Reply #7: That is the Nature of most tribes, it is rule by consensus then by a leader [View All]

[happyslug]

Thus why you had 69 "Tribal Leaders" instead of actual tribes. Most tribes, the leadership is held by one man, but with the consensus of most of the elders of that tribe. In fact the start of the Shiite=Sunni division of Islam is tied in with Tribal Politics. Ali was the Son-in-law of Mohammad, who had NO male heir, thus under traditional rules of Arabic inheritance, Ali was Mohammad's heir for he was the father of Mohammad's Grandchildren. On the other hand, on the death of Mohammad, the elders of Islam followed traditional Arab Tribal Culture and decided among themselves who would succeed Mohammad. Ali was away, so the elders picked another. This continued for the first three Caliphs, then Ali was elected Caliph. On Ali's death, his followers rejected the election of someone other then Ali's son (The term Shiite, is Arab for "Followers of Ali"). The following Caliphs generally were in opposition to the Shiites and suppressed them (Killing several of Ali's Children, Grandchildren and other descenders). The Shiites then selected their own leaders in opposition to the Caliphs. The "Seveners" reject the selection done after the death to death of the Seventh leader of the Shiites, the "Twelvers" accept the Shiite leaders Eight through Twelve, but then say their leader went into "Hiding" and will appear when it is time for the Shiites to regain control over Islam. Most Shiites are "Twelvers", the best known "Seveners" were the Assassins of the Middle ages.

Anyway, the Shiite maintain the reason Ali did NOT object to the elections of the first three Caliphs was Ali wanted consensus with all of the main leaders of Islam, and agreeing to the Election was one way to get that Consensus. This alliance building lead to Ali's election as the Fourth Caliph. Thus both Sunni and Shiite Islam accept all four Caliphs as the rightful successors to Mohammad. The Sunni object to Ali only at the end of his rule, and the Shiite reject the Caliphs elected after Ali.

The reason I bring this up is to show and explain some of actions of these 69 "Tribal Leaders". Some tribes sent most of their elders, other sent just one. I suspect even Qaddafi's tribe had a leader among the 69. I suspect if Qaddafi's tribe has a representative at that meeting it is probably Qaddafi's sixth son, known to be with the opposition. Now, why the sixth son oppose his father is unknown, may be like the son of William Marshall, leader of the pro-King John Forces at the time of the Magna Charter, that son was one of the leaders of the Barons AGAINST King John, why the family split? William Marshall had a Feudal duty to King John since King John was his direct Liege Lord, while Marshall's son, direct Liege lord (the person who gave him the title to the land he lived on) was in opposition to King John. At the death of William Marshall his son succeeded to Marshall's property AND Feudal Duties tied in with those properties.

I suspect similar reason for the sixth son's opposition to his father, some other duty is kicking in forcing the sixth son to support the opposition (Which can include marital obligations, i.e. one imposed on him do to who he married). The sixth son may be generally in opposition with his father, but, again, looking at William Marshall, all of his sons were with him when he died, all succeeded him in turn (None lived long enough to have any heirs, England in the 1200s was NOT a nice place to live in, William Marshall living descendent's are all via his daughter).

Yes, Modern Libya is NOT 13th Century England, but it also NOT the 21st West. Both Tribal and Feudal Duties are alive and well in Libya. People and tribes switch sides all the time, based on what is going on, i.e. the tribes may agree to an attack, and if it succeeds can NOT agree to what should happen next for the reason the tribes have their own agenda. Remember Napoleon famous comment on what is the "best" opposition to fight, his response was "a Coalition". The reason is simple, each member of that Coalition is a member of the Coalition for different reasons and thus you can destroy your enemy by making sure what one of the member of the Coalition wants can NOT be obtained, that member will drop out and then the rest will drop out. This is most notable in Tribal conflicts, each tribe wants to improve its own lot, not the lot of the coalition at the expense of itself. Some tribes may support taking the oil Qaddafi controls for their own use and stop at that point, leaving Qaddafi control of the rest of the oil. Other tribes may want to expand smuggling of Africans into Europe, even at the expense of giving up Western Libya, for their control no oil and can NOT get control of oil, so control of the oil fields is unimportant to them. A tribe may want control of Benghazi, so to smuggle people into Europe, but care less about taking over the oil fields that would benefit another tribe. i.e. fight to keep Benghazi free of Qaddafi, but pull its troops, munitions and supplies out of any fight over oil. Worse, switch sides for Qaddafi offers it a share of the oil if Qaddafi gets control of the oil, while the opposition refuses to share the oil.

Tribal politics can be fun and deadly, bloody and cutthroat. It is the underlying thrust of what is going in in Libya, not overt but the most serious factor in the on going fight.