I must confess that the thought of Colonel Qaddafi being a bad person, an evil dictator, first entered my mind only a week ago. Before that point in time, I had thought he was an eccentric fellow for sure, but not a criminal or a madman proper. My reason for this way of thinking went back to the ’80s, back to the days when the untrustworthy Ronald Reagan presented the Libyan leader as a beast, a bloodthirsty animal, a villainous Arab. But a person dismissed by Ronald Reagan could not, in my books, be all that bad. Indeed, the thinking was this: Who in the world could be actually worse than Ronald Reagan? Certainly not Colonel Qaddafi.

Twenty-five years later, the Tunisian revolution erupts and spreads across the Arab. After Mubarak comes down, Qaddafi is the next big fish to feel the heat. To my surprise, Qaddafi immediately resorts to murder to maintain power.

Witnesses described the streets of Tripoli, the capital, as a war zone. In several neighborhoods, including one called Fashloum, protesters tried to seal off the streets with makeshift barricades of scrap metal and other debris. Forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi so far failed to surmount the barricades and young protesters appeared to be gathering rocks to throw in their defense in anticipation of a renewed attack.

This is all very shocking. If these reports are true, then Reagan seems to have been right about this character. He is nothing more than a criminal.

Charles Mudede—who writes about film, books, music, and his life in Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, the USA, and the UK for The Stranger—was born near a steel plant in Kwe Kwe, Zimbabwe. He has no memory...

34 replies on “The Colonel Qaddafi”

  2. You left off Gaddafi’s navy, attack helicopters, and bomber jets all firing on crowds. The navy has been bombarding residential areas of Tripoli. Gaddafi today said he and his family would die martyrs. The UN security council said it may use sanctions if things don’t improve. The hell is that? THIS is the sort of situation that calls for NATO, UN forces, and neighbors to invade, disarm the military, force free and open elections, and then have the foreign forces withdraw as soon as the keys to the house are turned over and Gaddafi and his people are either dead or in chains before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

  4. If this came as a surprise to you, you weren’t paying attention. Qaddafi, Saddam, Nasser, Assad: every last one of the socialist/nationalist (ahem) arab leaders of the 60s were simple thugs who talked the talk of national liberation while mercilessly repressing and exterminating their own people and occasionally taking pot-shots at western civilians. (Often while pocketing money from both the USSR and the USA’s intelligence services at the same time: nice work if you could get it.)

    The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Sometimes he’s just a plain son of a bitch.

  6. But since you’re having a sudden conversion to reality, now might be an excellent time for you to read up on, say, how the Castro regime actually operates.

  8. #4 is right.
    Reagan may be a jerk, but he was right about Qadaffi.
    And Glenn Beck may be a jerk, but this post proves that Beck is sometimes right about the Left.

  9. Uh yeah- Qaddafi has always come across as completely unhinged. I know “he just looks a mad man” isn’t a strong argument, but in this case, the shoe fits…

  11. Charles’ posts are always entertaining, but I’d never trust him to make any kind of a serious decision about anything. This post illustrates why.

  14. you’re yanking our chain, charles. when he started fulminating against tripoli, reagan wasn’t the only one in america who knew qaddafi was a douche. it’s more like you’re the only one who didn’t think he was.

  15. @13 the problem is that it’s in humanity’s best interest to ever entertain these creatures. Better to eliminate them as fast as possible.

  17. Charles, Town Hall held a fascinating panel last night on the uprisings. Professor Olufemi Taiwo from Seattle U did a fantastic job situating Qaddafi as one of Africa’s iconic neo-colonial strong men, perpetuating a regime of dependence and fractured African identity (paraphrasing). Seeing these North African revolutions not just in an arab context, but also as a new wave of African political movements. He closed by expressing his hopes that the next domino to fall will be Mugabe. I just read a report that students and trade unionists who gathered to simply watch the reports from Egypt have been arrested en masse… I’d love to see you post on this question.

  20. Good Morning Charles,
    I am a bit surprised that didn’t trust Reagan regarding his asessment of Qaddafi. Not just Reagan didn’t like or trust Qaddafi. The British (Scottish to be exact) are still irritated at him, Qaddafi for allowing the release from prison of one of the two Libyan agents responsible for the Lockerbie plane crash of late 88′. In addition, an agent (?) assassin murdered a London policewoman by high range rifle from the Libyan emabassy. That assailant was never apprehended because all Libyan embassy personnal had diplomatic immunity. And, finally French intelligence knows that Libyan agents brought down a UTA flight emanating from N’Jamena, Chad shortly after Lockerbie. Qaddafi is a thug by any stretch. So, I am a bit surprised that you gave him any credibility vs. Reagan who left office in 89′ under terms set in the US Constitution (an 8 year term). My undersdtanding is Qaddafi has been in power since 69′. Dictatorial by any standard.

  22. Charles is right. Qaddafi was never the big existential-level threat that Reagan got everybody in a panic over. For that matter neither is Bin Laden.

    They are both murdering nutcases, sure. Nothing to be even remotely admired. Though Qaddafi does have a certain fashionable panache. But we never needed to mobilize the entire armed forces of the most powerful nation on the planet to deal with them any more than we would John Wayne Gacy.

  23. @22: There’s an important difference. John Wayne Gacy wasn’t in control of a military.

    I was going to jump on the Slap Charles Bandwagon myself, but after seeing the other comments here, there’s really nothing I can add.

  24. *Sigh* They are called “ideological blinders”, Charles. Those things on your face.

    If this were 1956 you would be shocked, SHOCKED to learn what Uncle Joe had wrought upon the USSR. If this were 1976 you would be shocked, SHOCKED to learn what Chairman Mao had wrought upon the Chinese. Maybe in 1979 you were old enough to be shocked, SHOCKED to learn what the Khmer Rouge had visited upon Cambodia. Presumably in1989 you were shocked, SHOCKED at the way Nicolae Ceauşescu responded to a popular uprising.

    But given your self-inflicted ideological handicap, I am not shocked that you are shocked. Throw off your chains, Chuck.

  26. You can also be a Marxist without embracing existing communist movements. It’s kind of like how you can read Hayek and not support Pinochet, or adhere to certain corporatist ideas without being a fascist. Just sayin’.

  27. In late developments (per al Jazeera) Hugo Chavez is wising up, but Nicaragua’s Ortega is still sticking with Qaddafi rather than side with the imperialist dogs.

  31. See, this is why being purely contrarian doesn’t work: no one, not even the eminently barfworthy Reagan, is ever wrong all of the time. Sometimes, when they say something is good, or bad, they are actually right!

  33. Since it’s all but impossible to visit Pyongyang, Tripoli is one of the few cities these days where you can still view a good old-fashioned cult of personality in full force. Every block downtown has a huge bill board with a portrait of Gaddafi striking one of a variety of heroic or father-of-the-people poses. Gave me the creeps.

Comments are closed.