Libya: WI No Western Intervention?

[TheNordicBrit]

Hey Guys,

Let's say in 2011, for some reason, western leaders decide against supporting Libyan rebels. Perhaps the public is decidedly against any intervention, I don't know why they don't intervene, they just don't.

So, without the no-fly zone, how do the rebels fare against Gaddafi? Would they lose, win, or maybe reach a stalemate? How would this effect the Syrian Civil War? In fact, how would it affect the rest of the Arab World in general?

Would Gaddafi provide forces/weaponry/money to Assad? Could rebels in Syria be disheartened by seeing the failure in Libya of getting rid of Gaddafi? Or maybe if the Libyan rebels still win, but only after a longer, harsher war, could that have the same effect of putting many would-be rebels off?

EDIT: Another interesting thought, if Gaddafi had survived and defeated the rebels by the end of 2011, or early 2012, how would he react to the Tuareg Rebellion in Mali? Many of the rebels in that war had been trained by Gadaffi's Islamic Legion. The Tuareg's supported Gaddafi and how might he help them, if at all, in creating the new state of Azawad? Would he help them as a reward for their pretty vital support of him?

 

[Iori]

The result would be a genocide, there really should'nt be any question on the matter, Gaddaffi was insane and was a true Dictator (IE he and he alone held ALL power) who had no problems killing people, esepcially in this case when his rule was being threatened.

 

[omnimercurial]

Meh... Better Gaddafi than the Nightmare of current OTL Libya.

I think Syria probably wouldn't happen if Libya defeated the Terrorists & Mercenaries etc.

The USA & Nato after Egypt were likely to try something somewhere though regardless both to save face & exploit the opportunities of the arab spring.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Meh... Better Gaddafi than the Nightmare of current OTL Libya.

I think Syria probably wouldn't happen if Libya defeated the Terrorists & Mercenaries etc.

The USA & Nato after Egypt were likely to try something somewhere though regardless both to save face & exploit the opportunities.

The current Libya has issues, but nightmare it is not.

Of course, given the overall content of the post, all I can do is

 

[MerryPrankster]

The result would be a genocide, there really should'nt be any question on the matter, Gaddaffi was insane and was a true Dictator (IE he and he alone held ALL power) who had no problems killing people, esepcially in this case when his rule was being threatened.

Genocide, or just a medieval-style sack of Benghazi and possibly other cities complete with mass killing, rape, etc?

Obviously both are bad things, but IIRC the rebels aren't dominated by a distinctive "group" in the sense that, say, the Kosovo Liberation Army was. Reprisals might be ugly, but would they be de facto or de jure genocidal?

 

[Sulemain]

Meh... Better Gaddafi than the Nightmare of current OTL Libya.

I think Syria probably wouldn't happen if Libya defeated the Terrorists & Mercenaries etc.

The USA & Nato after Egypt were likely to try something somewhere though regardless both to save face & exploit the opportunities of the arab spring.

Loving this quote, considering it is fractally wrong, "terrorists and mercenaries" were Daffi Ducks thing.

 

[jmc247]

Obviously both are bad things, but IIRC the rebels aren't dominated by a distinctive "group" in the sense that, say, the Kosovo Liberation Army was. Reprisals might be ugly, but would they be de facto or de jure genocidal?

It would be a sacking of Benghazi with tens of thousands killed. It would be very bad, but this wouldn't be like Saddam's quasi-genocidal campaigns like al-Anfal where he is gassing whole areas of his country and ordering thousands of towns and villages of civilians wiped out as collective punishment.

Gaddafi was a bad dictator, who might have liked to have been a leader of a true Totalitarian state, but he was never competent enough nor willing to have a huge military (out of fear of coups) and political armies. The mercs for the most part replaced for Gaddafi the SS like organizations that Baathist states like Iraq and Syria use as their political armies.

 

[Iori]

Genocide, or just a medieval-style sack of Benghazi and possibly other cities complete with mass killing, rape, etc?

Obviously both are bad things, but IIRC the rebels aren't dominated by a distinctive "group" in the sense that, say, the Kosovo Liberation Army was. Reprisals might be ugly, but would they be de facto or de jure genocidal?

It would be a sacking of Benghazi with tens of thousands killed. It would be very bad, but this wouldn't be like Saddam's quasi-genocidal campaigns like al-Anfal where he is gassing whole areas of his country and ordering thousands of towns and villages of civilians wiped out as collective punishment.

It would'nt have been just Benghazi, it would've been Cyrenaica as a whole plus whatever southern tribes (which have small population numbers) rebelled as well.

 

[Plumber]

"Rivers of blood."

 

[Beedok]

Maybe we'd actually see an intervention in Syria after the horrorifying result of not acting in Libya?

 

[aktarian]

Stalemate, probably