A thought for Mr Gaddafi

Events in the world over the last few days have been quite tragic.  Apart from the loss of life, the architectural toll on the city of Christchurch in New Zealand is terrible to behold.

But it's the moving of tectonic plates in some of the world's oldest sites of civilization which prompt me to ponder aloud today.  It seems that Libya is to follow the script of Egypt, but at a far higher human cost.  The outcome can only be one thing: sadly, it is the privilege of dictators to take a long time to realize how limited their options truly are.  It seems that Mr Gaddafi is determined to leave scorched earth and a people undone by the traumas that have been taking place, and which will unfold over the coming days.  His supporters in the West have gone strangely quiet; do they realize the generational party is nearly over for them as well?  The world might finally be able to get over the Cold War, at long last.

The thing that strikes me as different about Libya, compared to Egypt and Tunisia, is the open use of mercenary troops to defend what must surely be described now as the acien regime.  This is necessary, if you consider the mutiny of several divisions of the armed forces, not to mention the resignations of a good portion of the diplomatic corps.  Some would say that hiring mercenaries when your own forces have ceased to follow orders is a sure sign that things ought to change, but we have the examples of so many governments collapsing in this way it seems pointless to dwell on the issue.

Machiavelli has an interesting take on the use of mercenaries, which popped into my mind:

I want to show you what unhappy results follow the use of mercenaries.  Mercenary commanders are either skilled in warfare or they are not: if they are, you cannot trust them, because they are anxious to advance their own greatness, either by coercing you, their employer, or by coercing others against your own wishes.  If, however, the commander is lacking in prowess, in the normal way he brings about your ruin.  If anyone argues that this is true of any other armed force, mercenary or not, I reply that armed forces must be under the control of either a prince or a republic: a prince should assume personal command and captain his troops himself; a republic must appoint its own citizens, and when a  commander so appointed turns out incompetent, should change him, and if he is competent, it should limit his authority by statute.  Experience has shown that only princes and armed republics achieve solid success, and that mercenaries bring nothing but loss; and a republic which has its own citizen army is far less likely to be subjugated by one of its own citizens than a republic whose forces are not its own.

The Prince, XII.

Spare a thought for the people of Christchurch and Canterbury Province, and those of Libya, Bahrain, Egypt, and Tunisia.