathered for another attack on Bani Walid, one of the last remaining towns that supported overthrown leader Moammar Gaddafi after failed attempts to negotiate peaceful surrender of the town. The Libyan rebel forces extended the surrender deadline, seeing as Bani Walid is heavily armed and forced entry may cost many deaths.

The main issue is whether a violent revolution is justified. When is it necessary to have a violent revolution? Which side is right? The government that labeled rebels as treasonous or the rebels that claimed the government as corrupt? In broader perspective, when is violence ever justified?

The AoKs in this issue are Ethics and History, because this issue has always been a controversial topic of debate since the inception of a government structure and classes. This issue is essentially critical in Libya, as well as its neighboring countries, seeing as these countries are currently undergoing political turmoil. From history, we can see that forcible opposition of the government, if successful, usually justifies itself and considers itself righteous. However, the problem arises when the opposition itself is corrupted; the question of right and wrong becomes determined by the winner of the power struggle. Moammar Gaddafi himself had gained his position through a coup d’état, but it appears that he is corrupted. And now the Gadaffi supporters, like the townsmen of Bani Walid, sees the opposition as a corrupted force sent by Western powers and Egyptians. So how do we know that the violent opposition is justified, especially since history has revealed that the opposition often turned out corrupted as well? On the other hand, again from history, we can see that while peaceful revolutions sometimes worked [i.e. 2011 Egypt], they failed more so than succeeded, especially when the existing government enforces military rule or terrorism. The peace fighters become victims, get shot down, and change is not brought. Should the people tolerate an authoritarian rule that may possible impinge upon basic human rights? Or worse, watch as the government brainwashes people’s minds until they’re oblivious of the wrong being done?

The WaKs that can be applied to this issue are reason and knowers/knowing. Reason is particularly emphasized because in this particular issue, emotions jeopardize our decision-making and lead to unintentional mistakes in the midst of, say, mob hysteria or volatile atmospheres. Because the issue at hand deals with forcible revolution, which is violent by nature, the situation often get completely out of hand, as with the case of Libya. Therefore, by examining the issue with minimalized subjectivity and personal feelings, we see that Gaddafi has indeed terrorized people, ordered assassinations of people who threatened his power, and many other crimes that the UN has listed. It would appear that Gaddafi is in the wrong. However, that doesn’t necessarily put the rebel forces in the right, either. So again, reason must be used to examine the political motives of the rebel forces. Knowing is essential in this issue. While we can’t know with certainty, it certainly helps if we keep our ears open and listen to both sides of the argument. In Libya and elsewhere, people are often uninformed of what’s going on, so they plunge into the political turmoil under the effects of groupthink and basically just root for a side without knowing exactly what the side is about.

My opinion is that in the case of Libya, violent revolution is justified. Although I don’t really follow what’s going on in the Middle East just because, well, the entire region is in political turmoil, it appears to me that Gaddafi should not be leading a country’s people. And perhaps the opposition force isn’t much better either, perhaps wrong will be replaced by wrong, but there’s always a slimmer of hope. That said, I don’t approve of the way the revolution is organized. It is with little plan, and if a violent revolution were to occur, it would be best if it were fast to avoid unnecessary deaths.

There are plenty of relevant real-life situations. Just look at Libya’s neighbors and you see people involved in protests and demonstrations. And almost every country has experienced a revolution or civil war, with high death tolls involved; the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc. Every situation is dependent upon its own unique circumstances though, one more blurred than another, so the issue is always brought up: when is violence justified?