Sleight of Hand

News reports are coming out of Libya daily. Each day there are accounts of the fighting between loyalists and rebels. Some days, the reports reads like a box score: this town has changed hands, this many tanks were destroyed, this much land has been gained or lost. More often than not, where the Libyan Army is competently led and not decimated by allied air forces, it triumphs.

What is interesting about the reports is that government forces are rarely referred to as the Libyan Army. They are commonly referred to as Gaddafi's troops. They are not Gaddafi's troops. They are the Libyan Army. In an AP report this morning nine paragraphs were written on the fighting in Libya. Not once was the Libyan Army referred to by name. Perhaps it is because an army is a legitimate institution authorized to act in defense of a nation. "Troops" lack that legitimacy because they are typically construed acting at the behest of whoever is leading them, not the nation. An army is made up of troops. An army serves a nation. An army does what it is told to do. We are not bombing and killing Ghadaffi's troops, we are bombing and killing Libyan troops.

While there are armed militias fighting along side the Libyan Army, the army is the main force in the field. Those with allegiance to the government of Libya are not described as loyal to the government or the country, but loyal to Qaddafi. Qadaffi may be in charge of the army and command its loyalty but it is not his army, it is the Libyan army.

By many accounts, Libya does not even have a government. It has a "regime". "Government" implies established and legitimate authority. "Regime" connotes a capricious and authoritarian rule. A rebellion against a "regime" is a much less problematic cause to support than a rebellion against a legitimate government. But this is a sleight of hand. All governments are regimes. A regime is simply a system of rule or government. (If you don't believe me you can look it up in Webster's Dictionary). All governments seek to preserve themselves and their authority against rebellion. Most governments will use force if necessary to put a rebellion down.

The United States has had its own experience with rebellion. In 1861 the South rebelled against the Union. The North was not interested in negotiating with the rebels. It did not seek compromise. It waged war. We should be grateful that the British were not more aggressive in their support of the rebels. Had the British been more active in their support of the Confederacy chances are the rebels would have won. Americans should also be grateful there was no U.N. when the Civil War was fought. The brutality of that war, particularly by the North, would surely have prompted U.N. intervention.

Qaddafi is the internationally recognized leader of Libya. He is not a usurper or a conqueror. The forces aligned against Qaddafi are rebelling against the government of Libya. You can support Qaddafi, although I suspect you won't, or you can oppose him. You can cheer for him, although I suspect you won't, or you can jeer. Either way you are taking a side with or against the legitimate authority of the Libyan government.