|
Once the revolution breaks out, there's usually a choice if the despot isn't 100% hell-bent on keeping power.
If the despot isn't intent on keeping 100% of the loaf, then you could settle for half a loaf, figuring that half a loaf is better than none (that "half" can be anywhere from 10% to 90% of a loaf). In the case of Libya, the "freedom fighters" weren't content to settle for less than 100%. It's unclear if Gaddafi was or not--he made the right noises, but whether or not we believe him is another matter. The "freedom fighters" didn't seem to even consider the issue: Truthful or not, they wanted no part of his offer(s).
It helped that the Egyptian affair wasn't so much a revolution as a large peaceful demand. It wasn't setting up shop, raiding a military base, and starting to fight. The Egyptians made a demand--"hasta la bye-bye, Mubarak"--and stuck with it. Nothing punitive. Negotiations didn't demand that the government immediately be handed over to a group of self-appointed revolutionaries that indicated they wanted to bestow humiliation and punishment--lic. "revenge"--on the then-present rulers.
If not for the Egyptian and Tunisian examples, the Libyan uprisers wouldn't have seen the process as risk-free, victory-is-guaranteed. The West wouldn't have emphasized their professionalism, expertise, bravery, and civic-mindedness, how the military was defecting in large numbers and was, in any event, disorganized on purpose by Gaddafi. Then now the Western media are forced to run stories praising the use of child-soldiers and then depict them as rag-tag, running, disorganized. *That* has to be humiliating for the "freedom fighters."
Different strategies, different kinds of leaders on both sides, arguably different kinds of societies, certainly different outcomes.
|