Redefining “rebel” (and Libya)
By David Krueger
For as long as I can remember the word “rebel” seemed to have a negative association with it.
In all the wars that had “rebels” they were always seen as the bad guys. In the Sierra Leone Civil War, the rebels damaged everything they could get their hands on, including people.
During the American Civil War, the rebels called themselves “confederates” after they announced a “rebellion” from the United States, over many issues, most noteworthy the Emancipation Proclamation which freed all the slaves.
The Iraq War has its “rebels” that continuously attack the troops of Americans and its allies.
Using the thesaurus on my laptop, other alternatives Microsoft Word comes up for “rebel” are: dissident, insurgent, protestor, mutineer, renegade, maverick, agitator and radical.
It seemed like if you’re labeled a “rebel” you don’t have a good chance of success in whatever it is you are rebelling against.
Then Libya came along.
There, rebels are fighting back against the reign of the tyrannical Col. Muammar Gaddafi. Since March they have been fighting after protesting for, well, the right to protest.
Gaddafi isn’t seen as a good guy in America. It sounds like it’s similar, but a little bit more complicated in Sierra Leone.
After talking to a couple people I became aware of the impact Gaddafi has had on this great country, usually in the form of monetary donations. I know Gaddafi pumped a lot of money into the continent of Africa, and, unsurprisingly, some of that money made its way here. Which isn’t a bad thing.
However, the way he treats his citizens is. Refusing to listen to them and instead meeting their pleas for freedom with tanks is not a good way to win the international world over.
I found out Gaddafi was made an honorary member of Parliament because of all his generous donations, which included the building of a mosque.
I don’t know if it’s possible to revoke that title, but Parliament might want to consider it.
Everyone makes mistakes, even countries. The United States has been there. In the early 1990s we allied ourselves with a leader named Saddam Hussein. It didn’t work out very well for us in the end.
About a decade later we were in an unpopular, controversial war with Hussein, that is still going on another decade later (despite the leader’s death), much to the chagrin of the American people.
It’s viewed in America as easily one of the greatest mistakes in our history, and even one of the biggest errors in the world history by some.
It’s okay to admit mistakes. It’s okay to move on. It’s like dating a very, very rich girl who isn’t any fun to be around and isn’t very pretty. It’s cool at first because she pays for dinner, takes you out in her cool car and buys everything for you, including lots and lots of Star beer.
But eventually, you get sick of agreeing with everything she says, feeling insecure because you’re financially dependent on her and find yourself eyeing other, much more beautiful and pleasant women. So you break up.
The world has finally broken up with Muammar Gaddafi. Libyans realized it had to be done, and eventually so did the rest of the world.
On the news Tuesday morning appeared U.S. Republican Senator John McCain, the same McCain who ran for President three years ago. I hadn’t heard from him for a while, so I was intrigued when his experienced face came on the television here in West Africa.
It appears most Republicans back home were against sending military support to the rebels, but not McCain.
He said the U.S. should have sent the “full force” of the military to help the rebels, saying that using more American air support earlier would have saved more Libyan lives.
McCain (and I imagine the American people) don’t want any U.S. soldiers’ boots on the ground in Libya. The last thing we need is to get involved in another transition to democracy. We should support Libyans in whatever way possible, short of actually sending military personnel to keep the country in control.
The Senator says the goal should be to “get the government functioning as quickly as possible,” referring to the Libya National Transition Council (NTC), which is already recognized by most foreign states as the legitimate government of Libya (which probably made Gaddafi rather upset).
Nobody seems to know where Gaddafi is currently residing. He claimed he would die a martyr in his country in the past, but now that it’s a legitimate possibility he may have changed his mind.
Meanwhile, the rebels continue to push through the Libyan capital of Tripoli, dismantling Gaddafi’s army and all but winning their war.
Gaddafi’s fate is unclear, but the rebels of Libya appear to have a much brighter future in the coming days, months and years.
The Libyan rebels have dominated the news cycle for the past couple days, and really the last few months. I think it’s because the story may have a happy ending. It’s by no means there yet, but the world roots for those fighting for their freedom from oppression. In the end, democracy and freedom should win out.
It’s what happened in the United States, Sierra Leone and is on the verge of occurring in Libya.
And it’s all thanks to an army of courageous, valiant and heroic rebels.
No comments:
Post a Comment