revolutionairy practice

as with many things anarchistic, revolutionairy, revolutionaire practice has been a fashion.

as with many things it usually get's to narrowly interpreted in practice. and as with many things,
it doesn't allways matter.

basically the role of the revolution is (i think), "if they shoot we shoot back".

when it happens sudden, it achieves a lot. recent uprisings and the masses, but also the reason for militairy coups. revolution of the tiny masses, so to say.

nazism features the idea of a tiny coup btw. i would pose it is a common trait of the european nationalisms.

nationalism is crazy and weird. ideologically the northafrican people have a lot of background,
we don't have to expect to much confirmation of the usual "arab world". what is the use for them if a popular revolt for freedom would become rewarded.

it is hard to guess where the real sentiments lay here in the "west". nobody has the slightest of interventionist intentions, dumping some "diplomats" in the night in a heli might just be an okish manner to achieve a contact, the libyans apparently need organisational aid for the rebel forces.

talking about those, the numbers are somewhat obscure. the need for that is not wholly obvious.
i would guess, and hope .., some 30 deaths a day, but i figure that is completely naive.
it is quite as possible there are hundreds, i would not even know for sure at what side.

however, just sending weapons is bad strategy, weapons dont largely contribute to peace usually.
with food and other aid a similar thing is a problem, by supplying you allways create some sort of dependence.

perhaps just inherently, that you supply things that are supplied to allow "the struggle",
perhaps by the usual means, corruption, control, police, and their counterparts.
sometimes through the army, and basically allways when the infrastructure to handle those supplies is doubtfull.

however little you want to occupy a nation, it is obviously one of the most helpfull things to have enough people on the ground to deal with anything that might happen,

the rebels should, i think, but much depends wether the struggle was merely bloody or for the greater part symbolic, consolidate some of their gains, and make sure they are practiced and probably also prepared for any further events. it's not smart to waste masses of young people in offensives.

first kadaffi needs to be contained,
either through negotiation and for example exile, and next as a danger to the libyans, around him or opposed to him. the best would be if those two still can and will find agreement.

obviously that would mean there is room for one dictator less, it is also obvious it is in the interest of the libyans around khadaffi to settle for one peacefull libya.

the opposition has asked for nothing else. what good would a civil war, and large scale persecutions still bring along the north african coast?

surgical strikes can be okish. it is a transparance thing, if the concept and practice are not used beyond their purpose they can deescalate, or litterally disarm, such confrontations.

all these things and steps do need recognition. from the libyans, their neighbours, but rather the ('arab' amongst) more remote powers. otherways such interventions can be explained to any badly informed public (there is plenty) , as interventionism.

wich is not the point, but you cannot change the course of warfare without intervening.

there is still very much dishonourfull in warfare, the peacefull solution will allways be the better for all of us.